Islamic Spirituality - The Forgotten Revolution

[PyariCgudia]

Re: Islamic Spirituality - The Forgotten Revolution

May I harshly warn those of you who take pride in the bloody past of certain time points in muslim history, that when the choice was taken to bear arms, it was certainly not done with the pride and josh which you exhibit, nor was it done because of any such feeling that warfare is a prideful part of Islam. Arms were taken up because the people of the time felt there was a cause necessary to fight for, and it was taken up after other choices were exhausted. No one in their sane mind supports warfare for the sake of supporting it, and it is certainly not a major part of Islam. Islam allows a provision for it, but only in dire circumstances, as evidenced by the Prophet's willful avoidance of it despite a mass genocide spanning a number of years in which muslim converts were targeted around Makkah. In fact, he even led a mass exodus of these muslims away from their home to another city before any warfare had even begun in the region. And certainly warfare was not STARTED by the Prophet's side. If you study the history, any movements on the part of the first muslims towards picking up arms was in defence, not offence.

So, I would caution you to choose your words wisely. Islam doesn't condone violence for the sake of violence, and Islam could very well be practiced worldwide today without any bloodshed. The choice lies amongst muslims.

Citing any pieces of history after the Prophet's death is simply moot as we are not ordered to follow our ancestors for fear of repeating their mistakes. The Quran is in front of you, and I simply do not understand any justifications of violence because somehow your testosterone teenage selves get turned on by the concept of bloodshed and think that its a part of your heritage...because of some episodes of warfare in the history of the "Islamic" empire? How about you read the Quran for once, and use it as a guide, instead of murky memories of people long dead who, for all we know, might very well have had it all wrong?

Islam is not some mystical ritualistic tradition to pass on. Its a common sense, practical religion, and the motif of warfare that somehow has been woven into its picture innacurately represents the religion. And yet, even educated muslims can't see it.

Talk all you want about "jannat being below the shadow of swords". It doesn't have to be that way, and by honoring such statements and distorting them out of proportion doesn't help your cause. The Prophet was probably referring poetically to some martyr or other, and you've now taken it to mean that we can't go to Jannat without having had some involvement with a weapon. Again, more evidence of how the Prophet's sayings get twisted out of proportion and misused to propogate messages of violence. You should be ashamed of yourself. As for the definition of sufism, it certainly does not involve killing to spread the message of Islam. Islam has been spread for a good deal by deliving the message peacefully to people. I guess our people are getting what we deserve. Right now as we speak there are missionaries from all sorts of religions in muslim countries like Iraq and Afghanistan who are now converting people OUT of Islam. A whole lot of good your jannat under swords has been, now, hasn't it?

[desert_bird]

@PyariCgudia

May I harshly warn those of you who take pride in the bloody past of certain time points in muslim history

Aap kee harshness be acceptable hai :)

@PyariCGudia

that when the choice was taken to bear arms, it was certainly not done with the pride and josh which you exhibit, nor was it done because of any such feeling that warfare is a prideful part of Islam. Arms were taken up because the people of the time felt there was a cause necessary to fight for, and it was taken up after other choices were exhausted. No one in their sane mind supports warfare for the sake of supporting it, and it is certainly not a major part of Islam. Islam allows a provision for it, but only in dire circumstances, as evidenced by the Prophet's willful avoidance of it despite a mass genocide spanning a number of years in which muslim converts were targeted around Makkah. In fact, he even led a mass exodus of these muslims away from their home to another city before any warfare had even begun in the region. And certainly warfare was not STARTED by the Prophet's side. If you study the history, any movements on the part of the first muslims towards picking up arms was in defence, not offence.

So, I would caution you to choose your words wisely. Islam doesn't condone violence for the sake of violence, and Islam could very well be practiced worldwide today without any bloodshed. The choice lies amongst muslims.

Citing any pieces of history after the Prophet's death is simply moot as we are not ordered to follow our ancestors for fear of repeating their mistakes. The Quran is in front of you, and I simply do not understand any justifications of violence because somehow your testosterone teenage selves get turned on by the concept of bloodshed and think that its a part of your heritage...because of some episodes of warfare in the history of the "Islamic" empire? How about you read the Quran for once, and use it as a guide, instead of murky memories of people long dead who, for all we know, might very well have had it all wrong?

Islam is not some mystical ritualistic tradition to pass on. Its a common sense, practical religion, and the motif of warfare that somehow has been woven into its picture innacurately represents the religion. And yet, even educated muslims can't see it.

Talk all you want about "jannat being below the shadow of swords". It doesn't have to be that way, and by honoring such statements and distorting them out of proportion doesn't help your cause. The Prophet was probably referring poetically to some martyr or other, and you've now taken it to mean that we can't go to Jannat without having had some involvement with a weapon. Again, more evidence of how the Prophet's sayings get twisted out of proportion and misused to propogate messages of violence. You should be ashamed of yourself. As for the definition of sufism, it certainly does not involve killing to spread the message of Islam. Islam has been spread for a good deal by deliving the message peacefully to people. I guess our people are getting what we deserve. Right now as we speak there are missionaries from all sorts of religions in muslim countries like Iraq and Afghanistan who are now converting people OUT of Islam. A whole lot of good your jannat under swords has been, now, hasn't it?

tauba , itna ghussa :)

You have shattered the whole institution of Jihad Bil Qattal , hundreds of Ahadees about the virtues and merits od Jihad, Prophet(pbuh) message of spreading islam to those who havent get teachings of islam. I wonder your hypothesis has put a big question mark on the Conquest of Iran, Iraq, Egypt and Eastern Roman empire by Umar(ra) and Usman(ra) invasion on whole Iran , Makran (Pakistan) . After all Iran, Iraq, eastern Romans, and Egyptians had not attcked the state of Medina so these wars by no mean , defensive. Can U expect from Sahabas like Umar(ra) and Usman(ra) to do bloodshed and Ali(ra) and thousands of great sahabas remained quiet over this 'unislamic bloodshed' !!

Plz. is par bhee ghaur karai laikin ghussai sai nahee, aaraam sai aur pyar sai :)

[AllahkaBanda]

Re: Islamic Spirituality - The Forgotten Revolution

As-Salamu 'Alaykum

@payrigudi
what are you, a shaykha? The physical jihad against the kufaar is clear in the Qur'aan and we're obliged to fight until Islam dominates the other religions, off course that doesn't mean you go around and start killing innocent people or fight those nations who are not hostile towards Islam or Muslims.

Wallahu A'lam

[picoico]

Interesting article! I think contemporary Muslims influenced by the Wahabi/Salafists deliberately misrepresent Sufis and Shias alike.

• Islam did not spread entirely by conflict. In fact, regions like Persia remained non-Islamic, although under Muslim control, until well into the imperial era (circa 10th century), and India to this day remains largely non-Muslim. Conversely, areas such as Indonesia and Malaysia saw little in terms of conquest by Muslims.
• The original purpose of Islamic conquest was seemingly to assert a localized hegemony. Not because that is a desirable goal in itself, but the fact is neither the Persians nor the Byzantines would allow the Muslims social, religious, and political autonomy. Thus, for the Ummah to survive, they had to eliminate these empires as their proxies in Arabia were entirely hostile to Muslims. I am scouring the literature for references to China...a well known empire of the era and cannot find a hostile reference to it. During the time of Uthman (ra), a mission was sent to China. It ended with a mosque being built, and Islam being a recognized religion. That no doubt set the tone of the relationship. I'm also familiar with a boarder skirmish during the Abbasid era, however that was quickly resolved and cordial diplomatic relations were maintained. Arabs had a strong presence in China, and Muslims were prominent...Admiral Cheng He comes to mind. Thus, the hegemony of Islam was clearly not understood to be a universal mandate as salafists go on about. So as far as traditional thought is concerned, tracing back to Uthamn, I think the Muslim stance on expansion is not so cut and dry.
• Gandhi was not a pacifist. He supported the Brits during WWII, and argued it was the duty of every British citizen (including Indians had they been made first class citizens) to fight the Germans. Jinnah, Gandhi, and the lot of them were the biggest of cowards...they won independence because the British Empire grew weak and dissolved, not because of anything they did. The original stance of these guys was that India should become a proper part of the British Empire.
• Islam is not a pacifist faith, and that is a GOOD thing. The qualification that religion-endorsed violence is bad needs justification if one is of the opinion that the execution of violence is valid for nation states. Either violence is inherently bad, or it isn't.

[AllahkaBanda]

Re: Islamic Spirituality - The Forgotten Revolution

^yeh because if don't misinterpret them we won't feel good so that's why we deliberately do it; what a bunch of nonsense. Do you want me to tell you how many times this scholar lied and misrepresented the position of the salafis? Who is he fooling?

[kashishkute]

Re: Islamic Spirituality - The Forgotten Revolution

Mashallah .. nice one

[Das_Reich]

Allahkabanda

please explain ur views on shaykh murad, no one is perfect i once heard him narrate a fabricated hadith during this lecture and by God I lost a lot of respect i had for him then.....

but u have to admit there is a lot of propoganda/ rhetoric from both sides

[Das_Reich]

Re: Islamic Spirituality - The Forgotten Revolution

[QUOTE]
Gandhi was not a pacifist. He supported the Brits during WWII, and argued it was the duty of every British citizen (including Indians had they been made first class citizens) to fight the Germans.** Jinnah, Gandhi, and the lot of them were the biggest of cowards...they won independence because the British Empire grew weak and dissolved, not because of anything they did. The original stance of these guys was that India should become a proper part of the British Empire**.
[/QUOTE]

Alhumdilliah someone has the courage to say the truth

[desert_bird]

Re: Islamic Spirituality - The Forgotten Revolution

^^ this is not truth to declare Jinnah as coward. Even his worst critics like Abul Kalam Azad, Jawahar Lal Nehru, Churchill etc cannot point a figure on Jinnah undisputed,pure,solid character. Iqbal in 1930 gave concept of pakistan, Jinnah presided Muslim League in 1936 and letters between Iqbal and Jinnah reveals when Iqbal fully convinced Jinnah, about Pakistan , its merits and dangers of united india which clearly depicted in 1937-1939 Congress Government.WW2 started later , much later. Pakistan Resolution was passed in 1940 when war was started recently and nobody knew after 5 years British would be so weak to leave colonial lands.

When you come out for a big cause,truth with passion and courage, even fate and qismat cannot stand in your way. Positice approach attarcts all positive aid and help from all people around you automatically and more and more people gather without any effort. Whole indian Mullas, Congress ,British were againt seperation , but Jinnah brought them to that point that they have to accept what Jinnah said. All great institutions, movements even educational projects flourih in this way, one man , two, four eight and then full swing automatically. I know Picoico belongs to Fiqah jaffria, and in 1947 shia alims did not support Pakistan movement tahstt why he is against Jinnah.

[AllahkaBanda]

@Das_Reich

Allahkabanda

please explain ur views on shaykh murad, no one is perfect i once heard him narrate a fabricated hadith during this lecture and by God I lost a lot of respect i had for him then.....

but u have to admit there is a lot of propoganda/ rhetoric from both sides

brother using a da'eef hadith or mawdoo' in regard to faadil is one thing but lying or deliberately misrepresenting what a group of people believe is another. The whole sunni path crew is known for this and when they can't refute the us in the matter of 'aqeedah to prove their heretical views they end up producing these kinds of nonsensical articles.

if you want me to i can go over the points

[Das_Reich]

Re: Islamic Spirituality - The Forgotten Revolution

brother Allahkabanda ,
I know that brother picoico is a sunni, infact i followed for some time fiqah jaffaria but left it later ....re: Jinnah there is a lot of heroworship of him, i do think he had some grt qualities but he wanted a secular state not a islamic republic , he wanted seperation of religion and state both of them go against islam.Jinnah was a shia and they had little interest in enforcing islam in pakistan also true for most sunnis ]
also both jinnah and gandhi were committed to war efforts and getting independence as a reward from the brits later.
This mercenary thinking dominated all muslim intellectuals then...esp. aga khan

[Das_Reich]

@AllahkaBanda

brother using a da'eef hadith or mawdoo' in regard to faadil is one thing but lying or deliberately misrepresenting what a group of people believe is another. The whole sunni path crew is known for this and when they can't refute the us in the matter of 'aqeedah to prove their heretical views they end up producing these kinds of nonsensical articles.

if you want me to i can go over the points

thanks ..can u point me to some sources ...I am esp. interested in Allama Albani and Imam Shawkani's works
unfortunately if they are in urdu or english it wud be very helpful

[AllahkaBanda]

^bro, you can find some of Shaykh al-Albani’s (rahimahullah) books and articles here:
Download Free books everyday
Muhammad Naasiruddeen al-Albaanee - English
AbdurRahman.org [Shaik Nasiruddin Albanee - Articles - Books ]

As far concerning Imam Shawkani (rahimahullah), as far as i know he didn’t write many books and i couldn’t find any of his work in English or urdu. Also, some trustworthy students of knowledge told me that he was against following any of the madhab and his works have affected the indo-pak ahlehadith/salafis. However, this is not the position of the salafis.

something similar shaykh Murad brought up:

The neo-Kharijite nature of Wahhabism makes it intolerant of all other forms of Islamic expression. However, because it has no coherent fiqh of its own - it rejects the orthodox madhhabs - and has only the most basic and primitively anthropomorphic aqida, it has a fluid, amoebalike tendency to produce divisions and subdivision among those who profess it. No longer are the Islamic groups essentially united by a consistent madhhab and the Ash’ari [or Maturidi] aqida. Instead, they are all trying to derive the shari’a and the aqida from the Quran and the Sunna by themselves. The result is the appalling state of division and conflict which disfigures the modern salafi condition.

First, from this I can say two things:
1 - He is ignorant of our position and what we believe in
2 - He is lying to people

We, Salafis, say that we take from the Qur’aan, the Sahih Sunnah and understand these two Islamic text how the Salaf understood it. The four Imams (Abou Hanifa, Malik, Shafee’e, Ahmad - May Allah be pleased with them) were among the Salaf. So, how can we say that one shouldn’t follow their understanding of the deen? This is common sense, anyone who says otherwise is simply ignorant of salafiyyah! Shaykh Murad fear your Lord Who created you; no Salafi just open the books of the ahadith and the Qur’aan and start interpretating them from their understanding. The layperson, like myself, have no madhab; this is the view of the majroity of the 'ulama from all four madaahab. So, even if he says he is hanafi, for example, he doesn’t become hanafi. It is obligatory upon laypeople to ask the people of knowledge. Hence, the lay salafis, like myself, ask our 'ulama. And our tulabaa ul-'ilm (students of knowledge) and the 'ulama, who have not yet reached the level ijtihaad, follow one of the madaahab. However, the later two are not blind muqalid, meaning when they find an opinion in their madhab which goes against the Qur’aan or the Sahih Sunnah or they find a stronger opinion, then they leave their madhab and adopt the new opinion. This is because they’ve the knowledge to weigh and judge the text.

A person can be a salafi and hanf in fiqh or maliki or shafee’e or hanbali. Throughout the history, most of the salafis have been hanbali due to the fact that the heretics hijacked the other three madaahab.

Second, the sunnipath crew should now stop playing these little games, confusing and misguiding the people in the west. Can you Ash’aris/Maturidees prove that your heretical/Aristotelian 'aqeedah comes from the Qur’aan, the Sahih Sunnah and understanding of the Salaf? For almost 11 centuries you couldn’t have had, how can neo-jahmis like Murad, Nuh Keller, GF Haddad do so? Labeling us mujasmees (anthropomorphists) and slandering the sunni 'ulama won’t help you people. This is what we say in regard to the Attributes of Allah Ta’ala:We believe in Allah’s Sifaat (Attributes) without taw’il (interpreting their meanings into different), tashbih (giving resemblance or similarity in any specific creatures), ta’til (completely ignoring or denying them), tafweed (tawfid - to relegate the meanings) and takeef (takif - asking how); this is the 'aqeedah of Ahle Sunnah wal Jama’ah](HugeDomains.com). We affirm and believe in what Allah Ta’ala has said about Himself in the Qur’an, what His Prophet, Muhammad (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam - peace and blessings be upon him), said about Him and how the first three Muslim generations, the Salaf - May Allah be pleased with them, understood His Sifaat.
I don’t know how that makes us mujasmees; the readers can refer to these for more info on this topic:'Aqeedah of Ahle Sunnah wal Jama’h](HugeDomains.com)
What is da’wah Salafiyah?
Who are Ahle al-Hadith and the saved Sect?
All about following a Madhab and taqleed
There was some discussion on Allah’s Istawa (rose over) in Fir’awn (Pharaoh) Smarter than Ash’aris/Maturidees?

Wallahu A’lam

[Das_Reich]

Re: Islamic Spirituality - The Forgotten Revolution

[quote]

As far concerning Imam Shawkani (rahimahullah), as far as i know he didn't write many books and i couldn't find any of his work in English or urdu. Also, some trustworthy students of knowledge told me that he was against following any of the madhab and his works have affected the indo-pak ahlehadith/salafis. However, this is not the position of the salafis

[/quote]

salam
thank you for the links
i only found imam shawkani's work nahrul awtar the one which is commonly used in pakistan, but as far as i know its not translated into urdu
imam was a yemeni and zaydi originally so maybe that affected his attitude towards the madhabs as well

re your objections to asharis isnt this the same debate that raged centuries before between imam ibn hanbal and his adversaries esp. mutazillites ?

[AllahkaBanda]

salam thank you for the links i only found imam shawkani's work nahrul awtar the one which is commonly used in pakistan, but as far as i know its not translated into urdu imam was a yemeni and zaydi originally so maybe that affected his attitude towards the madhabs as well

re your objections to asharis isnt this the same debate that raged centuries before between imam ibn hanbal and his adversaries esp. mutazillites ?

Wa'alaykum As-Salam
BarakAllahu feeka

yeh, it is exactly what you said; there're only few technical differences. Bro the history of the groups of kalam is very interesting to read

apparently the root of all this nonsense goes back to first century of Islam when the deviant groups emerged: Khawaarij, Rafidah, Qadariyyah, Murji'ah and the Mu'tazillites. The figureheads of Mu'tazillites and Jahm bin Safwan were the fist people who openly rejected the Sifaat of Allah and declared that Qur'aan is created and issues on emaan. So, the salaf (Tabi'een and Taba Tabi'een) declared them kafir and censored the use of kalam. Later on, the Kullabiyah emerged, who declared that all of the Sifaat of Allah are pre-eternal and Allah is always speaking internally etc. This deviant group was followed by Ash'ariyyah, in the last 3rd century of Islam (by this time the Salaf had gone). Imam Abou al hasan Ash'ari (rahimahullah) studied Mu'tazillite creed for 40 years till he decided to take the path between the orthodox creed and Mu'tazillite creed. However, during the end of his life he repented and wrote his last book Ibaanah in which he agreed with orthodox creed of Muslims. Sadly, the later Ash'aris didn't follow his footsteps. One thing to note is that the early Ash'aris are better than the current Ash'aris; the current Ash'aris are more of Jahmis and Mu'tazillities. Some of the early and later Ash'aris did affirm part of the orthodox creed. The last group of kalam is the Maturidiyyah, they appeared in the 4th century of Islam and very similar to Ash'ariyyah, except few technical differences.

The Ash'ariyyah and Maturidiyyah believe and affirm that Allah's Sifaat must be understood using the taw'il and tawfeedh fi mana i.e. Allah's Istawa means conquering the throne, His hands mean power, His Nazool during the last 3rd of the night and on the day of judgment means His mercy etc. They also believe that the Qur'aan is not the Kalam of Allah; hence, it is created. However, all of this was alien to the Salaf and we don't find such beliefs in the Qur'aan or the Sahih Sunnah. They ran into this problem when they started using the philosophy to refute the Mu'tazillities. The Salaf has declare people as kafir, who hold these kinds of beliefs, for their heresy.

May Allah Ta'ala guide us all and make us adhere to the correct 'aqeedah, ameen

Wallahu A'lam

[desert_bird]

May I harshly warn those of you who take pride in the bloody past of certain time points in muslim history, that when the choice was taken to bear arms, it was certainly not done with the pride and josh which you exhibit, nor was it done because of any such feeling that warfare is a prideful part of Islam. Arms were taken up because the people of the time felt there was a cause necessary to fight for, and it was taken up after other choices were exhausted. No one in their sane mind supports warfare for the sake of supporting it, and it is certainly not a major part of Islam. Islam allows a provision for it, but only in dire circumstances, as evidenced by the Prophet's willful avoidance of it despite a mass genocide spanning a number of years in which muslim converts were targeted around Makkah. In fact, he even led a mass exodus of these muslims away from their home to another city before any warfare had even begun in the region. And certainly warfare was not STARTED by the Prophet's side. If you study the history, any movements on the part of the first muslims towards picking up arms was in defence, not offence.

So, I would caution you to choose your words wisely. Islam doesn't condone violence for the sake of violence, and Islam could very well be practiced worldwide today without any bloodshed. The choice lies amongst muslims.

Citing any pieces of history after the Prophet's death is simply moot as we are not ordered to follow our ancestors for fear of repeating their mistakes. The Quran is in front of you, and I simply do not understand any justifications of violence because somehow your testosterone teenage selves get turned on by the concept of bloodshed and think that its a part of your heritage...because of some episodes of warfare in the history of the "Islamic" empire? How about you read the Quran for once, and use it as a guide, instead of murky memories of people long dead who, for all we know, might very well have had it all wrong?

Islam is not some mystical ritualistic tradition to pass on. Its a common sense, practical religion, and the motif of warfare that somehow has been woven into its picture innacurately represents the religion. And yet, even educated muslims can't see it.

Talk all you want about "jannat being below the shadow of swords". It doesn't have to be that way, and by honoring such statements and distorting them out of proportion doesn't help your cause. The Prophet was probably referring poetically to some martyr or other, and you've now taken it to mean that we can't go to Jannat without having had some involvement with a weapon. Again, more evidence of how the Prophet's sayings get twisted out of proportion and misused to propogate messages of violence. You should be ashamed of yourself. As for the definition of sufism, it certainly does not involve killing to spread the message of Islam. Islam has been spread for a good deal by deliving the message peacefully to people. I guess our people are getting what we deserve. Right now as we speak there are missionaries from all sorts of religions in muslim countries like Iraq and Afghanistan who are now converting people OUT of Islam. A whole lot of good your jannat under swords has been, now, hasn't it?

:)

Ok Dear PCG, just moment I listened to Ghamdi on GEO News . Allama Ghamdi topic was Islam and Secularism, very beautiful and logical debate with series of Qs and As. I think it will be on air today in US, u can enjoy that, its really a wonderful program.

Host asked Muslims conquered Iran,Egypt,Iraq etc .. can we do it today

Allama Ghamdi replied No , it was done only in sahabas time as Prophet(pbuh) already completed Hujjat means given them message of islam via letters. So its only allowed for sahabas to declare war moreover, those super powers could be taken under control without war.

Spain and Sindh conquest were totally different scenario, not Islamic, Sindh conquest was due to Raja Dahir capturing some muslim women while Spain was due to some Spanish lord’s daughter was disgraced and moreover imperialistic war as all people used to do in these timres so some muslims also did it but islam has not allowed i

Mahmood Ghaznavi attacking islam was totally wrong. That why Sufis made millions of mulsms while Mahmood even not 10 or 100. He is symbol of hatred today in India in specially Kathivar,Gujrat and as a result we see most extremism of hindus in Gujrat side which is adjacent to Kathivar which was attacked by Mahmood. Also connect the dots of** Babri Mmosque and Ram Mandar** with it ! Similarly Nadir Shah Durrani , Mughals attacks on India have nothing to do with islam.Thats why more hindus and sikhs go to shrine of Moinuudin Chisti in India tha n muslims because he spreaded islam with peace and love.

I hope it will clear the situation . If muslim invasion on Europe and US is not allowed in islam as some fanatics of talibans and al-qaeda do then similarly US invasion on iraq and afgahnistan cannot be justified . Hope u will agree with me. And yes, Plz aap thanda thanda Roh Afza piya karai , aap ka ghusa thora kum ho :)

[ammar_man7]

Re: Islamic Spirituality - The Forgotten Revolution

In the end, the Tehreek (sufism), Ulama, and other groups such as Tablighi Jamaat all are part of Islam. We should not criticize one over the other as all are integral.

Sometimes people say sufism is just about love and total esoteric lifestyle with neglecting the dunya, but this is not the belief of the majoirty of learned sufis. The sufi warrior was a great part of the history of the Muslim expansion in India and we should not become passive to this.

Some people say the ulama are unlearned mullahs, but you know perhaps the reason is because we don't care enough to listen to what they are saying. The ulama have consistently supported Islamic law and Khalifah in Pakistan (which according to University of Minnesota poll is the wish of 74% of the respondents they interviewed in Pakistan). There are literally fatawa on any matter which one has a question about, and it si impossible for a single person to know everything on his own, especially if he does not have knowledge fo the Quran and hadith.

The Tablighi Jamaat are often cited as being out of touch andwasting their enegries in the wrong area, but are you familiar witht he fact that thesesame Tablighi were responsible for the conversion of thousands into Islam and for the return of an Islamic lifestyle of many people who had gone astray. For what they do, call people back to the religion, they are the best in this. there is no doubt about this. Yet we like to believe we know better, and this pride has destroyed people before us.

Also, let us not tarnish the name of pious people in the past, because for what we know maybe Allah swt loves them more than us. Islam spread in South Asia for a multitude of reasons, not just one.

[desert_bird]

Re: Islamic Spirituality - The Forgotten Revolution

but mostly because of great sufias