The next issue was manhaj. OK, I am a follower, but a follower of what and whom? Again, I feel that Salafis and Sufis were the only 2 viable groups that I could follow as a serious practitioner of religion. And honestly, the major difference I see from them is their approach to religion, their manhaj, their methdology. And this can almost entirely be summed up in one word: innovation.

Both Salafis and Sufis agree that innovation in the religion is abhorrent and blasphemous. However, they take opposite approaches in this matter. Salafis basically believe each and every act which is religious must be specifically mentioned in the Quran or the Sunnah. Anything other than this, even if it was small, even if it was beneficial, is the result of human thought, which is subject to error. Thus they are very strict in this regard. Sufis believe that Islam established certain general principles, and based upon these principles, religious acts can develop. So for example, a Salafi would look at the Mawlid and say - the Prophet nor the Companions participated in this, and therefore, even if there are some benefits, in reality it is a gross innovation and an addition to the religion. Sufis, however, would say that this practice is sanctified by the fact that we are told to revere our Prophet, remember him, learn about him, and follow him, and so the Mawlid is not only a good act, but a sound one with basis in the Deen.

In examining this matter, although I felt more comfortable and safe with the Sufi approach, I found that the Salafi approach is not in reality followed to the letter. There are acts done with no specific basis which people may even think are a part of the religion, but in reality simply developed. An example is the saying “radhi’allaahu ‘anhum” for the Companions.

Therefore, I had to accept overall the Sufi manhaj in the religion although I find the Salafi approach to be acceptable, and even admirable. But I still had some confusion. I recently attended a hadhra, a Sufi circle of dhikr, and to be honest, it was quite shocking. It seemed very strange to me and I was totally not used to it. The whole time I felt awkward and wondered if this was our religion or not. However, when one thinks of the fact that tawheed is divided into 3 categories or that one who studies the rules of tajweed is really studying a derived science regarding our sacred text.

After much deliberation, I found a way to reconcile the valid points that I felt both parties had. On the one hand, there is no denial that many of the acts which the Sufis do, and which are considered innovated have a basis in the religion and have been approved by scholars of the past whom both sides respect. However, they are general bases and not specifically sanctioned. Thus, if a dhikr formula was simply deemed by great scholars to be effective in spiritual training, this should be seen as no different from a scholar’s methods in teaching or training his students in a purely academic setting. There is no doubt that a student of knowledge, if she is sitting and studying the rules of tajweed, is being rewarded by Allah (as long as the intention is pure) and engaging in mustahabb behavior the same way that someone following the spiritual program of his shaikh is being rewarded by Allah (as long as the intention is pure) and engaging in mustahabb behavior since it is based on a general principle such as remembering Allah “standing, sitting, and on your sides” just as the student of knowledge is doing something based on the general merits of seeking knowledge.

The problem comes when the act itself, which was not specifically mentioned in the Quran or Sunnah, takes on divine dimensions. For example, if the 3 categories of tawheed were themselves seen as divinely inspired or something which is direct from the religion, this would be as problematic as someone thinking the mawlid is a divinely revealed act or something which the religion demands. These “innovated” acts are perfectly permissible because they have a general basis, but their specific status is not one of being immutable such as the prayer, etc. When I was a little girl, I remember fasting without speaking because I had read in the Quran about Maryam ‘alaihaas-salaam but I was “corrected” and told this was wrong. However, if one sees that something generally good is allowed but not divine in itself nor an official part of the religion, then the religion is vast and human expression acommodated. 

Thus, “good” innovations are not truly innovations (as Sufis will tell you) but Sunnah, based upon general precepts. However, it must be kept in mind that the specific developed acts are not divine in nature and not belonging to the religion itself - in adherence to the numerous ahadeeth mentioning the warnings against adding to the religion. This was the way in which I reconciled both sides of a seemingly opposite situation and inshallah may Allah make it a reconciliation that allows the Muslims to understand and respect one another.    

This entry was posted on Saturday, April 21st, 2007 at 10:09 am and is filed under Unification Theory. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.