| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Andrew Bostom expands on his article here, showing that the uncritical acceptance by Western analysts and media of Sufism as peaceful is just more intellectual dhimmitude. From the American Thinker:
The Sufi branch of Islam has enjoyed spectacularly good press in the West. Hailed as peaceful mystics who believe jihad is a spiritual quest, nothing violent or unpleasant, Sufism has attracted favorable attention and converts from all sorts of Westerners, from new agers in Marin County, California, to East Coast intellectuals. But Sufis are not necessarily all peace-loving meditative seekers of the divine.The formation of the “The Sufi Jihadi Squadrons of Shaykh ‘Abd al-Qadir al-Gilani” in Iraq was recently announced at the jihadist website, “Jihad Unspun”. The Al-Gilani (d.1166) after whom they are named was in fact a Hanbali Sufi.
Sufi jihadists”(?)—a “Hanbali Sufi”(??)—haven’t we been lectured at great length about the singular evils of “Wahhabism” —rooted in the Hanbali school of Muslim jurisprudence, epitomized by Ibn Taymiyya (d. 1328)—versus its Islamic “antithesis”, the ecumenical tradition of mystical Sufism???
Notwithstanding the musings of a Muslim journalist and neo-convert from Bolshevism to Sufi Islam (see his bizarre and treacly “profession of faith” here, and a clinical description of what this newly described syndrome represents), Sufism has been linked integrally to the Muslim institution of jihad war since the 11th century C.E.
Consistent with this nexus between Sufism and orthodox Islam, Sufis have supported (fervently) the corollary institution of dhimmitude, replete with all its oppressive and humiliating regulations for non-Muslims. It is also important to highlight, in contrast, the very flimsy theological foundation of the much ballyhooed Sufi notion of the so-called “greater” spiritual jihad. Even the Islamophilic scholar Reuven Firestone has acknowledged the dubious nature of the hadith ostensibly outlining this potential interpretation of jihad: [1]
Its source is not usually given, and it is in fact nowhere to be found in the canonical collections [of hadith]
Of course devout Muslims, and influential 20th century scholars of Islam like the Shi’ite leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini (d. 1989), or the brilliant Sunni ideologue Sayyid Qutb (d. 1966), always recognized the marginal Islamic foundations of this putative Sufi construction in their seminal writings and lectures, and dismissed it outright. [2]
Read it all. Many important links and valuable source material in the original.
Posted by Robert at May 16, 2005 8:07 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
An unrelenting horror story!
At the very least Sufi proponents like Stefan Scwartz should address the content of this article. That this is a branch of Islam which has been constantly praised for its tolerance and love is belied by the sheer unadulterated hatred and bigotry that comes across in these Sufi's own statements.
This is what makes me believe that many Muslims dont tell the truth. They say one thing to your face but mean something else, and stomp their feet and squeal if you present evidence contrary to what the party line is.
Whenever mention is made of Sufism in western media or as evangelism, the words from this article should be presented as counterpoint.
Posted by: Zico![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at May 16, 2005 10:04 AM
As Stephen Schwartz is well intrenched as an advisor against terrorism in DC. One continues to wonder why he has spent so much time giving almost total focus to Waahabism as being the main root cause of Islamic terrorism, as if to deflect any focus on his conversion to Sufism. Schwartz has pointed the finger at every tribe in Islam but Sufism. No doubt though, Waahabism is clearly a serious and major contributor to all the Jihad activity that has been perpetrated over the last half century. Be it Sunni who represent over 80 percent of the Islamic world or Shia, 15 percent , they all end up conforming to the tenants of the Quran and the hadith..
Posted by: Mackie at May 16, 2005 11:02 AM
Like all sects of Islam, Sufism is "fruit of a Poisonous Tree". Can anyone other than a naive and confused multiculturalist really imagine that the inherently violent, confrontational, and oppressive ideology of Islam can be remade by endorsing a highly marginalised "mystical sect" now in the distinct minority?
Sunni Wahabbis dominate Sunni Islam -- the most rapidly growing branch of Islam. The Shiites already embrace a fundamentalist view -- evident in Iran. There is no room for sufi moderate reformers whether genuine or fraudulent opportunists.
For the life of me, I cannot understand how Western secularists (primarily on the political Left) defend Islam. These Western secularists have long criticised Christianity and Judaism but they tolerate and defend Islam. How hypocritical and intellectually indefensible... If they lack the faith to embrace Christianity or Judaism, how can they defend a faith (Islam) bitterly opposed to everything modern Western societies embrace? Western multiculturalists clearly have suicidal impulses or evince a limitless anti-Western hatred... Islam conversions by people like Stephen Schwartz and Grover Norquist points out how confused (or opportunistic) many Western intellectuals have become...
Posted by: info_tech_guy at May 16, 2005 4:26 PM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)