Salafi Criticism of Sufism: Balanced or Extreme?

The below is a translation of Ustadh Alaa Isma’il’s article, Hal ʿAlāqat al-Wahhābiyya bil-Ṣūfiyya al-Mutasannina ʿAlāqat Taṣādum?

Introduction:

Sufism is considered one of the intellectual phenomena in the history of Islamic heritage and thought. It began with asceticism, worship, and other virtuous meanings encompassed within Islam. Over time, it evolved into an independent discipline with its own classifications and literature, associated with the efforts of numerous scholars who contributed to disseminating its behavioral principles. Their approaches varied, ranging from extreme to moderate to those adhering to the Sunnah. Consequently, opinions about Sufism have varied across the ages among Muslim scholars, with some praising it in general and others criticizing it in general. Meanwhile, some adopted a path of moderation and balance, including figures such as Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn al-Qayyim, and Shaykh Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb.

Despite the prevalent perception that the Salafī methodology is entirely opposed to Sufism, a closer examination of the works of the early Najdī movement reveals that they had no inherent issue with Sufism in principle—as it pertains to asceticism, spiritual refinement, and the actions of the heart. Interestingly, praise for Sufism appears in their writings. It might surprise opponents that some Sufi scholars also reciprocated this praise and commended the mission of Shaykh Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb, as will be explained.

Nevertheless, in recent decades, criticisms have emerged from Salafis toward Sufism. These critiques are rooted in the spread of superstitious practices in later periods, such as dancing, ecstatic rituals (darawish), seeking aid from graves, and engaging in worship through enigmatic symbols. Such practices contributed to altering the traditional concept of Sufism.

At the Salaf Center for Research and Studies, we have sought to review various opinions on Sufism, highlighting the stances of jurists, elucidating the position of the mission of Shaykh Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb (may Allah have mercy on him), and examining the views of moderate Sufis toward the Salafi movement. We will also address the claims raised by some concerning the contemporary Salafi position on Sufism.

Our discussion will be organized into five sections. This marks the beginning of the intended discourse, and success is from Allah.

The First Section: The Classification of Sufism and Highlighting Its Praiseworthy and Blameworthy Aspects

There are numerous classifications of Sufism based on its diverse approaches and its many behavioral and philosophical schools. However, this discussion does not permit an exhaustive elaboration, as that would divert the study from its intended purpose. The focus here is to clarify that Sufism is divided into two primary categories: philosophical Sufism and behavioral Sufism.

As for philosophical Sufism, it is represented by the extremists among the Sufis whose statements include elements of disbelief and heresy, such as the doctrine of the unity of existence (waḥdat al-wujūd), annihilation (fanā’), the union of the Creator and the created, and esoteric interpretation of the Qur’an. There is no disagreement among the adherents of Ahl al-Sunnah about the deviation of this type of Sufism. The most prominent figures of this extreme form of Sufism are Ibn ‘Arabī al-Ṭā’ī, Ibn Sab‘īn, ʿUmar ibn al-Fāriḍ, and al-Suhrawardī, though their degrees of deviation differ. Most scholars throughout history have criticized these individuals, except for a few in very late centuries who held a favorable view of them due to their surrounding environment and dominant cultural influences.

Shihāb al-Dīn al-Suhrawardī was executed on the orders of Sultan Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn al-Ayyūbī in 586 AH, based on the recommendation of Ashʿarī scholars of that time. Al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar remarked, “He was executed due to his corrupt belief.”[1]

Taqī al-Dīn al-Subkī, may Allah have mercy on him, said:

“Those among these later Sufis, such as Ibn ‘Arabī and others, are misguided, ignorant, and far removed from the way of Islam, let alone the way of the scholars.”[2]

Al-Ḥāfiẓ al-Dhahabī said about Ibn al-Fāriḍ:

“He explicitly proclaims union (ittiḥād) in his poetry. This is a grave affliction. Reflect carefully on his compositions and do not hasten to judge. However, you are overly inclined to think well of the Sufis. Yet there is nothing here but the outward guise of Sufism and ambiguous allusions. Beneath the guise and the expression lies philosophy and serpents. I have advised you, and Allah is the ultimate judge.”[3]

Al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar, may Allah have mercy on him, said:

“I once asked our teacher, Imam Sirāj al-Dīn al-Bulqīnī, about Ibn ʿArabī, and he immediately responded that he was a disbeliever. Then I asked him about Ibn al-Fāriḍ, and he replied, ‘I prefer not to speak about him.’ I asked, ‘What is the difference between them when the subject is the same?’ I recited some lines from al-Tā’iyyah to him, and after I had recited several verses, he interrupted me, saying, ‘This is disbelief. This is disbelief.’”[4]

As for the adherents of behavioral Sufism, their matter is closer to the truth, though they also differ in rank. The best among them are the Sufis of Ahl al-Ḥadīth, who adhere strictly to the Qur’an and the Sunnah. The earlier practitioners among them limited themselves to behavioral refinement, asceticism, and codifying these practices with terms and classifications, such as stages of the journey to Allah, degrees of faith and certainty, and similar concepts. Some remained moderate in this, relying on the Qur’an and Sunnah as the pure source for their approach. Others expanded their practices with certain innovations in action, while some incorporated minor elements of philosophy, blending one with the other and increasing the level of innovation.

Thus, they vary in degrees, and due to their lack of uniformity under a single methodology, scholars’ rulings concerning them have differed.

Among the moderate figures of tasawwuf is Imam al-Junayd; may Allah have mercy on him. He stated:

“The Qur’an and Sunnah bind our knowledge. Whoever does not memorize the Qur’an, record ḥadīth, and develop understanding (fiqh) is not to be followed.”[5]

He also said:

“The path to Allah Almighty is closed to His creation except for those who follow in the footsteps of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) and adhere to his Sunnah, as Allah Almighty has said: ‘Indeed, in the Messenger of Allah you have an excellent example.’ [Surah al-Aḥzāb: 21]."[6]

In conclusion, the disagreement concerning this category of Sufism (i.e., behavioral Sufism) is relatively minor. Scholars differed over it in the past; those who criticized them have precedents, and those who praised them also have precedents. The correct approach is to differentiate, as they vary in degrees.

It should be noted that the group praised by some scholars includes the early Sufis and those who followed their path. As for the later generations, those who adhered to the way of the early Sufis are judged according to their specific circumstances. However, those who innovated practices such as adhering to specific awrad (litanies), worshiping Allah through talismans and sorcery, or believing in the existence of aqṭāb (spiritual poles) who control the world—these and similar innovations were not present among the early Sufis. Additionally, there is the innovation of excessive veneration of tombs and seeking aid from the deceased.

A detailed discussion of the innovations of later generations is suited for another context.

The Second Section: The Approaches of Muslim Scholars Toward Sufism

It is well-known to every researcher that many later scholars praised Sufism, especially those from the very late periods following the ninth century AH and beyond. This was due to the spread of Sufi madhab throughout the Ottoman Empire. Various expressions of praise were recorded, and they even held favorable views of extremists such as Ibn ‘Arabī al-Ṭā’ī and others. Among these proponents were Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī—though he later recanted his opinion on Ibn ‘Arabī[7]—Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytamī, Mullā ʿAlī al-Qārī, Ibn ʿĀbidīn al-Ḥanafī, Shaykh al-Bayjūrī, al-Barzanjī, and even some reformist scholars such as Walī Allāh al-Dihlawī, Abū al-Thanāʾ al-Ālūsī, al-Nuʿmān al-Ālūsī, and many others. Their statements in praise of Sufism are so widespread that there is no need to elaborate here, as doing so would lengthen this discussion and divert it from its intended purpose.

Instead, we will suffice by mentioning examples of those who criticized tasawwuf outright, as many opponents often obscure this perspective. They claim that Muslim jurists throughout history unanimously endorsed the Sufi school of thought and that contemporary Salafism diverges from the consensus of the Ummah. This broad claim lacks a rigorous academic foundation.

For this reason, we have chosen to begin by discussing those who criticized tasawwuf. Following that, we will present the balanced perspective, including the fair-minded views of Ibn Taymiyyah and Shaykh Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb, which is the position we adopt in this study, Allah willing.

First: Those who criticized tasawwuf unconditionally:

Many scholars have criticized tasawwuf unconditionally and without distinction, to the extent that they even criticized the moderate adherents among them. They argued that there is no evidence for the classifications and terminologies they invented and that innovations begin small but ultimately grow into significant deviations. Among those who criticized tasawwuf unconditionally are Abu Zurʿah al-Razi, Ibn Aqil, Ibn al-Jawzi, al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi, and most Maliki scholars, such as Al-Qadi Iyad, Imam al-Qurtubi, and others.

1- Abu al-Wafa Ibn Aqil (d. 513 AH):

Ibn Aqil, may Allah have mercy on him, said: “The Mutakallimun corrupt people’s beliefs with the illusions of rational doubts, while the Sufis corrupt deeds, undermine the principles of religion, and incline toward idleness and the enjoyment of sounds. Such was not the path of the righteous predecessors, who in matters of belief were devoted to submission and in matters of action were committed to diligence.”[8]

2- Abu Bakr al-Tartushi (d. 520 AH):

Abu Bakr al-Tartushi, may Allah have mercy on him, said: “The path of the Sufis is idleness, ignorance, and misguidance. Islam is nothing but the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger. As for dancing and ecstasy, the first to introduce it were the followers of the Samaritan when he made for them a calf in the form of a body that produced a lowing sound; they began to dance and enter states of ecstasy around it. This is the religion of the disbelievers and the worshippers of the calf. As for the use of the reed flute, the first to adopt it was the heretics to distract Muslims from the Book of Allah, the Exalted. The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, would sit with his companions like birds perched on their heads due to their solemnity. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the ruler and his deputies to prevent them from gathering in mosques and elsewhere. It is not permissible for anyone who believes in Allah and the Last Day to join them or support them in their falsehood. This is the position of Malik, Abu Hanifa, al-Shafi’i, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, and other imams of the Muslims.”[9]

3- Al-Qadi Iyad (d. 544 AH):

Al-Qadi Iyad, may Allah have mercy on him, said: “The wailing of the Sufis and their chanting in the manner of lamentation and weeping—whoever believes that this is a means of drawing closer to Allah the Exalted is misguided and misguiding. The poor soul does not realize that hardships surround Paradise, and Hellfire is surrounded by desires. Allah the Exalted did not send any prophets with amusement, ease, or singing; rather, they were sent with righteousness, piety, and what opposes vain desires.”[10]

He also said: “As for Shaykh Abu Hamid—referring to al-Ghazali—he is known for his outrageous opinions and dreadful writings. He went to extremes in adopting tasawwuf, wholly dedicating himself to supporting their madhab, and became a propagator of it. He authored his well-known works on the subject, which were criticized in various aspects, leading to doubts about him among the Muslim community. Allah knows the truth of his inner state. The ruler’s decree in our region of the Maghreb, along with the fatwa of the jurists, mandated burning these works and distancing people from them, and this was carried out.”[11]

4- Abu al-Faraj Ibn al-Jawzi (d. 597 AH):

The scholar who most extensively criticized Sufism was Abu al-Faraj Ibn al-Jawzi. He devoted an entire chapter to them in his book Talbis Iblis (The Devil’s Deception), where he condemned Sufism in general and even criticized the moderate figures among them, such as al-Harith al-Muhasibi, Abu Nuʿaym Ahmad al-Isfahani, Abdul Qadir al-Jilani, and others.

Ibn al-Jawzi said: “The tenth chapter: On the Devil’s deception of the Sufis, who are among the ascetics. Sufis are a subset of the ascetics, and we have already discussed the Devil’s deception of ascetics. However, the Sufis distinguished themselves from the ascetics with certain characteristics, states, and attributes, which necessitated singling them out for discussion.”[12]

Criticizing the moderates, he said: “Abu Talib al-Makki authored for them Qut al-Qulub, in which he included fabricated hadiths and practices with no basis, such as prayers for specific days and nights, as well as other fabrications. He also included corrupt beliefs…Then came Abu Nuʿaym al-Isfahani, who authored Hilyat al-Awliya for them, in which he mentioned reprehensible and ugly matters about Sufism. He did not hesitate to attribute Sufism to Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, and the leading Companions. He included astonishing accounts about them and mentioned figures such as Shurayh al-Qadi, al-Hasan al-Basri, Sufyan al-Thawri, and Ahmad ibn Hanbal. Likewise, al-Sulami in Tabaqat al-Sufiyya included al-Fudayl, Ibrahim ibn Adham, and Maʿruf al-Karkhi, presenting them as Sufis by implying they were merely ascetics…Tasawwuf is a distinct madhab that exceeds asceticism, and the difference between them is evident in that no one has criticized asceticism. Yet, tasawwuf has been criticized, as will be elaborated. Abd al-Karim al-Qushayri also authored for them al-Risala al-Qushayriyya, in which he included bizarre content.”[13]

Ibn al-Jawzi thus criticized Abu Talib al-Makki, Abu Nuʿaym al-Isfahani, al-Sulami, and al-Qushayri, all of whom were not extremists, indicating his general criticism of tasawwuf as a whole.

He also said in the same chapter: “Then came Abu Hamid al-Ghazali, who authored for them Ihya’ ʿUlum al-Din in the manner of their group—meaning the Sufis. He filled it with fabricated hadiths, unaware of their falsehood, and delved into the knowledge of unveiling (ʿilm al-mukashafa), departing from the principles of jurisprudence. He claimed that the stars, the sun, and the moon seen by Ibrahim, peace be upon him, were lights that are veils of Allah, the Almighty, and not the celestial objects known to us. This is akin to the discourse of the esotericists (batiniyya).”[14]

There was also animosity between Ibn al-Jawzi and Abdul Qadir al-Jilani because of tasawwuf. Al-Dhahabi noted: “Ibn al-Jawzi did not act justly toward Shaykh Abdul Qadir and belittled his status.”[15]

Thus, Ibn al-Jawzi—and his teacher, Ibn Aqil—criticized Sufism unconditionally, even targeting the very term “tasawwuf” itself with their critique.

5- Abu al-Abbas al-Qurtubi (d. 656 AH):

Abu al-Abbas al-Qurtubi said: “As for what the Sufis have innovated today, such as their addiction to listening to melodies played with musical instruments, it is among that which there is no disagreement about its prohibition. However, lustful souls and satanic desires have overcome many of those attributed to goodness and renowned for it, blinding them to the prohibition and obscenity of such acts. Many of them have exhibited the disgraceful behaviors of libertines, effeminate men, and boys, dancing and swaying with synchronized movements and successive rhythms, just as people of frivolity and debauchery do. Some among them have become so audacious as to claim that such actions are means of drawing closer to Allah and righteous deeds and that they produce purity of heart and noble spiritual states. In truth, this is among the traces of heresy, the sayings of idle people and imposters. We seek refuge in Allah from innovations and trials and ask Him for repentance and adherence to the Sunnah.”[16]

6- Abu Abdullah al-Qurtubi, the Exegete (d. 671 AH):

Abu Abdullah al-Qurtubi, may Allah have mercy on him, said: “As for the Sufi way, where one of them spends a day, a night, or even a month in deep thought without interruption, this is a method far from correctness, unsuitable for human nature, and not in conformity with the Sunnah.”[17]

7- Al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi (d. 748 AH):

Al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi quoted Abu Zurʿah al-Razi when he was asked about al-Muhasibi: “Beware of these books; they are books of innovation and misguidance. Stick to the traditions (al-athar); you will find in them what suffices you from these books.” It was said to him: “But there are lessons (ʿibra) in these books.” He replied: “Whoever does not find lessons in the Book of Allah will not find them in these books. Have you heard that Malik ibn Anas, Sufyan al-Thawri, al-Awzaʿi, or the early imams authored books on thoughts, whispers, and such matters? These are people who deviated from the scholars. One time, they brought us al-Harith al-Muhasibi, and another time, Abdul Rahim al-Dabili, Hatim al-Asamm, and Shaqiq al-Balkhi. How quick people are to adopt innovations!”

Al-Imam al-Dhahabi commented, “And where is anyone like al-Harith [al-Muhasibi]? What if Abu Zurʿah were to see the writings of the later authors, such as Qut al-Qulub by Abu Talib [al-Makki]? And where is anything like Qut al-Qulub? What if he saw Bahjat al-Asrar by Ibn Jahdam and Haqa’iq al-Tafsir by al-Sulami? His mind would be blown. And what if he were to see the works of Abu Hamid al-Tusi—meaning al-Ghazali—despite the numerous fabrications in Ihya’ ʿUlum al-Din? What if he saw al-Ghunya by Shaykh Abdul Qadir [al-Jilani]? And what if he were to see Fusus al-Hikam and al-Futuhat al-Makkiyya?”[18]

From the above quotation, it is evident that al-Imam al-Dhahabi criticized Sufism unrestrictedly. He mentioned figures like Abu Talib al-Makki, Abdul Qadir al-Jilani, and others.

Regarding the book Ihya’ ʿUlum al-Din, al-Dhahabi said: “As for Ihya’, it contains a number of fabricated hadiths. However, it also contains much good, were it not for the inclusion of certain etiquettes, customs, and ascetic practices derived from the methods of philosophers and deviant Sufis. We ask Allah for beneficial knowledge. Do you know what beneficial knowledge is? It is that which was revealed in the Qur’an and explained by the Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him, in word and deed…So, my brother, commit yourself to pondering the Book of Allah and frequently reviewing [Sahih] al-Bukhari and [Sahih] Muslim, as well as [the Sunan of] al-Nasa’i, and [Imam] al-Nawawi’s Riyadh and al-Adhkar. By doing so, you will prosper and succeed. Beware of the opinions of philosopher worshippers, the practices of ascetics, the fasting of monks, and the fanciful musings of the solitary mystics. All good lies in following the pure, lenient way of Islam. Woe to us! We seek Allah’s help. O Allah, guide us to Your straight path.”[19]

Thus, al-Imam al-Dhahabi advised turning to the Qur’an and books of hadith instead of the Sufi customs and practices. If a contemporary scholar were to say such things today, it would likely provoke widespread controversy.

Furthermore, al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi scrutinized the narrations extolling the virtues of Sufism and refuted them. Regarding the biography of Ali ibn al-Hasan al-Turtusi, he said: “Ali ibn al-Hasan al-Turtusi was a Sufi who fabricated a report attributed to Imam Ahmad, claiming it praised the Sufi way, and al-ʿAtiqi transmitted this.”[20]

Response to an Objection:

Some contemporaries have objected to al-Dhahabi’s opposition to Sufism, noting that he permitted traveling to visit the graves of the righteous and supplicating near them. Some even presumed that al-Dhahabi was inclined toward Sufism because of this stance. However, the truth is that the matter of visiting and supplicating at graves is entirely distinct from Sufism as an independent discipline—despite its inclusion among later Sufis.

The majority of later jurists permitted traveling to visit graves and supplicating near them—provided it does not involve seeking assistance from the deceased—even among those who criticized Sufism, such as Ibn Qudama and al-Qurtubi. Meanwhile, Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah regarded such practices as innovations. This issue falls within the realm of disputes over matters like tawassul and similar topics. Therefore, al-Dhahabi’s position on this is not unique, and one should be mindful of this distinction.

8- Abu Faris al-Qayrawani (d. 750 AH):

He issued a famous fatwa on the Sufis, published under the title Al-Fatwa al-Malikiyya fi Afaʿal al-Sufiyya. In it, he stated:

“This group is more harmful to Muslims than the rebellious devils and is the most difficult of groups to treat and the farthest from understanding the methods of evidence-based argumentation. This is because the first principle they established in their madhab is hatred for the scholars and alienation from them. They claim that the scholars are wayfarers on the path who are veiled by their knowledge from attaining the rank of realization... Let none of you be deceived by the illusions and imaginations exhibited by the people of innovations and misguidance, nor believe that they are miracles (karamat). Rather, they are acts of shirk and traps set by Satan to ensnare the followers of innovation and the perpetrators of base desires.”[21]

In Conclusion:

What has been presented above does not imply that we endorse condemning tasawwuf absolutely and without nuance. Rather, we have conveyed the perspective of this group to provide the reader with complete and unfiltered facts—not as selectively presented by those with preconceived convictions. This allows the reader to understand that criticizing the term Sufism in its entirety is not a fringe view, as some opponents claim, but is, in fact, one of the valid opinions held by many Muslim jurists across various schools of thought (including many from among the Ashʿarites).[22]

There was often intense conflict between many jurists and the Sufis. The Sufis referred to the jurists as Ahl al-Zahir (the people of outward jurisprudence), while the jurists referred to them as Ahl al-Batin (the people of inward mysticism). Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim chose the path of fairness and moderation, as will be discussed later.

Al-Ḥāfiẓ al-Dhahabī, quoting his teacher Ibn Wahb, said: “Among these issues is the conflict that has occurred between the Sufis and the scholars of outward knowledge. A discord has arisen between them, leading to some speaking against others. This is a murky situation from which only the scholar well-versed in the evidences of the Sharīʿah can emerge unscathed. I do not restrict this to knowledge of the branches [of jurisprudence], for much of what pertains to the conditions of the truthful among the Sufis cannot be distinguished as true or false merely through knowledge of the branches. Rather, it is essential to possess knowledge of foundational principles, the ability to differentiate between what is obligatory, permissible, and impossible by reason, as well as what is impossible by custom.”[23]

Secondly: Those who adopted the path of differentiation and fairness:

Among them is Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah, who adhered to a methodology of fairness and justice, as was his approach in dealing with various schools and sects. He accepted what was true from them and rejected what was false. Thus, he praised them in certain respects and criticized them in others. Similarly, his student, the illustrious scholar Ibn al-Qayyim, followed this approach. However, Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) delved more extensively than his teacher into matters of Sufism and showed leniency in some of their terminologies. He also interpreted favorably certain issues for Shaykh Abū Ismāʿīl al-Harawī on matters for which Ibn Taymiyyah had criticized him.

Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah, taking a balanced stance between the jurists and the Sufis, states:

“You find that many among those devoted to jurisprudence when they see the Sufis and the ascetics, regard them as nothing, considering them only ignorant and misguided, and believe that their path contains neither knowledge nor guidance. Conversely, you find that many among the Sufis and ascetics view the Sharīʿah and knowledge as insignificant, considering those who adhere to it as cut off from Allah and believing that its adherents possess nothing beneficial in the sight of Allah. The correct position, however, is that what is in accordance with the Qur’an and Sunnah from either group is true, and whatever contradicts the Qur’an and Sunnah from either group is false.”[24]

He also says:

“Due to what has occurred among many of them—meaning the Sufis—of ijtihād (independent reasoning) and disagreement regarding it, people have disputed about their path. A group condemned the Sufis and Sufism, claiming that they are innovators who deviate from the Sunnah. Statements to this effect have been transmitted from some of the imams, and these are well-known. Following them in this view are groups among the jurists and Mutakallimun.

Another group went to the opposite extreme, venerating the Sufis and claiming they were the best and most complete of creation after the prophets. Both of these extremes are blameworthy. The correct view is that they are individuals striving in obedience to Allah, just as others among the obedient servants of Allah strive. Among them are the forerunners who are brought near [to Allah] according to their striving, and among them are those who follow a moderate course and belong to the People of the Right. Both groups include individuals who may strive but err, and among them are those who sin, then repent—or perhaps do not repent.

Among those who associate themselves with Sufism are individuals who wrong themselves and disobey their Lord. Groups of heretics and proponents of innovations have also associated themselves with them. However, according to the verifying scholars of Sufism, such individuals do not truly belong to them. For instance, al-Ḥallāj: most of the masters of the path disavowed him and expelled him from the path, such as Junayd ibn Muḥammad, the leader of the order, and others. This was mentioned by Shaykh Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Sulamī in Ṭabaqāt al-Ṣūfiyyah and by al-Ḥāfiẓ Abū Bakr al-Khaṭīb in Tārīkh Baghdād.”[25]

This praise did not prevent Ibn Taymiyyah from refuting some innovations that had infiltrated Sufism. Among his contributions was his authorship of Al-Radd ʿala al-Shādhilī, in which he refuted the permissibility of certain practical innovations, such as specific forms of remembrance (dhikr), prayers and similar practices. He also criticized Abū Ismāʿīl al-Harawī, Abū Ḥāmid al-Ghazālī, and others on certain theological matters. Thus, Ibn Taymiyyah’s commendation of moderate Sufism did not prevent him from critiquing whatever contradicted the Qur’an and Sunnah, whether it came from Sufis or others. Take note of this.

Imam Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) articulates a noble and balanced methodology, saying:

“These excessive statements—referring to some of the Sufis—have caused a trial for two groups of people. The first group was veiled from the virtues of this community, their refined souls, and their sincerity in dealings, to the extent that they disregarded these qualities entirely due to the excessive statements and condemned them absolutely, harboring ill thoughts of them. This is both unjust and excessive. If anyone who erred or made a mistake were to be entirely dismissed and their merits disregarded, then the sciences, crafts, wisdom, and their markers would collapse.

The second group was veiled by the virtues they observed in this community, such as the purity of their hearts, the sincerity of their intentions, and the excellence of their dealings, from recognizing the flaws and deficiencies in their excessive statements. Consequently, they extended the cloak of approval over these statements, defended them, and ruled in their favor. These individuals are also unjust and excessive.

The third group consists of those who are just and fair, giving each their due right and placing each in their proper station. They did not judge the sound with the ruling of the defective, nor the defective with the ruling of the sound.”[26]

The Third Section: The Stance of Shaykh Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb and His Students Toward Moderate Tasawwuf

It is widely assumed, both by opponents and proponents, that Shaykh Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb and the leaders of the Najdī daʿwah entirely condemn Sufism in both general and specific terms. Some opponents even exaggerate and claim that they declare Sufis to be disbelievers! This assumption, however, is incorrect and is not based on a careful reading of the Shaykh’s works and those of his students but rather on preconceived notions.

The truth is that the early Wahhābīs did not adopt a confrontational stance toward moderate Sufism. Contrary to popular belief—and ironically—what has been transmitted from Shaykh Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb is praise of Sufism, not condemnation. Nowhere in his abundant writings and letters is there any explicit criticism of Sufism.

The perception that he was an enemy of Sufism likely stems from the association in people’s minds between grave worship and Sufism—a problematic association that emerged only in much later periods and has no connection to behavioral Sufism. In fact, the Shaykh frequently cited Sunni-oriented Sufis in his letters and writings. Examples of this include his statement:

“The very essence of love for Him is the foundation of worshiping Him and associating others in this love is the foundation of shirk in His worship. For this reason, the shaykhs of Sufism who possess true knowledge (ʿārifūn) often emphasized adherence to knowledge. One of them said: ‘No one abandons anything from the Sunnah except due to arrogance in himself.’”[27]

In this statement, he describes the shaykhs of Sufism as ʿārifūn, meaning those who truly know Allah, and he uses their states and sayings as evidence.

He also said (may Allah have mercy on him):

“Know—may Allah guide you—that Allah, exalted is He, sent Muḥammad (peace and blessings be upon him) with guidance, which is beneficial knowledge, and the religion of truth, which is righteous action. Among those who affiliate themselves with religion are those who engage in knowledge and jurisprudence and speak of it, such as the jurists, and among them are those who engage in worship and the pursuit of the Hereafter, such as the Sufis. Allah sent His Prophet with this religion, which encompasses both types.”[28]

Here, he presents Sufism as one of the two wings of Islam, with jurisprudence being the other wing. Islam, he explains, combines knowledge and action in a unified framework. This reflects a balanced perspective from the Shaykh (may Allah have mercy on him).

He also states, while enumerating the benefits derived from Sūrat al-ʿAlaq:

“The second [benefit]: combining reliance on Allah (tawakkul) with taking means, in contrast to the extremists among the jurists and the extremists among the Sufis.”[29]

The subtle point here is that the Shaykh acknowledged that there are extremists among the jurists who overly focus on intellectual means and disregard asceticism and inner acts of the heart. This forms a counterpoint to the extremists among the Sufis, who exaggerate in asceticism and inner spiritual acts while neglecting the means provided by Islamic knowledge. Islam, however, encompasses both dimensions.

This mirrors the stance of Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him), who praised those who take a moderate path among both groups. Reflect upon this carefully.

This perspective from the Shaykh (may Allah have mercy on him) reflects his balance, moderation, and well-rounded outlook, contrary to the common claim that he adhered strictly to a Ẓāhirī methodology or similar assumptions.

Consider the fairness of the sons of Shaykh Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb when they were asked about Abū Ḥāmid al-Ghazālī. They responded by citing the views of Ibn Taymiyyah and al-Dhahabī and then, with remarkable fairness, stated:

“This is the extent of what we believe about him: we do not elevate him beyond his rightful status, as the extremists do, nor do we lower him beneath his rank, as some of the negligent do. Some exaggerate concerning him and his writings to a great degree, and there are those who criticize him, dismiss his merits and virtues, and even advocate burning his book. We have heard that some say, ‘This is not Iḥyāʾ ʿUlūm al-Dīn (The Revival of the Religious Sciences), but rather Imātat ʿUlūm al-Dīn (The Extinction of the Religious Sciences).’ The straight path lies between two extremes: a virtue between two vices and guidance between two forms of misguidance.”[30]

This was their response despite the presence of excessive philosophical content and questionable topics in Iḥyāʾ ʿUlūm al-Dīn and despite the sharp criticism it received from numerous scholars, such as al-Māzarī, Abū Bakr ibn al-ʿArabī, al-Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ, Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ, and al-Dhahabī. Despite all of this, the sons of Shaykh Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb refused to align themselves with those who unreservedly condemned him. Instead, they adopted a balanced approach, reflecting their fairness and moderate perspective.

His son, the eminent scholar ʿAbdullāh ibn Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb, states in his letter to the scholars of Mecca, titled Risālah fī Mubāḥathat ʿUlamāʾ Makkah:

“We do not reject the Sufi path, nor the purification of the inner self from the vices of sins associated with the heart and limbs, as long as its adherent adheres to the legal framework and the upright and well-preserved methodology. However, we do not contrive interpretations for their words or actions nor rely on, seek assistance from, seek victory through, or place our trust in anything but Allah Almighty in all our affairs. He is sufficient for us, the best disposer of affairs, the best Master, and the best Helper. May Allah’s blessings and peace be upon Muḥammad, his family, and his companions.”[31]

Conclusion:

Based on the above, it becomes evident that Shaykh Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb and his students did not have a fundamental issue with Sufism itself. On the contrary, they praised the early Sufis and frequently referenced their statements. This indicates that the early Najdīs did not consider grave worshippers or superstitious individuals as representative of true Sufism. Instead, they referred to such individuals as Bāṭiniyyah, extremists, or polytheists.

In general, there is no explicit criticism of the term Sufism itself in the Shaykh’s abundant writings and letters. When he does mention extremists or the Bāṭiniyyah, he refrains from explicitly associating them with Sufism, recognizing that such deviant beliefs are foreign to its original teachings.

Thus, the stance of the early Najdī movement and their leader, Shaykh Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb, toward Sufism was balanced and moderate, reflecting their fairness, equanimity, and adherence to the principle of moderation.

The Fourth Section: Mutual Praise Between the Impartial of the Sufis and the Wahhabis:

Moderate Sufis, who are lovers of truth, have demonstrated a balanced and wise stance toward the movement of Sheikh Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab. They examined its principal objectives and found that they encompass Islam’s essence, core, and reality, free from the pretenses of the pretentious. A seeker of truth is not harmed by who brings it forth nor by the claims woven around it; rather, their perspective is shaped by an impartial reading of the texts. We will present examples of Sufis who praised the Wahhabi movement.[32]

1- The distinguished scholar of Al-Azhar, Sheikh Muhammad Al-Azizi, a Shafi’i Sufi of the Khalwati order, states:

“When the honorable Wahhabis arrived in Egypt, among the most distinguished and esteemed of them were our beloved, the virtuous leader and complete luminary, our master Sheikh Abdullah Al-Hanbali [referring to Sheikh Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Abd al-Wahhab], and his virtuous brother, our beloved, the one of commendable morals and praiseworthy deeds, Sheikh Ibrahim Al-Hanbali. Among their notable and intelligent figures was our master, Sidi Abd al-Rahman bin Abd al-Aziz—may Allah have mercy on him with His grace and generosity. Our beloved Sheikh Abdullah—may Allah have vast mercy on him—was among the virtuous scholars, and his son, Sheikh Abd al-Rahman Al-Hanbali, was among the most intelligent and righteous of scholars.”
He then concludes:

“This was said and written by his perishable hand, the one in need of Allah, Muhammad bin Muhammad Al-Azizi, a native by origin, a Shafi’i by madhhab, and a Khalwati by spiritual path. May Allah forgive his sins and conceal his flaws in both worlds.”[33]

2- The distinguished Sufi scholar and historian Sayyid Abd al-Rahman bin Ubaidullah al-Saqqaf states:

“The revered Alawi bin Saqqaf al-Jifri authored a treatise entitled Al-Dala’il al-Wadihah fi al-Radd’ ala Risalat al-Fatihah (The Clear Evidence in Response to the Treatise on Al-Fatihah), in which he discussed Ibn Taymiyyah, his disciple Ibn al-Qayyim, and Sheikh Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, the founder of the well-known movement. He was exceedingly generous in his praise of them. When the revered Abdullah bin Hussein reviewed the treatise, he wrote in his own handwriting: ‘Alawi bin Saqqaf speaks the truth, even if it is bitter.’”

He continued:

“This reflects the fact that the entire group [meaning the Sufis] had taken from Sayyid Abu Bakr bin Hindwan, who was a staunch Wahhabi. Moreover, I realized that our master, Sheikh al-Wadi al-Hasan bin Salih, held a measure of such views in the utmost moderation, as they aligned with his deep immersion in the purification of monotheism and his detachment from all but the Almighty, the Praiseworthy.

This does not conflict with what is mentioned in Bughyat al-Mustarshidin regarding the fatwas of the revered Sayyid Alawi Saqqaf al-Jifri permitting tawassul (seeking intercession), as he only allowed forms that do not imply a deficiency in monotheism.”[34]

3- The scholar Abd al-Rahman bin Hassan—author of Fath al-Majid Sharh Kitab al-Tawhid and grandson of the Imam of the movement—praises the scholars of Al-Azhar, including those engaged in moderate Sufism. He states:

“As for our teachers from among the scholars of Egypt, among their virtuous figures in knowledge is Sheikh Hassan al-Qawisni. I attended his lectures on Sharh Jam‘ al-Jawami‘ in Usul by al-Mahalli and Mukhtasar al-Sa‘d in semantics and rhetoric.”

He then mentioned many other scholars and added:

“Among them is Ibrahim al-Bajuri. I studied with him Sharh al-Khulasa by al-Ashmuni up to the section on annexation and attended his lectures on al-Sullam. I also studied under Muhammad al-Damanhuri on al-Isti‘arat (metaphors) and al-Kafi fi ‘Ilmay al-‘Arud wa-l-Qawafi (The Sufficient in the Sciences of Prosody and Rhyme), which he read to us along with his commentary at the Al-Azhar Mosque. May Allah continue to endow it with knowledge and faith and make it a place for the practice of the Sunnah across all lands and cities. Verily, He is of boundless generosity. May Allah’s blessings and peace be upon the noblest of messengers, our master Muhammad, and upon his family and companions.”[35]

It is noteworthy here that Sheikh Abd al-Rahman bin Hassan praises Sheikh of Al-Azhar Hassan al-Qawisni and, in conclusion, prays for Al-Azhar Mosque even though its scholars exhibited varying degrees of Sufi practices. This does not exclude the possibility that some of them may have engaged in certain innovations at the time. However, his praise reflects their overall state, adhering to the principle: “If the water reaches two qullahs, it does not carry impurity.” This demonstrates Sheikh Abd al-Rahman’s moderation and balanced perspective.

4- Sheikh of Al-Azhar, Abd al-Halim Mahmoud, may Allah have mercy on him, who was one of the prominent figures of Sufism, praised the reformative Salafi efforts of Ibn Taymiyyah, stating:

“The Imam Ibn Taymiyyah had a great merit and profound impact in exposing the corruption of the science of mantiq, which had been prevalent in Islamic circles since the times of al-Kindi, al-Farabi, and Ibn Sina. Imam Ibn Taymiyyah authored some of the finest works on this subject, particularly his book Al-Radd’ ala al-Mantiqiyyin (The Refutation of the Logicians). Ibn Taymiyyah did not limit himself to criticizing mantiq; he also devoted his efforts to discrediting every deviant idea from their thoughts.”[36]

5- The esteemed scholar Sheikh Khalil Ahmad al-Saharanfuri, a Sufi and adherent of the Maturidi creed, and author of Badhl al-Majhud fi Sharh Sunan Abi Dawud was residing in Mecca during the time King Abdulaziz entered the city. Sheikh Khalil’s house was near that of the distinguished scholar Abdullah bin Bulayhid al-Najdi. Discussions occurred between them, during which Sheikh Khalil realized that the Wahhabi madhab fell within the acceptable schools of thought among Ahl al-Sunnah. Consequently, he wrote to his colleagues in India, stating:

“There are frequent meetings and discussions on religious matters between me and Sheikh Abdullah bin Bulayhid—the Chief Justice—whose house is adjacent to mine. The man is a great religious scholar, adhering to the school of Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jama‘ah, following the madhhab of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, may Allah have mercy on him. He is deeply devoted to the works of Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim, often referencing them—both of whom are regarded as eminent scholars by our own scholars as well. He has a strong aversion to innovations and newly introduced practices. He has made the doctrine of monotheism and prophethood the foundation of his faith and the essence of his creed.

In sum, based on my observations, I have not discerned any deviation on their part from the beliefs of Ahl al-Sunnah. Most of the people of Najd are fond of reciting the Qur’an, and many among them have memorized it. They diligently observe congregational prayers. Despite the severe cold these days in Medina, they consistently attend even the Fajr prayer in the congregation. Overall, their religious state is, to the best of my observation, very commendable.”[37]

When rumors began to spread that the Saudi government had demolished shrines and that there were claims they intended to exact revenge on the Companions and saints by destroying their domes and other such fabrications, scholars from India wrote to verify the matter. In response, the esteemed scholar al-Saharanfuri wrote a letter in which he stated:

“I believe that the Saudi government is inclined toward religion, given the context of this era, and that it is sincere in its achievements and actions. Among the significant accomplishments, nothing—based on what I see—is unrelated to religion in any way. As for the minor mistakes that have occurred, I found that they stem from the fact that the government lacks righteous individuals with administrative expertise, which causes shortcomings in certain administrative and executive aspects.

As for Sultan Ibn Saud himself, he is a religious man characterized by the utmost wisdom and patience. However, a man alone cannot accomplish much without capable workers, supporters, and helpers. Security has reached a level where one or even two riders can travel alone between Mecca, Medina, Yanbu, and Jeddah without fear or harm.

As for the complaints circulating among the masses, they center around the demolition of domes over graves and shrines, which the ignorant—along with the Rawafid—had made the foundation of their religion and belief. I see that demolishing them was necessary. The government undertook this bold step only after seeking the opinion of the scholars of Medina, who issued a fatwa permitting this action.”[38]

6- Sheikh Muhammad Manzoor al-Numani, a Hanafi Sufi, addressed the accusations propagated by Zaini Dahlan, who claimed that Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab declared the past scholars to be unbelievers and allegedly said: “This staff of mine is better than Muhammad, for I benefit from it to kill a snake, whereas Muhammad has died and is of no use!”

Sheikh al-Numani undertook an extensive study of the writings of both the Wahhabis and their opponents to deliver a fair judgment. Following this, he authored the book Duʿāyātun Mukath-thafatun Ḍidda al-Shaykh Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb (Extensive Propaganda Against Sheikh Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab), which was endorsed by the distinguished Sufi hadith scholar Muhammad Zakariya ibn Yahya al-Kandhlawi and Sheikh Muhammad Tayyib, the head of Darul Uloom Deoband—both Maturidi Sufis.

Sheikh al-Numani stated:

“The author of these lines affirms—based on his study—that none of these accusations are valid. They have been explicitly refuted in the works and writings of Sheikh Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab and those of other authors among his followers. This will be evident to honorable readers in the subsequent sections. It seems that Sheikh Dahlan had not read any of the books authored by the followers of Sheikh Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab al-Najdi explaining their call and ideas, nor did he feel the need to investigate and research before leveling such harsh accusations.”[39]

Despite this, Sheikh al-Numani disagreed with the Wahhabis on certain issues. He stated:

“However, there are differences—despite the agreement and harmony between our scholars and the scholars of Najd—on some positions and secondary matters.”

He then mentioned issues such as seeking intercession through the person of righteous individuals, undertaking journeys to visit the noble grave, seeking intercession from the Prophet ﷺ during the visit to his grave, and invoking the Prophet ﷺ in poetry as an act of presence in the heart. Sheikh al-Numani noted that the Wahhabis consider such practices to be shirk. He also referred to their stance on the one who abandons prayer out of laziness.[40]

Sheikh al-Numani responded to the Wahhabis’ evidence on these matters but ultimately concluded that the differences with the Wahhabis fall within the realm of acceptable scholarly disagreement. He stated:

“In any case, none of these disputed issues between the scholars of Najd and our scholars are matters over which one party should accuse the other of fisq or consider them as deviating from the religion or outside the fold of Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jama‘ah.”[41]

He explained that this is because these issues are as old as the time of Ibn Taymiyyah, al-Taqi al-Subki, Ibn Abd al-Hadi, and others.

7- Shaykh Rashid al-Gangohi, the leading scholar of the Maturidiyyah in his time, stated when asked about the Wahhabis: “Those who follow Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab are called Wahhabis. Their beliefs were sound and good, and their school of jurisprudence is Hanbali. However, their nature tended toward strictness, and those who adhere to him are righteous. Indeed, any transgressor among them becomes corrupted, but their beliefs are unified. The difference among them lies only in practices according to the schools of Hanafi, Shafi’i, Maliki, and Hanbali.”[42]

7- Shaykh Husayn Ahmad al-Madani, whom the Hanafis refer to as Shaykh al-Islam, initially declared the Wahhabis to be misguided. However, after devoting himself to the study of the works of Shaykh Muhammad and his students, he issued a statement published in the Urdu newspaper Zamindar in Lahore on 17/1925, in which he said:

“I wish to declare unequivocally and without hesitation that the opinion I previously expressed against the people of Najd in my books Rujum al-Mudhnibin and al-Shihab al-Thaqib was not based on their writings but rather on rumors and the statements of their opponents. However, their reliable writings, which I have studied, provide clear evidence that they do not differ significantly from Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jama’ah as has been widely claimed. Instead, the differences are limited to some secondary issues, which does not justify declaring them disbelievers, misguided, or sinners. And Allah knows best.”[43]

Finally, it must be clarified that the claim made by some—that reformist movements influenced these Sufis, abandoned the established schools of thought of recognized Muslim scholars, and became Wahhabis—is entirely baseless and undoubtedly false. These Sufis explicitly disagreed with Ibn Taymiyyah and the Wahhabis on issues such as seeking intercession through the righteous, undertaking journeys specifically to visit graves, and seeking the Prophet’s intercession during visitation. However, they considered these to be secondary issues open to valid disagreement. If they had indeed shifted to Salafism, their views would have changed, and they would have adopted the teaching of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab’s works in their religious institutions. This did not happen; they remained steadfast in their legal and spiritual schools of thought.

The reality is that, upon reading the works of the Wahhabis, they found them aligned with what they knew of Islam and what they had studied from the Shari’ah. For this reason, they praised them. This is the behavior of people of fairness and justice in every time and place, unlike the extremists among the proponents of innovation, whose envy and hatred consume them.

The Fifth Section: Why Do Many Contemporary Salafi Scholars Criticize Sufism Without Qualification?

A significant question may arise in the reader’s mind: If a proper investigation into the matter of Sufism reveals the necessity of making distinctions, and if Shaykh Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab praised those among the Sufis who adhered to the Sunnah and even used them as evidence, then why has blanket criticism of Sufism become widespread in the discourse of contemporary Salafis?

The answer to this can be addressed from several angles:

First Angle: It cannot be denied that the writings of later Salafi scholars in the past century predominantly criticized Sufism in general terms, as seen in the works of Shaykh Muhammad Rashid Rida, Shaykh Hamid al-Fiqi, Shaykh Abd al-Rahman al-Wakil, and Shaykh Ahmad Shakir (may Allah have mercy on them). Many contemporary scholars and later Najdi scholars followed in their footsteps. However, it is essential to consider the historical context in which these esteemed figures and other reformist preachers lived. They were addressing the dire state of the Islamic Ummah following the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the cultural remnants and Sufi superstitions that weighed heavily on the Ummah at the time.

The Sufism prevalent in their time—and even in ours—was characterized by dancing, drumming, celebrations of Mawlids, calling upon saints, innovative litanies and talismans, belief in spiritual hierarchies such as “poles” (aqtab), and the philosophy of Ibn Arabi, including the doctrine of wahdat al-wujud (the unity of existence). Moreover, the term “Sufism” became monopolized by these deviant groups. Consequently, the concept of Sufism deviated from its original essence, and what became widely recognized and associated with Sufism was nothing more than grave-centered, ritualistic practices tied to specific orders.

Thus, the reformers of the past century criticized this type of Sufism. A scholar addresses people based on their understanding, not on terminologies confined to books and academic discussions. Take note of this.

May Allah have mercy on Imam al-Saffarini al-Hanbali, who lamented the superstitions of the Sufism of his time, saying:

“Alas! The champions have passed, leaving behind only idlers! O you who are content with the outward appearance of asceticism, with the name of poverty, with Sufism reduced to mere woolen garments, and with the glorification of Allah reduced to prayer beads! Where is the virtue of al-Fudayl? Where is the diligence of al-Junayd? Where is the secret of al-Sari?”[44]

Criticizing contemporary Salafis for not making distinctions regarding Sufism involves a logical fallacy. This is because, deep down, it is understood that Salafis are referring specifically to the grave-worshippers and the proponents of superstition. They do not intend figures like Imam al-Junayd, Abu Sulayman al-Darani, or Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani. Thus, criticizing the Salafis on this matter without disentangling their intended meaning reflects an evident fallacy. It is a well-known principle among scholars of Usul that “consideration is given to meanings and implications, not to terminology and phrasing.”

Second Angle: It is incorrect to claim that contemporary Salafis are unique in their criticism of Sufism. Many scholars of al-Azhar have also criticized Sufism, including Shaykh Muhammad al-Ghazali, Shaykh al-Maraghi, Dr. Muhammad Amara, and Dr. Muhammad al-Masir, among others. Leaders of reform in the past century, such as Shaykh Abd al-Hamid ibn Badis, al-Bashir al-Ibrahimi, and Jamal al-Qasimi, as well as literary figures like al-Rafi’i and al-Manfaluti, have similarly expressed their disapproval.

Shaykh al-Bashir al-Ibrahimi (may Allah have mercy on him) said:

“Sufism, or what we call ‘Turuqiyyah’ (the system of Sufi orders), in our stance toward it, is a newly introduced tendency in Islam. It is not devoid of ancient Persian seeds, as the origin of this tendency emerged in Baghdad during the latter half of the second century AH, and the Persian influence on Baghdad in both religion and worldly matters is well known.”[45]

Dr. Muhammad Amara, a member of the Senior Scholars Council at al-Azhar, stated:

“This is why many Orientalists welcome Sufism and the Sufi movement. Why does the West embrace Sufism? Because it represents an Islam without jihad. And why does the West oppose Ibn Taymiyyah? Because he represents an Islam with jihad.”[46]

Dr. Muhammad al-Masir (may Allah have mercy on him), the head of the Department of Creed at al-Azhar University, criticized Sufism in general by saying:

“Sufism has turned into a collection of technical terms that bear no relation to genuine asceticism or worship. As a theoretical framework, Sufism includes many violations of Sharia, such as the belief that saints control certain matters and the concepts of spiritual hierarchies like aqtab and abdal.”

When the interviewer asked Dr. Muhammad al-Masir about the issue with practical, behavioral tasawwuf, he replied:

“Because they legislate for themselves matters of religion that Allah has not permitted, such as the innovative litanies. A specific litany prescribed by Shaykh so-and-so is adhered to with the same commitment as the Qur’an, which is a mistake.”[47]

Shaykh Muhammad al-Ghazali (may Allah have mercy on him) said:

“With the advent of foreign tasawwuf into the Islamic Ummah, certain forms of monasticism spread, accompanied by shades of ignorance about worldly life and a complete aversion to its responsibilities and pleasures. The prevailing notion about religion became that it is an enemy of life and that its primary function is to prepare people for the afterlife through various rituals and forms of worship. If its followers did not detach themselves from this life, it seemingly did not matter if they remained ignorant of it and withdrew from it. Perhaps this detachment was regarded as a sign of perfect piety and love for Allah! All of these ideas are the delusions of the sick. Anyone who studies the Qur’an, the Sunnah, the life of the rightly-guided Caliphs, and the writings of the leading Imams will realize that Islam is far removed from such foolishness.”[48]

He also said:

“I would like to draw attention to the fact that the inherited beliefs prevalent among us include matters that amount to outright disbelief. I came across excerpts from al-Futuhat al-Makkiyah (The Meccan Conquests) by Ibn Arabi, and I said: It should have been named The Roman Conquests! For the Vatican itself could not hope to infiltrate us with anything more pernicious than this nonsense.”[49]

He further stated:

“Why should we shy away from describing grave-worshippers as engaging in shirk, when the Prophet himself described ostentation as shirk, saying, ‘Showing off is shirk’? A scholar must look upon such misguided acts of supplication with disapproval and to dedicate his efforts to teaching their practitioners the path of truth, rather than exhausting himself in fabricating excuses and justifications.”[50]

In summary, the preceding statements represent the opinions of scholars not part of contemporary Salafism. If brevity were not a concern, we could present even more examples. When confronted with these statements, someone claiming to be fair might respond that these scholars denounced blameworthy forms of Sufism. Such a person would then interpret these scholars’ words in a far-fetched manner but would not afford similar interpretations to Salafi scholars, even though they are aware that Salafis also aim to criticize blameworthy Sufism. This is undoubtedly a double standard and far from scholarly fairness. A true seeker of knowledge is not concerned with names as much as they are with presenting the truth as it is.

We are not defending contemporary Salafis here. There is no objection to the idea that some contemporary scholars may have erred in their blanket criticism of tasawwuf or exaggerated their denunciation by choosing less optimal stances. Such instances are conceivable, but we do not adopt this perspective in this paper. Everyone’s statements are subject to acceptance and rejection. It is, however, important to view the issue comprehensively and without distortion. It is also necessary to consider the Salafis’ intended meaning behind their criticism of Sufism and to deconstruct their intentions. As is evident, engaging in obfuscation and distraction over terminologies is often driven by ideological motives.

The third angle: We do not concede that all contemporary scholars have condemned Sufism unconditionally. Rather, many of them praise moderate Sufism and provide nuanced evaluations depending on the context.

Among those who have praised moderate Sufism is the esteemed Sheikh Atiyyah Muhammad Salim, may Allah have mercy on him—one of the prominent figures of contemporary Salafism—who completed the commentary Adwa’ Al-Bayan by Al-Shanqiti.

Sheikh Atiyyah Muhammad Salim, may Allah have mercy on him, states: “Among those who introduce innovations into the religion are those who claim to follow tasawwuf, but they are not truly Sufis. Rather, they commit what Allah has forbidden, falsely claiming it to be part of the religion while the religion is free from it. This is attested by the words of some of the truthful Sufi scholars: ‘Every action or claim that lacks two just witnesses from the Qur’an and Sunnah is rejected.’”[51]

Reflect on the Sheikh’s statement: (but they are not truly Sufis)—this indicates that he absolves genuine Sufis from such people. He then supports his argument with the sayings of the truthful Sufis.

The esteemed scholar Muhammad ibn Ibrahim Al Al-Sheikh categorizes Sufis into “Sunni” and “deviant,” stating: “The general term tasawwuf is an innovation, but categories of names are not the same as beliefs. Sufis are of two types: Sunni Sufis and deviant Sufis. Those moderate among them have only a small degree of innovation, while some possess significant amounts of it.”[52]

From the above statement, it is evident that the Sheikh, may Allah have mercy on him, holds that there are Sunni Sufis and that not all Sufis are innovators.

Sheikh Ibn Uthaymeen elaborates, stating: “There is no doubt that some of the Salaf exhibited a form of tasawwuf; however, it is not the extreme form of Sufism that exists today. Contemporary Sufism has evolved to the extent that it now includes beliefs in the unity of existence (waḥdat al-wujūd); may Allah protect us. Some even claim, ‘There is no one else; the entire universe is Allah, Glorified and Exalted.’ One might say, ‘There is nothing in the cloak but Allah,’ referring to himself and his cloak—as if to say: is it not he who is wearing his cloak? He claims, ‘There is nothing in the cloak but Allah.’ Some of them fall into delusions, saying, ‘I will pitch my tent over Hell’—this was reported by Shaykh al-Islam, who is reliable—and others claim, ‘Glory be to me, glory be to me, I am Allah.’ Thus, Sufism is not a trivial matter but has evolved.”[53]

The esteemed Sheikh Abdul Aziz Ibn Baz, may Allah have mercy on him, was asked: Who are the Sufis, and what is Islam’s stance toward them?

After defining the innovative forms of Sufism, he replied: “If a person’s asceticism does not lead him to what Allah has prohibited, does not add to the obligations prescribed by Allah, does not involve innovation, and he adheres to the Shari‘ah in his deeds and words, then such a person is praiseworthy. Examples include Al-Junayd ibn Muhammad, Abu Sulayman Al-Darani, Bishr Al-Hafi, and others who exerted themselves in worship and asceticism in worldly matters. These individuals are highly praised for their asceticism, desire for the Hereafter, and avoidance of innovation.”[54]

After presenting the points above, we say that even if we hypothetically concede that some contemporary scholars have criticized Sufism in its entirety, they were preceded in this view by eminent scholars—as previously mentioned—such as Ibn Al-Jawzi, his teacher Ibn Aqil, Al-Hafidh Al-Dhahabi, Al-Tartushi, Al-Qurtubi, Al-0Qadi Iyad, and many others. Thus, this is not an unprecedented stance. However, those who adopted a more balanced approach were Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Al-Qayyim, who we believe to have the correct and substantiated position on this matter.

Finally, we affirm that Salafis do not disregard Sufism in its proper Sunni framework. Instead, they refer to it as Tazkiyah (self-purification) or Raqa’iq (spiritual refinements). They emphasize cultivating the heart, strengthening conviction through contemplation of the Qur’an, the Prophet’s biography, the exemplary conduct of the chosen ones, and the lives of the righteous predecessors. They also teach books focused on asceticism and piety, such as Riyad As-Salihin by Al-Nawawi, and study texts on proper conduct free from innovation, such as Minhaj Al-Qasidin and its abridgment by Ibn Qudamah, Zad Al-Ma‘ad, Madarij As-Salikin, and At-Tibukiyyah by Ibn Al-Qayyim, among other beneficial works.

Thus, the dispute is reduced to a matter of terminology, and it is well known that there is no objection to differences in terminology. The fact that they use the term Tazkiyah instead of tasawwuf is of no consequence.

If the meaning of tasawwuf is indeed Tazkiyah, asceticism, spiritual refinement, and strengthening trust and certainty in Allah, then what could the criticism of the opponents of Salafism mean other than their focus on the innovative aspect of Sufism?

In conclusion, it becomes clear from the preceding discussion that Muslim scholars have held varying opinions regarding Sufism, ranging from outright condemnation to unqualified praise and a balanced and fair perspective. The reason for this disparity lies in the diverse beliefs and practices within Sufism, which range from moderation to deviation. It is evident that moderation was a prominent characteristic of the views held by Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Al-Qayyim, and Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab concerning tasawwuf. Their perspectives were marked by balance and moderation, emphasizing the importance of the spiritual and moral dimensions of moderate tasawwuf while stressing the necessity of adhering to the correct belief and the requirements of Shari‘ah.

We have also highlighted instances of mutual praise exchanged between the followers of Sheikh Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab and some fair-minded scholars of Sufism. Additionally, we have clarified that certain criticisms within contemporary Salafi circles primarily pertain to the widespread prevalence of superstitious practices that deviate from the essence of classical Sufism. These practices have significantly contributed to altering the concept of Sufism, transforming it into a realm of superstition and excessive innovations in later centuries.

May Allah send His blessings upon our Prophet Muhammad, his family, and his companions.

---

[1] Lisān al-Mīzān (4/158).

[2] See: Mughnī al-Muḥtāj by al-Sharbīnī (3/61).

[3] Mīzān al-I‘tidāl (3/215).

[4] Lisān al-Mīzān (6/125).

[5] Refer to: Tārīkh al-Islām (22/73).

[6] Refer to: Talbīs Iblīs (p. 12).

[7] Al-Suyūṭī said in his book Al-Taḥbīr fī ‘Ilm al-Tafsīr (p. 537): "It is strictly prohibited and strongly forbidden to interpret the Qur’an in a way that contradicts the essence of its words, as done by Ibn ‘Arabī, the innovator, to whom the book Fuṣūṣ al-Ḥikam is attributed—a work entirely filled with disbelief (kufr)."

[8] See: Talbīs Iblīs by Ibn al-Jawzī (p. 416).

[9] Refer to: Tafsīr al-Qurṭubī (11/238).

[10] Refer to: Al-Mi‘yār al-Mu‘rib (11/29). This excerpt was extracted by Shaykh Abū Aḥmad ‘Alī al-Kindī al-Marār and published in a treatise he titled Fatwā al-Mālikiyyah fī al-Ṣūfiyyah, printed by Dār al-Faḍīlah.

[11] Refer to: Siyar A‘lām al-Nubalā’ (19/327).

[12] Talbīs Iblīs (p. 145).

[13] Talbīs Iblīs (p. 158).

[14] Talbīs Iblīs (1/158).

[15] Siyar A‘lām al-Nubalā’ (21/376).

[16] Al-Mufhim limā Ashkala min Talkhīṣ Kitāb Muslim (2/534).

[17] Tafsīr al-Qurṭubī (4/315).

[18] Mīzān al-I‘tidāl (1/431).

[19] Siyar A‘lām al-Nubalā’ (19/340).

[20] Mīzān al-I‘tidāl (3/122).

[21] Fatwá al-Mālikiyyah fī Af‘āl al-Ṣūfiyyah (pp. 18–22).

[22] The matter is not as assumed by the lay opponents, who think the Ash‘arīs and Ṣūfīs are perfectly aligned. This assumption is inaccurate; full alignment between Ash‘arism and Ṣūfism did not occur until later periods.

[23] Al-Mawqiẓah (p. 88).

[24] Iqtidhā’ al-Ṣirāṭ al-Mustaqīm (3/19).

[25] Majmū‘ al-Fatāwá (14/176).

[26] Madārij al-Sālikīn (2/39).

[27] Majmū‘ Mu’allafāt al-Shaykh Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb (11/124).

[28] Majmū‘ Mu’allafāt al-Shaykh Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb (4/31).

[29] Mu’allafāt al-Shaykh al-Imām Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb (4/369).

[30] Al-Durar al-Saniyyah fī al-Ajwibah al-Najdiyyah (3/18).

[31] Risālah fī Mubāḥathah ma‘ Ahl Makkah (p. 65).

[32] Although some of these admirers agree on certain matters deemed as innovations by the Wahhabīs...

[33] Kitāb al-Ijāzah al-‘Ilmiyyah fī Najd: Qurā’ah Istiqrā’iyyah (2/518–521). See also the handwritten manuscript of the ijāzah by the grantor, preserved in Leiden Library under No. 2496.

[34] Idām al-Qūt fī Dhikr Buldān Ḥaḍramawt (pp. 656–657).

[35] Kitāb al-Īmān wal-Radd ‘alá Ahl al-Bida‘, part of Al-Rasā’il al-Najdiyyah (p. 24).

[36] Majallat al-Buḥūth al-Islāmiyyah, issue: Muḥarram–Jumādá al-Thāniyah, 1400 AH.

[37] Dār al-‘Ulūm Deoband: Madrasah Fikriyyah Tawjīhiyyah by Muḥammad ‘Ubayd Allāh al-As‘adī (pp. 740–741).

[38] Ibid. (pp. 741–742).

[39] D‘āyāt Mukaththafah Ḍidd al-Shaykh Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb (pp. 30–31).

[40] D‘āyāt Mukaththafah Ḍidd al-Shaykh Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb (pp. 93–98). Al-Shaykh al-Na‘mānī did not accurately clarify the Wahhabīs’ stance on addressing absent beings with intentions confined to the heart without seeking what only Allah can provide. The Wahhabīs do not deem this act as shirk. Al-Sahsawānī has explicitly mentioned this in his response to Dāḥlān. However, individual Wahhabīs may prohibit it due to the prevalence of excessive veneration in poetry. Determining the creed and forbidding something as a preventive measure are distinct matters.

[41] D‘āyāt Mukaththafah Ḍidd al-Shaykh Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb (pp. 98–99).

[42] Al-Fatāwá al-Rashīdiyyah (p. 237).

[43] Fatāwá Shaykh al-Islām al-Madanī (pp. 177–178).

[44] Al-Buḥūr al-Zākhirah fī ‘Ulūm al-Ākhirah (3/593).

[45] Āthār Muḥammad al-Bashīr al-Ibrāhīmī (5/141).

[46] From the lecture “Why Do They Oppose the Thought of Ibn Taymiyyah” by Dr. Muḥammad ‘Amārah, available at: YouTube link.

[47] Fatwá on the Reality of Ṣūfism by Dr. Muḥammad al-Masīr, in a television interview: YouTube link.

[48] Ḥuqūq al-Insān bayna Ta‘ālīm al-Islām wa I‘lān al-Umam al-Muttaḥidah (p. 220).

[49] Turāthunā al-Fikrī fī Mīzān al-Shar‘ wal-‘Aql (p. 60).

[50] ‘Aqīdat al-Muslim (p. 72).

[51] Sharḥ al-Arba‘īn al-Nawawiyyah (ḥadīth 5).

[52] Fatāwá wa Rasā’il al-Shaykh Muḥammad ibn Ibrāhīm (1/261).

[53] Liqa’āt al-Bāb al-Maftūḥ (21/131).

[54] Fatāwá Nūr ‘alá al-Darb (3/163).