Things do seem to be changing. A shaikh in Bahrain told me recently that he attended a very large mawlid in Riyadh, in the heart of Najd, not long ago.

"Suf's up"? Good lord, how do you sleep at night?

Good lord, how do you sleep at night?

It's something his colleagues ask themselves as well.

"Suf's up"? Good lord, how do you sleep at night?

Hey, look. If puns were outlawed, only outlaws would have puns.

Typical idealistic American libertarians. Puns should be properly regulated and only in the hands of properly trained users.

Err...did the font get changed recently ? No like. No like. My eyes...it burns !!!

Seriously, I'm squinting now to read this.

Mark

You should try reading online Arabic text if you want to go blind. For some reason font mapping always seems to two sizes smaller than its Roman equivalent.

I actually use a seperate browser set to enlarge to prevent blindness.

However, see our benevolent and gracious dictator's note on redesigning 'Aqoul. As she runs things, of course her call, but as we are nominally market-driven types, feed back is welcome.

It may be ignored of course.

(Of course your site could use a make over in this area, bloody fonts used are too clunky. But then I like small fonts.)

Returning to serious notes.

I believe it would be helpful for the less initiated readers to note the following:

First, Sufism is often rather stupidly, clumsily and generally incorrectly described as an entity in itself within Islam (as in contrasting Sunnis with Sufis). Christians or Westerners are likely better to understand Sufism as a style of worship, rather than a branch as often characterised. Something like Evangelical (as used in North America) versus high church.

Of course the term, even in Arabo-Islamic usage covers a lot of territory (and undoubtedly some Sufi orders on the fringes passed well-beyond orthodoxy), but certainly in the Arab world most Sufi practice occurs in conjunction with perfectly orthodox Sunni communities (well perfectly from a reasonable point of view, obviously those of the Ibn Wahhab mind set think otherwise) and general practice.

Mawlids (also Maulid, Maoulids / Maoulides, etc) literally means "birthday" - they typically celebrate 'Saints' (I think the concept is reasonably close to the generic Xian concept to be the same) birthdays.

Terribly popular in North Africa, I just realised I can't recall ever hearing the term used much in the East. Odd that.

Some further reflexion since I can't bloody sleep (being in the phase post chemo of shedding throat and gum lining):

Reading the arty I was intrigued. Certainly it could be a momentary respite, or perhaps opening up more freedom for at least some....

And to leave aside my expertness - I am curious as to whether the Sufi orders of the Peninsula have tended to be divided among Shia or Sunni. Memory vaguely tells me that in Mesopotamia some orders have bridged the two.

I've been an admirer of Sufism for many years. This is good news indeed!

Lounsbury, if we're talking about popular Sufism, then yes, it might make sense to view at as a "style of worship". However if we're talking about Sufism within traditional orthodox Sunnism then it would be more appropriate to view it as a discipline within Islam. Sufism/Ihsan is just one of the subjects that would make up a typical traditional Sunni curriculum, alongside subjects like jurisprudence, theology, hadith, logic, grammar, etc.

And obviously the dividing line between popular Sufism and high Sufism is quite blurry.

Anyways, when I asked that Bahraini shaikh about how the authorities allowed a mawlid in Riyadh, he told me that there were several "high-up" people in attendance, so the mutawwas "wouldn't dare touch it". It would seem then that they have some supporters high up in the Saudi establishment.

Col wrote:

"(Of course your site could use a make over in this area, bloody fonts used are too clunky. But then I like small fonts.)"

You are quite right. There is a great deal of variance on the appearance of zenpundit depending on the browser and the whole Blogger thing is amaterish.

On the bright side, this is being worked on and the basic design for a new movable type version is finished. It will be a much more aesthetic presentation when it is up, however the databases, moving the archives etc. have yet to be done. As I am getting all this work for free, I'm in no position to rush the process.

Oh,and my comment wasn't meant to knock Miss eerie - Aqoul is very impressively designed. One of the few blogs that are clean and thematically coherent without all kinds of business in the margins - her new font just has me contemplating bifocals :O)

I changed it back to Arial because I like you.

Glad to hear you're moving to MT. Definitely more versatile.

Saudis can't even pretend to get along with the shiite sect, choosing to sequester them off in Hasa and Qateef. Then the kids come to town for college where they get the star muslim treatment--everything short of being spit at.
I don't believe anything is being increasingly tolerated in Saudi for the simple fact that tolerance is as foreign as Please and thank you in that town.

The "mawlid" usually refers to a celebration of the Prophet Muhammad's birthday, by reciting poems in praise of him, etc. Some say that Muslims are supposed to love and respect the Prophet, and this is simply a demonstration of that love. Others say that these celebrations weren't something that is mentioned in the Quran and Sunnah, or done by his Companions, so they shouldn't be done now.

Any Sufi organization that follows shariah couldn't be Sunni and Shia at the same time. There are others which call themselves "Sufi" which aren't grounded in the Shariah, though.

Some policy papers (like that of the Rand Corporation and one written for the British government) argue that Sufis are less "dangerous" and therefore recommend that they be given support, which is probably why we're hearing more about them these days.

Gracias, eerie. Much better.

If I'm fortunate, the new site will be up circa July. Or not. But when it is you can give it a professional critique.

Ann

The "mawlid" usually refers to a celebration of the Prophet Muhammad's birthday, by reciting poems in praise of him, etc.

In the Machriq perhaps it is usually. The Maghreb has lots of other Maoulids.

Some say that Muslims are supposed to love and respect the Prophet, and this is simply a demonstration of that love. Others say that these celebrations weren't something that is mentioned in the Quran and Sunnah, or done by his Companions, so they shouldn't be done now.

Well, Salafi prigs say lots of things.

Any Sufi organization that follows shariah couldn't be Sunni and Shia at the same time. There are others which call themselves "Sufi" which aren't grounded in the Shariah, though.

Rubbish. Certainly if one is of a Salafiste persuasion, but I see no reason to state "following shariah" excludes Sunni-Shia cross polination. Whose Shariah, of course.

Some policy papers (like that of the Rand Corporation and one written for the British government) argue that Sufis are less "dangerous" and therefore recommend that they be given support, which is probably why we're hearing more about them these days.

I very much doubt that.

Soufisme has long held a fascination for the West - and in fact I think objectively more colourful than the dour Salafiste style being pimped by the Puritans.

"In the Machriq perhaps it is usually. The Maghreb has lots of other Maoulids."

The shia of the machriq have other maulids too, the prophet's being the biggest. Other maulids include the 15th of ramadan (ali's maulid) and 15th of sha'ban (12th imam's maulid). I am also pretty sure that shia have a different date for the prophet's maulid than the sunnis. If the salfists hold that one maulid against sufis, imagine what they would do to the shia.

Lounsbury, I realize that "mawlid" just means birthday, and in various places, the birthdays of various people are celebrated. What I meant was that when I read "A shaikh in Bahrain told me recently that he attended a very large mawlid in Riyadh, in the heart of Najd, not long ago", I assume that's talking about THE mawlid, which is the Prophet's birthday, which was not long ago (and I think Ali's right that Sunnis and Shias use difefrent dates).

Can you explain how a group that adheres to shariah can be Sunni and Shia at the same time? How do they pray? Do they pay zakat or khams? Which ahadith do they accept? Do they revere the first three Caliphs or consider them to be apostates? Do they believe in the twelve imams or not? Do they spend the day of Ashura fasting or bloodletting? Etc., etc... Sorry, but if you're a practicing Muslim, you can't be Sunni and Shia at the same time.

Ann-
I think you're getting this wrong. Nobody is claiming they are both shia and sunni at the same time. But that some sufi orders span the sunni/shia divide ie. they have both shia and sunni followers. How is this against sharia again?

I can see you're a little misinformed about shia in general. I think you've said once that you live in kuwait. Go on and ask someone if you like.
As to sharia. To quote L 'Whose sharia?' If they are sunni they are following their sharia and if they are shia they are following their sharia. So in a sense, they are both following sharia.
Unless of course you are one of those salafi prigs and you believe that shia are not 'really' muslims and not 'really' following sharia. Then please spare me your thoughts.

I thought it was quite common for (dedicated, self-identified) Sufis to claim that it's not relevant to identify as Sunni or Shi'a; that there's no need for sects; that "we're all believers", etc. Granted, I haven't met too many of those, and maybe they were all of some hippie liberal tariqa -- and you do hear this a lot from non-Sufi Muslims too. Anyway, it has no relevance to the question of shari'a, it's just about self-identification.

(Btw, what a relief to see someone else complain about the small font sizes in online Arabic. I thought I was going insane.)

Here we go again... don't agree, throw the "Salafi" or "Wahhabite" label (again, let me say that I'm neither)... well, at least it's not another obscenity.

Anyway, what I said was that if a Sufi group is one that adheres to shariah, they have to pick one or the other (Shia or Sunni); if they're one that doesn't adhere to shariah, then it wouldn't matter. That seems pretty clear.

dear ann,

you seem to be under the impression that a sufi group has to make a "group" decision as to (a) whether or not they adhere to shari'a and (b) if so, then which one - sunni (and then which of the 4 madhaahib) or shi'i (thankfully there's only one madhhab).

well, IF that is the case you're wrong. first of all - NO sufi group would say that their members should not follow shari'a just like no group would say that the qur'an is optional ... now, there are some turuq whose members happen to be of the same background (hanafi sunni, for example) but there are other turuq who are open to every muslim regardless whether s/he is sunni or shi'ite or other muslim subcategories.

to sum it up: a sufi tariqa does not HAVE to make a decision which shari'a its members have to follow.

if you have any further questions, please do not let some other commenters exasperation-induced unpleasantnesses deter you from asking them. after all, allahu ma'a al-saabiriin.

--raf*

Well it's Anne the neo Salafi again.

Here we go again... don't agree, throw the "Salafi" or "Wahhabite" label (again, let me say that I'm neither)... well, at least it's not another obscenity.

Say whatever the fuck you want, if the motherfucking shoe fits, the label goes with it.

Your comments fit the typical fucking neo-Salafi prig blather, whether you like it or not.

Now, onto this piece of wonderful idiocy, demonstrating either your inability to comprehend what you read, or your inability to comprehend any facts outside your narrow priggish vision:
Anyway, what I said was that if a Sufi group is one that adheres to shariah, they have to pick one or the other (Shia or Sunni); if they're one that doesn't adhere to shariah, then it wouldn't matter. That seems pretty clear.

No, it ain't clear.

First, of course, as our dear faqih has put it, the tariqa doesn't have to require its followers to follow a particular flavour of (or point of view on) sharia.

Second, it is perfectly possible - and it happens - for a tariqa not to take a point of view on specific issues, as nit-picking legalisms are considered by some to get in the way of the path to God. Some.

As for the faqih: yeah, well, it's not written God is with the reading comprehension impaired priggish dingbats, so I'll suck up this sin.

Oh and alle:(Btw, what a relief to see someone else complain about the small font sizes in online Arabic. I thought I was going insane.) Nope, it's bloody irritating, but that's how the fonts map.... drives me batty. However, a browser dedicated to Arabic site reading solved the abuse of my poor eyes for me.

Thanks for your note, raf*. Let me just copy what it is I originally wrote:

"Any Sufi organization that follows shariah couldn't be Sunni and Shia at the same time. There are others which call themselves 'Sufi' which aren't grounded in the Shariah, though."

To be honest, what I said seems pretty clear, and I'm not sure why it's so controversial.

I didn't say "that a sufi group has to make a 'group' decision as to (a) whether or not they adhere to shari'a and (b) if so, then which one - sunni (and then which of the 4 madhaahib) or shi'i (thankfully there's only one madhhab)."

I said that a group which is based on shariah - and not all of them are - can't be Sunni and Shia at the same time. I didn't say that they have to all follow the same madhab.

But friends of mine belong to tariqas which are known for being grounded in shariah (like Shadhili), and Sufism is not something that's divorced from that. The first things that they have to master are the basics, like ablution and prayers, etc.; that comes before anything else. They can choose to follow any of the four madhabs though (I'm talking about Sunnis).

"NO sufi group would say that their members should not follow shari'a just like no group would say that the qur'an is optional"

I agree that no real Sufi group would say that, because as Chanad said, it's actually "a discipline within Islam". But there are some new-age kind of groups out there calling themselves "Sufi" which claim that followers don't even have to be Muslim.

"if you have any further questions, please do not let some other commenters exasperation-induced unpleasantnesses deter you from asking them."

Thanks... Actually, I'm pretty familiar with some of the tariqas, and if I had questions, I would go to friends who were members of them, or to their sheikhs.

Not sure what causes the unpleasantness you mention, but if there were ever someone who needed some Sufi teaching, it would be him...

dear ann,

your wording was misleading. when you say "any sufi organization that follows the sharia" it sounds like the organization itself is deciding whether to follow sharia or not, which - as you seem to actually know - is not the case.

every sufi is muslim. one cannot be a sufi without being a muslim. now, the label "sufi" isn't copyright-protected and hence there's no way to prevent non-muslims from calling themselves sufis. but that's like madonna calling herself a kabbalist - it's ridiculous but it's also a (almost) free world.

some sufi groups may emphasize the shari'a aspect more than others. but none of them have the option to ignore or dismiss the basic tenets of islam - like the five pillars or following shari'a. now, interpretation of how exactly one should do prayers or what is permissible vary among different turuq - just think about the fact that some turuq hold that music is forbidden while for others music is an essential part of dhikr. but all are within the main dogmas of islam.

that's what i meant. your phrasing was unclear and since at aqoul we've encountered our fair share of narrowminded people everyone's salafist alarm went off.

oh well ... if your interpretation/understanding of the universe is correct then you'll be going to heaven and others to hell. if not ... tough luck.

(sorry - i can't seem to find the irony font in which that last paragraph was meant to be set.)

--raf*

I can accept that one HAS to be a Muslim to be a Sufi. However, one does not have to be a Muslim to be greatly influenced by Sufism. Look at Buddhism, and Zen. Both of those faiths say that you can be any religion you want, and employ many aspects of the teachings of Buddhism and Zen in those religions. It's this kind of flexibility which is why Buddhism has been able to grow so fast, and over so many continents, without nearly as much resistance as Islam. It is the inflexibility of Islam ("you HAVE to be Muslim to be a sufi) which has caused so much resistance and violence in its history.

What the bloody fuck are you on about you ignorant git? This sort of ignoramus idiocy I can accept that one HAS to be a Muslim to be a Sufi. However, one does not have to be a Muslim to be greatly influenced by Sufism. Look at Buddhism, and Zen. Both of those faiths say that you can be any religion you want, and employ many aspects of the teachings of Buddhism and Zen in those religions. It's this kind of flexibility which is why Buddhism has been able to grow so fast, and over so many continents, without nearly as much resistance as Islam. It is the inflexibility of Islam ("you HAVE to be Muslim to be a sufi) which has caused so much resistance and violence in its history.

Sufism began and is fundamentally a Muslim current. Like Christian estatics and charismatics, for example.

The word as its core meaning applies to a Muslim charismatic and spiritualist strain: your argument - based on incredibly ignorant blithering on, Bhuddism met plenty of bloody opposition and was rather bloodily opposed by Hindu rivalists you stupid ignorant bigoted moron - is like saying "You don't have to be a Christian to be a Franciscan"

Well, certainly one can be inspired by say Franciscan thought and perhaps one might see a large number of non-Christians for some reason calling themselves Franciscans, but it remains a Catholic, Roman, Xian body at its heart.

I wonder where they find subliterate idiots like you.

I wonder where they find subliterate idiots like you.

Like Athena, they sprout from Bernard Lewis' head, fully formed.