This trend is visible in more than Islamic poetry: any spirituality that is not "secular" is seen as suspect and potential brainwashing. One can also see this kind of effect in "secular buddhism", which is presented as "the true message of the Buddha, with the archaic cultural baggage of antique India removed" - which forces to jump through some hoops, as the goal of Buddhism itself (ending rebirth) is seen as cultural baggage. Unfortunately, more often than not, it is just a way to avoid questioning one's own preconceptions and cultural baggage - that everything is "obviously" reducible to matter, that consciousness is "obviously" produced by physical processes in the brain...
Interestingly this is a theme one can find in Soufi literature: in the Conference of the Birds, from Persian author, and precursor to Rumi, Farid Ud-din Attar, there is the story of Archangel Gabriel seeing Allah deeply absorbed in listening to the prayer of a human. But when Gabriel searches, he cannot find who is this saint. Only when he finally searches outside of the Muslim world does he see that the prayer comes from an "Image Worshiper" (a sin in Islamic doctrine). What I get from this fable is that though the author recognizes the possibility for a human not exposed to the "true religion" to be of spiritual value, it can only happen if this human has a strong religious attitude of worship, prayer and devotion - he might pray to the "wrong" god, but with the right attitude. Which is kind of the opposite of taking out the religious elements - you might replace Allah by "the One" or "God" if this helps you resonate, but not dilute it in a vague formula such as "that which is good" or similar examples as described in the article.
I think I agree, but would like to point out an etymological thing: You speak of a distinction between "that which is good" and "God". But the words "good" and "God" sound similar for a reason. They originated as the same word.
This is really sad. While I am not a fan of Islam, the reason I dislike this is because Rumi and Sufism in general transcends Islam. His philosophy and poetry tell you that the Wahabi hardliner/literal interpretation of Islam is not ultimate or necessarily "true". When you erase Islam from Rumi's poetry, you erase that, too.
If you want to read Rumi in English, avoid anything by Coleman Barks like plague. Read translations by AJ Arberry, Reynold A Nicholson, or Jawid Mojaddedi.
The author is a researcher in religion science specialised in soufism, and he makes very clear and respectful videos about various traditions and authors. It definitely opened a lot the breadth of what I understand when people speak about "Islam".
One thing that always strikes me as a fascination is that oriental views of Islam always grasp at Shi'a and Sufism, and push aside to the authentic Islam.
There is a perception that there is a 50/50 split in sects for Islam. That is not true as 90% of Muslims are Sunni Muslims and 10% are Shia.
As for Sufism, this concept was not known to the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) and his companions. If it does not exist within the Qur'an and the authentic narrations/actions of the prophet, then it is a man made innovation to the religion.
If you want to learn about Islam, stay away from the small sects and divisions.
Sufism is extremely intertwined with mainstream Sunnism, which absorbed it. The mistake most people make, Muslim and non-Muslim, is to view Sufism as some sort of hippy feel-good Islam with less rules, less stricture, etc. It was, for most of its adherents for most of history, anything but, and a very large percentage of mainstream Sunni scholars during certain historical periods were members of Sufi tariqas.
> If it does not exist within the Qur'an and the authentic narrations/actions of the prophet
By this logic, the number of prayers, the full sets of rules for the method of prayer, the full of set of proper methods and rules for proper dhabh (animal slaughter), etc., would be an "innovations".
> If it does not exist within the Qur'an and the authentic narrations/actions of the prophet
>>By this logic, the number of prayers, the full sets of rules for the method of prayer, the full of set of proper methods and rules for proper dhabh (animal slaughter), etc., would be an "innovations".
If you say you are a mainstream Sunni Muslim (as in your other comment), why would you claim by my logic, the units of prayers and the method animal slaughter are innovations?
The command for prayer is in the Qur'an and how to pray is through the teachings and narrations of the prophet. So how are they innovations?
> If you say you are a mainstream Sunni Muslim (as in your other comment), why would you claim by my logic, the units of prayers and the method animal slaughter are innovations?
Because, unlike you, I don't think that their being somewhat reified and shaped by human decisions makes them invalid. You're the only one posting in this thread who wants to throw around the word like it's necessarily a bad thing and who seems to believe in the fantasy of "pure" religion versus religion that is necessarily at least partly the product of human hands.
Broadly:
This "Salafi" trend that is among the cornerstones of Wahhabism and that has infected the rest of Sunni Islam has a strict view of what counts as an invalid "innovation" in the religion. Yet at the same time, Salafis recognize they have no choice but to rely on the hadith literature and general practice because otherwise the religion as we know it would not exist. Of course, this is a problem and a contradiction because the hadith literature has weaknesses in the rigor of its methodology and had purposes that were related but still distinct from what modern Salafis are concerned with.
Ultimately, the very fact of their willingness to accept the literature is self-defeating and contradictory; this notion that there is some knowable, pristine, complete, etc., form of Islam (or religion in general) is of course silly in light of the fact that the hadith project needed to be undertaken by early Muslims in the first place. They did it because practices were disparate early on, certain clear moral and theological pronouncements were lacking, etc. We could go on and talk about the inception of the entire scholarly tradition of Islam, both Sunni and Shi'a, but I think the point is made.
Look at prayer for example. The Quran mentions 3. Muslims normatively believe 5 because of extra-Quranic material and practice. At the end of the day, believing 5 to be correct because of prophetic practice is an unquestionably human decision. If you look at hadith about how to pray, it's all piecemeal. Objectively, it's hardly confidence-inspiring. Could it have been that God didn't bother to set any clear pronouncement about how to pray even though He wanted it done in some super specific way? And do you honestly believe, any hadith notwithstanding, that the Prophet (SAW) prayed for peace and blessings upon himself and his family as part of ritual prayer? Or do you think it more likely that this developed as part of unending trend even within Sunni Islam, and which has been one of Wahhbism's most recurrent targets, to approach improper levels of veneration of the Prophet? (I actually agree with Wahhabis to a certain extent on this point, btw)
This leads me to the core issue (there are other more factual issues like the above, but they are all ancillary to the main point): what kind of view of God does one have? First of all, viewing God as rejecting any kind of devotion not specifically laid down in scripture is to ascribe to God a large degree of pettiness.
Secondly, viewing what we have in Islamic scripture and hadith literature as a wholly complete set of instructions that requires no further thought or supplementation is to ascribe to God practical incompetence because it clearly isn't. The fact that a lively and contentious intellectual tradition developed in both Sunni and Shi'a Islam in order to make further theological and philosophical inquiry, as well as address practical gaps, etc., is a testament to that fact, and the notion that they were all just merely applying the Quran to new situations in a rote and straight-forward manner is a fiction in which nobody who is familiar with the methods and output of the tradition can indulge, nor is that what the tradition itself claims or claimed (in fact, the latitude of human discretion was of course a subject of debate within the tradition). The view that this tradition is wrong to "add" things to some imaginary "pure" Islam is a) practically unworkable (as mentioned above w/r/t prayer, but the same goes for animal slaughter and a host of other things); b) factually ignorant and dismissive of the actual circumstances that led to the tradition's formation--i.e. why the tradition was necessary in the first place. I also think it's insulting to God, but I think that's too much to unpack here; c) is an insanely arrogant position w/r/t centuries of Islamic tradition, scholarship, and piety.
And again, the very notion that one way of praying, for example, is better than another, or that making x salutation upon the Prophet after prayer is invalid, or that saying x prayer as part of fasting during Ramadan is impermissible--all of that attributes to God a pettiness that is insulting to Him.
Those in the tradition who had to make judgment calls and attempt to develop the tradition were acting righteously if their effort was honest, even if their decisions ultimately led to "innovations". And it is proper to defer to their judgments and decisions as part of wanting to be among those who worship God not because they are necessarily objectively correct, but for reasons of humility and because this is the best we can do. So no, even though I genuinely don't believe the Prophet himself prayed salutations upon himself or his family during prayer, I don't think this part of the prayer is an "innovation" that needs to be discarded, and the same goes for a host of other things. And I think that a peasant in Pakistan who prays at a shrine for the intercession of a saint but who is otherwise pious is not hell-bound.
Moreover--and this is a major point--it mistakes the point of all of this. Moral judgment is to be exercised and developed. The world is a moral test, which requires not being an automaton who executes some prescribed set of rituals as if they are magic invocations to collect heaven points, but actually being a good person. What is the nature of the character of a person in, say, Saudi Arabia, where the social pressure to go to the masjid is massive so they go, and engaging in various manner of major sin is difficult and risky, so they refrain, versus the soul of a Muslim elsewhere in the world who may falter in their adherence because they live in a society where various things Islam considers sinful are more prevalent, so they occasionally slip up? It is likely to me the latter is in a superior position. For the former is a moral dunce whose moral and ethical acumen have never been developed, and whose moral muscles were never exercised. As a Muslim, one meets these kinds of people all the time. If their soul and consciousness were transplanted to a body and persona in a different time and place, they would just do whatever everyone else around them does all the same. There is no actual morality to speak of. Their is no discernment, no knowledge of ethical dilemmas, no ability to ponder them, no understanding of why an action is good or why another is bad, no actual discipline in restraining appetites, etc.
I've deviated from my major point here and given you an earful, but to reiterate: the line between an "innovation" and stuff you consider an "authentic" tradition is extremely blurry and to claim otherwise is indicative either of ignorance of the Islamic tradition and its history or plain self-deception/stubbornness.
That is not to say that there is no such thing as an invalid "innovation"--I too do not normatively support saint veneration of the kind of alluded to above. But I suppose I would say the line is at what is theologically definitely impermissible.
I think that the interest in Sufism comes from the fact that people interested in learning about various religions tend to be of mystical personality, in the sense that they are interestes in mystery and contemplation. This is why we (I am definitely fit this description) tend to be attracted to traditions that are mystical/contemplative in nature: Sufism, mystic Catholicism, Buddhism, Daoism...
I personally think that it is fine, as long as one respects the right for others to be attracted to other teachings.
I want to address the use of terminology like Whabi, hardliner, conservative, literalists etc. It is a orientalists way of looking at Islam. Already it bakes in the narrative that not changing
your religion to align with western values = stubborn = conservative = backwards = bad
Islam does not change and will not change. It is the highest level of cognitive dissonance to believe in the creator of the heavens and Earth. That has created the universe and everything in it, yet human legislation and morality is better and conginizant to what God has given. This is a contradiction for those who subscribe to "progressive" Islam.
A common quip against religion is saying how they are following a "man made religion". It becomes man made if it is free to change with the times. Things can be added and subtracted. This is really wrong and that is how you end up with humans corrupting religion.
This is why Muslims are serious in their religion. They do not wish to bend and water down their religion with whatever mortality is currently trending.
The way you use orientalist seems like a strawman to me. I am all about being careful of orientalism as a search for exotism rather than serious intellectual and spiritual inquiry. But using terms such as "wahabi" or "conservative" is not necessarily judgmental (maybe a bit in OP's message, but even there I would avoid overinterpreting) - they just describe a particular stance regarding the scriptures. While it is true that muslim literalism has bad reputation in the West, using the term can be done outside of a progressist normative framework.
My understanding is that Wahabism is a very important aspect of modern Islam, even in countries of Soufi tradition, auch as Morocco. As a mystically inclined person it rubs me the wrong way, but I am fine with anyone deciding to follow that path.
It seems however to be fundamentalist in the bad sense of the word to assume that the Wahabi doctrine is the only proper interpretation of Islam. Wahabism is a relatively recent (and human!) creation, and multiple and conflicting interpretations of the scriptures are part of Islam since its very beginning - just take the Shia vs Sunni interpretations as an example. Even assuming that the Q'ran is God's word and the ultimate truth, we are still only imperfect humans trying to interpret it. Any interpretation in itself can only be imperfect, and it is the sign of a healthy tradition when conflicting interpretations can coexist and cross-fertilize. The humility that is part of devotion should also allow to be humble about one's own capacity to understand the truth.
The thing is that Muslims don't follow Whabisim. They follow the Qur'an and the authentic teachings of the prophet.
Sufis in Arabia were worshiping saints and graves. Basically completely off the rails and contradictory to the Quran. Abdl-al-Wahabb called for people to return back to Islam through the Qur'an and authentic teachings of the prophet. The people who opposed this called him a Whabi.
The proper doctorine of Islam is the Qur'an and the authentic teachings of the prophet. Going beyond this is man made corruption of the religion.
An analogy would be that the the equation for general relativity is e=mc² . Suppose over time this was distorted to e=abc³ . If I come and correct people to return to Einstein's papers and understanding of relativity, I haven't create a new interpretation of phsyics. If people realise this and go back to the original equation, physicists are following Einstein, not myself.
Muslims do not care about the term or person Whabi because it is irrelevant to practicing Islam.
Muslims who like to diligently practice Islam from the Qur'an and the prophet are Muslims, not Whabbi.
Pretty sure I just spotted the wahabi. Not sure why wahabis are against the term wahabi. Wahabis follow Islam according to the teachings of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab right?
If a Muslim prays 5 times a day, fasts in Ramadan, has a beard, wears a hijab. Practices Islam according to the Qur'an and the teachings of the Prophet, are they a Whabbi?
It has become a derogatory term to describe practicing Muslims and the "good" Muslims are the ones who are liberal in their views and follow western values. Otherwise they are so called "conservative", "Whabi, "hardliner".
Muslims do not know who this person is. He is a footnote in history and people do not learn/practice Islam from his books. They do it through the Qur'an and the authentic teachings and actions of the prophet which is the authoritative source on Islam.
This is my frustration. A boogeyman word to describe normal Muslims when they practice Islam as it was practiced by the prophet 1400 years ago.
>If a Muslim prays 5 times a day, fasts in Ramadan, has a beard, wears a hijab.
This is not what makes someone a wahabi, you're strawmanning. These qualifications you mention are basically common denominators among all muslims. Again, what makes someone a wahabi is having beliefs as taught by Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab. For example, being against the maddhab system.
It is not an "orientalist" way of looking at Islam. These are real distinctions that exist. For example, Wahhabism is distinctly opposed to and critical of a lot of the rest of the Sunni Muslim tradition and intellectual history, many adherents of which (and it sounds like this group includes you)[1] have started to label themselves "ahl al-sunnah" in order to distinguish themselves from numerous other positions, ranging from violent Islamic extremists with extremely literalist interpretations of the Quran and Sunnah to highly reformist modernists of various persuasions.
At the end of the day, much of what anyone labels as Islam is highly man-made. To claim otherwise is to be either extremely unfamiliar with the Islamic intellectual tradition and the religion's history or disingenuous. I say this as an adherent of mainstream Sunni Islam.
[1] This was a mistake; as the other person said, you are probably a Wahhabi.
Statistically, the number of Muslims in America seems to be stable, accounting for those who convert to and away from Islam[0]. It doesn’t look like it’s dying to me.
Interestingly this is a theme one can find in Soufi literature: in the Conference of the Birds, from Persian author, and precursor to Rumi, Farid Ud-din Attar, there is the story of Archangel Gabriel seeing Allah deeply absorbed in listening to the prayer of a human. But when Gabriel searches, he cannot find who is this saint. Only when he finally searches outside of the Muslim world does he see that the prayer comes from an "Image Worshiper" (a sin in Islamic doctrine). What I get from this fable is that though the author recognizes the possibility for a human not exposed to the "true religion" to be of spiritual value, it can only happen if this human has a strong religious attitude of worship, prayer and devotion - he might pray to the "wrong" god, but with the right attitude. Which is kind of the opposite of taking out the religious elements - you might replace Allah by "the One" or "God" if this helps you resonate, but not dilute it in a vague formula such as "that which is good" or similar examples as described in the article.