The crucial role that Naqshbandi Sufis played in the fragmenting polities of the Indian and Central Asian Sultanates.
Sufis were never really just apolitical preachers that towed the line with Sultans. They were community leaders in the absolute sense and
and in times of crisis it was the Khanqahs where people sought refuge.
Sufis were also active players in colonial resistance and they were the last bastions to fall before colonial and post colonial states carved up communities for their own debauched ends
The disintegration of the traditional Indian Sufi orders is something that is glossed over in the discourses related to the effects of colonialism on Indian communities.
What this establishes without any doubt, is the fact that the Sultanate and Khanaqahs had a symbiotic relationship with one another.
The Sultanate depended on the Khanaqah for legitimacy while the Khanaqahs depended on the Sultanate for protection against foreign invaders.
The classical Naqshbandi Mujaddidis show the importance of having a scholastic institutionalization, being in-tune the spiritual discipline while having acute awareness of the social cultural norms of the communities they operated in.
Something most tariqas today lack.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
So the whole question that arises is whether Ibrahim(عَلَيْهِ ٱلصَّلَاةُ وَٱلسَّلَامُ) was being a so and so? (I am not going to utter those words)
Amina Wadud added her own spin on this and frankly speaking her framing from the start to finish is disrespectful and does not
warrant any sort of consideration.
Ibrahim(عَلَيْهِ ٱلصَّلَاةُ وَٱلسَّلَامُ) was a God fearing man who very much loved his son. When you are narrating the tale of our beloved Prophet to children, that is the first thing that you need to firmly establish.
The funny thing is Foudah does NOT really care about the Hanbalis so it stands to reason that he won't know many "real" Hanbali scholars.
I am pretty sure as an Ashari he finds the Mufawwid discourse rather anemic so he isn't really invested in their tradition.
It's not necessarily a bad thing to be honest.
It's the same reason why I don't watch Muslim debates against Apus or the other riff raff.
These conversations are done and dusted for me for over a decade ago.
The problem with Foudah is he prioritizes condemning a declining trend i.e. the Wahabbiya over tackling a rising trend i.e. the Zandiqa and bootlicking scholars who overturn the Shariah to please rulers.
Whether it's in Egypt, Jordan, Chechnya or even Saudi Arabia.
Imam Tahawi and Imam Maturidi were contemporaries.
Maturidis say that he was Maturidi. Salafis say he was Salafi(i.e. Athari).
Which is actually the truth?
Tahawi's core text is said to be the documentation of the Hanafi Aqeedah which could be traced all the way back to Abu Yusuf, Muhammad Al Shaybani and Abu Hanifa himself.
Salafis use the commentary of Ibn Abi Al Izz to affirm that Abu Hanifa was in fact Athari(Salafi).
However there are a few issues.
I say this prefacing with the fact Ibn Abi Al Izz was a far greater scholar than I'll ever be and whatever was done to him by his opponents is utterly disgraceful and condemnable.