Topic: Martin Lings, Nuh Ha Mim Keller and others

[alurdumaaniyy]

This document contains evidence about the pseudo Sufi teachings of Martin Lings and his sheikh ‘Ahmad al^alâwiyy, the latter being also in Nuh Ha Mim  Keller’s chain as asserted by him: “The order's spiritual line is thus from Sheikh 'Abd al- Rahman al-Shaghouri, from Muhammad Sa'id al-Kurdi, from Muhammad al-Hashimi, from Ahmad al-'Alawi *…” Keller claims to have received the Shâdhiliyy tarîqah through these people. It is yet but a draft version.

*Page 89 of his book entitled: THE SHADHILI TARIQA Notes from the Hashimi-Darqawi Order of the Tariqa of Imam Abul Hasan al-Shadhili, Compiled with the Permission of Sheikh 'Abd al-Rahman al-Shaghouri by Nuh Ha Mim Keller

[alurdumaaniyy]

First a reminder of what scholars and real Sufis actually say about the beliefs in wahdatu lwujûd, hulûl (incarnation) or ittihâd (being united with God):

Muhyiddîn ibn al^Arabiyy wrote in “AlFutûhât alMakkiyyah”, in the chapter of the secrets: “Whoever believes in hulûl is mistaken and nobody proclaims it possible to be united to Allâh, without being an apostate”. The text is related by ^AbdulWahhâb ashSha^râniyy in his book ‘AlYawâqît walJawâhir fî ^Awâqidi l'akâbir’, from an authentic version of Ibn al^Arabiyy’s work which he found at the house of Sheikh 'Abû  Tâhir alMaghribiyy, in Makkah.

Sheikh ^Abdullâh alHarariyy, master of the Rifâ^iyy, Qâdiriyy and Naqshbandi orders, gave advice in Sha^bân 1417 to a brother in France who wanted to meet people believing in wahdatu lwujûd. This is the translation of his words, from Arabic:
“If he can speak with them, let him tell the person who invites to the belief of wahdatu lwujûd or divine incarnation (hulûl) that this is delusion and false, that it contradicts what the leader of the Sufis alJunayd declared: “tawhîd is to proclaim that the One who has no beginning is separated from creations”. This statement goes against the beliefs of wahdatu lwujûd and incarnation. Islam only becomes real through tawhîd and this is what Sufis quoted in the epistle of alQushayriyy asserted, seventy Sufis, famous Sufis who were unanimous on this point and on the fact that Sufism stands on tawhîd. As their master Junayd alBaghdâdiyy said: “Tawhîd is to proclaim that the One who has no beginning is separated from creations” so what contradicts this is not part of Sufism. It is not permissible to rely on “alFutûhâtu lMakkiyyah” for it contains contradictory statements, declaring in one place “unity” (wahdah) and incarnation to be wrong while proclaiming in another place that Allâh and the universe are united and saying somewhere else that Allâh is the origin from which the universe emanated. Just as seeds thrown on the earth which, from one grain produce several other grains, they compared Allâh with a seed from which many grains sprout. This goes against what Allâh said: “Nothing is like unto Him” (meaning of sura ashShûrà: 11) so this belief is against Islam.

Imâm 'Ahmad arRifâ^iyy (radiya-llâhu ^anhu) said: “two statements make a breach in our religion: claiming that Allâh and creation are one and rambling beyond the boundary of celebrating one’s grace.”

Sheikh 'Ahmad alHârûn adDimashqiyy, whose sainthood and dignity is known (it was known that he used to talk to Muhyiddîn ibn al^Arabiyy and give him spiritual lectures), said that “alFutûhâtu lMakkiyyah” contain many forgeries. Many people bore witness of this, among them sheikh Muhammad ashSharîf and alHâjj Munîr ashSharîf.” End of the advice of sheikh ^Abdullâh alHarariyy, with the seal of sheikh Husâmuddîn Qarâqîrah, Allâh bless both of them.

Sheikh Muhammad alHâmid (rahimahu-llâh), when he denounced the pseudo Sufis of his time wrote in his letter  to sheikh Muhammad 'Abu nNasr several points upon which he had found them to contradict Islam, the fifth one was the belief in wahdatu lwujûd, against which he wrote a whole chapter entitled: “Refutation of those who profess wahdatu lwujûd”, which he explains as believing “that this universe, with its animated and non-animated beings, is divine altogether, and that God is its soul (rûh). This is absolutely kufr, for it is an incarnation (hulûl) which believers reject and declare kufr. As for the poetry and prose which I found about incarnation, there is plenty of it. There is a sentence attributed to the author of ‘al'Insânu lKâmil’ which says that Christians did kufr only because they reduced the extent of divinity to Christ and his mother (peace be upon them), and that it is because of this restriction that they committed kufr, and that they left the Unitarian movement which believes that divinity extends to everything. This statement, whatever interpretation I could give to it, was undoubtedly forged against him.” What pseudo Sufis say about Christians implies that they went out of Islam when they started adopting the theology of Paul of Tarsus instead of  Neoplatonic philosophy: that does not make sense.

In  “^Uqûdu l’Alâs biManâqibi l'Imâmi l^Ârifi lHabîb 'Ahmadu bnu Hasan al^Attâs”, you will find that Sheikh Zayn Dahlân, mufti of the Shâfi^is in Makkah said: “Sheikh ’Ahmad arRamliyy was questioned about the person who professes wahdatu lwujûd, so he declared that this apostate should be killed and his body thrown to the dogs, for this belief does not allow any safe interpretation, and its kufr is worse than the kufr of Jews and Christians” (this sentence is applied in countries where Islamic Law rules). It is reported that when Sheikh ibn Hajar learned about this fatwa, he was very pleased.

Not to mention the most useful clarification of the Qâdiriyy Sufi and Scholar 'Ahmad asSirhindi (rahimahu-llâh) where he reduces wahdatu lwujûd to the confusion of ill disciplined would be Sufis who could not cope with what they experienced and went astray.

[alurdumaaniyy]

This is now the book of Martin Lings whidh disciples of Nuh Ha Mâm keller and other Shadhili claimants are encouraged to read:

They wrote :

A SUFI SAINT
OF THE TWENTIETH
CENTURY
Shaikh Ahmad al-‘Alawî

HIS SPIRITUAL HERITAGE AND LEGACY
BY
MARTIN LINGS

Chapter III called : “SEEN FROM WITHIN”

P59 (L21), he wrote: “For although the Divine Nature of the Saint is Eternal and does not develop, his human nature is subject to time  and may not be able to adapt itself in one day to the Supreme Presence, especially in cases where the spiritual journey has been completed with phenomenal  speed as it almost certainly was in the case of the Shaikh Al-`Alawî.”  Had Martin Lings learned according to tradition, the tradition of ‘Ahlu sSunnah walJamâ^ah, he would have known that we never use the word “nature” about Allâh. God does not have a nature for the nature of a thing is what it cannot help but be, like the sun which shines or animals which breath by nature. This use of the word nature is not uncommon among al^Alâwiyy’s, disciples since we also find Nuh Ha Mim Keller writing: “the nature of the Divine” in one of his articles .*

*  Nuh Ha Mim Keller  wrote: “On the validity of all religions in the thought of ibn Al-'Arabi and Emir 'Abd al-Qadir” a letter to `Abd al-Matin”  

To be continued 'in shâ'a-llâh

[alurdumaaniyy]

Page 60* Martin Lings quotes al^Alâwiyy talking about his spiritual evolution, saying: “Another result of the invocation was that I understood more than the literal sense of the text. In a word, there was no comparison between the understanding which I now had and that which I had before, and its scope went on increasing, until when anyone recited a passage from the Book of God, my wits would jump to solve the riddle of its meaning with amazing speed a the very moment  of recitation.”

Keep in mind the fact that Mr Keller's disciples are reportedly encouraged to read Martin Lings's book who was a direct witness of al^Alâwiyy's word, then compare this with Nuh Ha Mim Keller’s statement on literalism and Sufism: “…The second is ta'wil or adopting particular figurative interpretations for apparently metaphorical expressions of Koran and hadith … the way of the Sufis is a second form of exegesis; namely, tafwid or the simple acceptance of scriptural expressions as they have come, while acknowledging Allah's absolute transcendence beyond created things”**  . Al^Alâ^wiyy is reported in Lings’s book to have much indulged into interpretation.

*In his book called  "A Sufi Saint of teh Twantieth Century"
**Page 19 of his book entitled: THE SHADHILI TARIQA Notes from the Hashimi-Darqawi Order of the Tariqa of Imam Abul Hasan al-Shadhili, Compiled with the Permission of Sheikh 'Abd al-Rahman al-Shaghouri by Nuh Ha Mim Keller.

[alurdumaaniyy]

Where Lings Taught the Doctrine of Wahdatu lwujûd

Mr Lings wrote:
CHAPTER V
ONENESS OF BEING

Notice the manipulation of the Qur'ânic texts Martin Lings indulged in, the distortion of their meaning, when he wrote on page 121 and 122:
“… , no one should be surprised to find that the doctrine of the Oneness of Being (Wahdat al-Wujûd) which holds a central place in all the orthodox mysticisms of Asia, holds an equally central place in Sufism."

No it is not, but he did want to believe it and so do the other disciples of al'Alawi such as Nuh Ha Mim Keller. By writing it in his book he hopes to have readers accept this premise.

He carries on saying: "As it is to be expected in view of its centrality, some of the most perfect, though elliptical, formulations of this doctrine are to be found in the Qoran, which affirms expressly: Wheresoe’er ye turn, there is the Face of God (note 2: II, 115). Everything perisheth but His Face. (note 3: XXVIII,88 ) All that is therein (note 4: in the created universe.) suffereth extinction, and there remaineth the Face of thy Lord in Its Majesty and Bounty (note 5: LV,26-7.)."

This is typical pseudo Sufi interpretation but you do not find it in orthodox tafîr.

Notice also his use of the word "face" to translate Arabic "wajh", which simply does not give the same meaning.

He carries on saying: "… In It, that is, in the Eternal Now and Infinite Here, all that is perishable has ‘already’ perished, all that is liable to extinction has ‘already’ been extinguished leaving only God, and it is to this Divine Residue, the Sole Lord of the present, that the word remaineth refers in the last quoted Qoranic verse. From this verse, amongst others, come the two Sufic terms fanâ’ (extinction) and baqâ’ (remaining)1 which  express respectively the Saint’s extinction in God and his Eternal Life in God, or rather as God."

This is the doctrine of Wahdatu lwujûd Sufis have been warning against. Even the term "fanâ'" has been hijacked and given a false meaning. Imam alQushayriyy in his Risâlah made a glossary of Sufi terms for the very purpose of preventing fake Sufis from deceiving people with this kind of distortion.

He carries on saying: "The doctrine of Oneness of Being is also implicit in the Divine Name of al-Haqq, the Truth, the Reality, for there could be no point in affirming Reality as an essential characteristic of Godhead if anything other than God were real. The word ‘Being’ expresses this Absolute Reality, for it refers to That  which is, as opposed to that which is not, and Oneness of Being is the doctrine that behind the illusory veil of created plurality there lies the one Divine Truth – not that God is made up of parts, but that underlying each apparently separate feature of the created universe there is the One Infinite Plenitude of God in His Indivisible Totality”

And this is why the doctrine of Wahdatu lwujûd is so often compared with Hinduism. Actually the Internet is full of claims by Hindus that Sufism comes from their religion, because of the doctrine of Wahdatu lwujûd.

The notes of Lings are also quite revealing of the type of ecumenism developed by Lings, or by Al^Alawiyy if he is the one who taught him that. Note 1, page 122 says: “ ‘The spiritual state of baqâ’, to which Sufi contemplatives aspire, (the word signifies pure “subsistence” beyond all form) is the same as the state of moksha or “deliverance” spoken of in the Hindu doctrines, just as the “extinction” (al-fanâ’) of the individuality which precedes the “subsistence” is analogous to nirvana taken as a negative idea’. (Titus Burckhardt, An Introduction to Sufi Doctrine, p. 4, published by Muhammad Ashraf, Lahore, 1959 – a book which is almost indispensable to anyone who wishes to make a serious study of Sufism and who does not read Oriental texts.)

Titus Burckhardt is another admirer of 'Ahmad al'Alawi. Nuh Ha Mim Keller would publically shy away from such comparisons with Hinduism, but they are made by direct disciples of 'Ahmad al'Alawi such as Lings, Frithjof Schuon and René Guénon. Also: why then are people encouraged to read Martin Lings's book if it is not a trustworthy account of al'Alawi's reaching?

[alurdumaaniyy]

WHERE THEY SAY NOTHING EXISTS IN THE WORLD APART FROM ALLAAH
P122 (L17) and 123, Martin Lings wrote: “The Treatise on Oneness says : ‘When the secret of an atom of the atoms is clear, the secret of all created things, both external and internal is clear, and thou does not see in this world or the next aught beside God.’4 ”

What is this The Treatise on Oneness quoted by Marin Lings? This is what he wrote note 4 page 122: “Risâlatu ‘l-Ahadiyyah, also entitled Kitâb al-Ajwibah or Kitâb al-Alif. It is ascribed in some manuscripts to Muhyi ‘d-Dîn Ibn `Arabî and in others to his younger contemporary `Abd Allâh al-Balyânî (d. 1287), (see the prefatory notes to the French translation by `Abd al-Hâdî in Le Voile d’Isis, 1933, pp.13-4 …”  In other words, the author of this book is not known. Do notice also the reference to “Le Voile d’Isis” which is where you can find much of the Perenialists’ writings, such as René Guénon’s, another disciple of Nuh Ha Mim Keller’s sheikh, Ahmad al'Alawi.

Then Martin Lings attempted to make a logical reasoning in support of his belief that nothing exists in the universe except God, he wrote: "If there were anything which, in the Reality of the Eternal Present, could show itself to be other than God, then God would not be infinite, for Infinity would consist of God and that particular thing 1."

The reasoning is a fallacy, for it assumes that somehow, the Creator and creation are in a same dimension, on some similar plane, whereas Allâh is neither inside creation, nor outside of it, neither surrounding it nor localised in a particular place within it, neither spatially above nor underneath it.

[Martin]

I didn't know that Nuh keller holds such dangerous beliefs of oneness. I 'm just stunned. Can you please shed some light about their sheikh Al ^alawi. Is he a well-known figure?
It's no wonder now why wahhabis and others find easy ways to batter on sufism and its rituals.
I find it extremely hard sometimes when i come across one of these wahhabi followers to defend the sufi basics; when many have already stained its reputation in the manners you are stating.

[alurdumaaniyy]

Al`Alawi is still well known in pseudo Sufi circles. Many refer to him or have him in their "chain / silsilah". Their beliefs sometimes differ but they eventually refer to Al`Alawi and to his biography by Martin Lings, the so-called "Sufi saint of the twentieth century".

[alurdumaaniyy]

'Ahmad al`Alawi
'Abu l^Abbâs 'Ahmad ibn Mustafà ibn ^Alîwah of Mostaghanem (Algeria) , known as 'Ahmad al^Alâwiyy:  1291 (1869) – 1353 (1934) Born and passed away in the Algerian town of Mostaghanem. His name is frequently mispelt into "alawi" whereas it is acutally wirtten as "al^Alâwiyy" in Arabic.

He considered himself to be a Sufi, he indulged into Qur'ânic interpretation, mystical poetry, social reforms, philosophy, etc. He took over the Algerian Shadhili-Darkawi tariqa from al-Bouzidi, an obscure event which has led to much suspicion on the validity of the transmission. Then al`Alawi founded the Alawi-Darqawi order that bears his name. He lived in the town of Algiers, the Algerian capital whose port played a major role in the spread of his influence. A number of sailors, particularly Yemeni, discovered him while they stopped by the city. They became besotted with him and spread his philosophy to the next ports and into the lands they settled in, such as Britain, through Cardiff.

A number of westerners such as Martin Lings and Frithjof Schuon, actually met him there and then spread their own philosophy added to his. He also sent one of his disciples, Muhammad alHashimi, to Syria where he settled and founded a branch of the order which has now split, one branch led by Nuh Ha Mim Keller and another by Ahmad Fathu-llah Jamee.

[alurdumaaniyy]

I have found Ahmad al`Alawi to be the origin or the reference of many pseudo Sufi orders and major writer. There is my list so far

1° The Algerian alawi shadhili order of the Bentounès family

2° The 'Alawiya Maryami Perennialists of Frithjof Schuon, who split from the order led by the Bentounès

3° A'Tariqa A'Shadhuliya A'Darqawiya Al Alawiya of al-Mouloud Boudai

4° The Akbarian perennialists of Michel Valsan, who split from Schuon’s order

5° The Guenonian Perennialists of René Guénon

6° The Murabitun movement of Ian Dallas ^AbdulQâdir

7° The order of Fadhlallâh Haeri which split from the Murabitun

8° The Hashimi-Darqawi Shadhili order now led by Nuh Ha Mim Keller

9° The Shazly order led by Ahmad Fathu-llah Jamee

Then a range of very influencial individuals who, through their literature, have nurtured much of the Westernised pseudo Sufism:

Gai Eaton
Titus Burckhardt
Seyyed Hossein Nasr
Martin Lings
René Guénon

I have actually made a diagram of this nebula to try and understand how this cancer has been spreading but I have been unable to copy it on this thread.