Customer Reviews

What is Sufism? (Islamic Texts Society)

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

This is a very well researched and written introduction to the Islamic science of tassawuf--which is the Arabic word usualy translated as sufism.

As Dr. Lings shows--and he later converted to Islam as Dr. Abu Bakr Siraj ud Deen--Sufism is an integral part of Islam; a part which has always been accepted as the heart of Islam. As a famous Sufi [Islamic saint who has reached the highest spiritual station] once said, "Shariat is the body and tariqat [another name for Sufism] is the soul".

This book looks at the origins of Sufism, its historical development, its branching into various brotherhoods, its importance in Islamic history as well as the various aspects of sufi methodology and worship. Most importantly, this book puts Sufism where it belongs: at the heart of Islam and it shows that Sufism is not, as some have argued, extraneous to the Islamic belief. In other words, though it has some similarities with other mystical aspects of other religions, it is totally a product of Islam and it's orthodox teachings. There is no such thing as a non-Muslim Sufi.

This book is thus a superb introduction to the inner-mystical--aspects of Islamic worship and the best one i've seen so far in English for the beginner. Highly recommended.

I found this to be the best book that I have read so far that introduces the theoretical and practical concepts of Sufism. The author makes Sufism intellectualy appealing. I especialy like how Mr.Lings discusses the concept of 'wahid al wujud' or 'unity of existence.' That is very important to know when understand the 'world view' of Sufism.I believe books like these can help introduce Islam western educated audiences unlike the many books that talk about Islam as if it was a bunch of laws and nothing more.
The Reviewer's comments below were totaly misleading and show complete ignorance of Islam. There are authentic hadiths that make references to the higher states for example. Sufism is a very islamic concept that was recognized by al 4 of the great imams(3 of which me mentioned) Shafi, Malik, Ahmad, Hanafi. Sufism was also recognized as valid by ibn Tamiyaa himself. ibn Tamiyaa was a shayk in the Qadiri tariqat. Shayk Ghazzali was not credited with being the "founder of Sufism." He however standardized and made it popular with his tremendous influence. There is absoutely no proof that he changed any of his ideas. At the end of his life he moved to Palestine and totaly put aside public life.He made no writings or speechs at all then. There are many mystical stories from the region today about his last years there. Also Islam DOES recognize sainthood. Even ibn Tamiyaa recognized it. ibn Tamiyaa was a contraversial scholar and labelled heretical by mainstream sunni islam. This critic's views reflect that of the Wahabi fundementalists who dumb down religion and show extreme intolerence to others.

Having read several introductory books on Sufism, this is one of the better ones (Arberry's is also good, despite its age). It is a book which actually tries to convey the heart in Sufism. As for the other reviewer from Egypt "Do not be fooled" -- someone who despises Sufism should not be allowed to review books on Sufism. In fact, I would be surprised if that reviewer even read the book so much as writing negative reviews on every Sufi book, spreading his fundamentalist beliefs around -- but we can laugh at such things, for would not a Sufi also take it ligh heartedly?

I would not recommend this book over, say Arberry, Schimmel, or Idries Shah -- but I would recommend it over books by Ernst, Harvey, or Sedgewick.

well written and simple to understand. This book gives a fine introduction to Sufism from its very beginings, through its practices going on to the history of Sufism to the present day. Easier to read than Burckhards book and perhaps more sympathetic than Smith or Nicholsons well worth a read for anyone with an interest in the Muslim religion.

I had done quite a bit of research on Sufism for a few courses and I have found Lings' little book to be absolutely remarkable.

First, it is important to note that Lings writes from the perspective of Sufism, so he casually brushes aside orthodox readings in favor of spiritual or "vertical" readings of the Qur''n. This makes for quite easy comparison with other forms of Mysticism, but I feel at times this isn't a very true approach. To be more honest with the tradition, Sufism qua Islam would be more appropriate. But, due to my own biases, Sufism qua Mysticism makes for a far more universal, comparative study. Keep this bias in mind before reading.

The book itself concisely covers all that one could ask for in a book this size. Lings' ability to be terse yet illuminating is legendary here. This seems to come from the power of his summations where he ties up his thoughts and makes very definite statements about the philosophy and implications of Sufism. These tend to come across as both inspirational and brilliant. Also, he splices citations into his reading effortlessly and poignantly which makes for great direction for further study.

If you have a mystic bias this book will certainly deliver. Even if you do not, Lings' understanding of the material is still unmistakable.

This book was a requirement for a course. The material was presented in a clear manner. It wasn't too hard to get through, and it definitely added to the overall class experience. I would recommend this book.

The first problem with this book is the cover. It depict the two names of God and the prophet intertwined together, like two equal entities, creating a sense of unity. This design tells a lot about Sufi thought, which elaborates on man's journey towards his Creator until he reaches the final state of unity, at which point he becomes at the highest state of being. And thus he is looked up to by others in 'subordinate' stages as a person through which God communicates with them. To any devout Muslim, this is pure heresy. One of the main objectives of Islam was to purify faith from the 'other' in man's relationship with his Creator. The second problem with this book is its preset assumption that Sufism is an Islamic concept. For anyone familiar with the everyday life of the prophet and his companions, it is clear that they had no time to sit and meditate over which 'station' of knowledge or literal advancement towards God they were at (in fact, they never viewed themselves as being the best or the most knowledgeable, knowing that whoever thought of himself as such had probably claimed authority over matters known only to God). There were more important things set down from God for them and subsequently, for all muslims. Those were clearly set out and, to find out about them, all you have to do is just read the Quran. The prophet had a mission to humanity and his companions followed in his footsteps. They were to accomplish it exactly as God had ordered them, there was neither the desire, nor the room, to come up with man made ideologies and to distract themselves from God's clearly defined commands. Those people were NOT saints, for Islam does not acknowledge sainthood. If they were all a group of mystics, their minds would have been too clouded with problems of knowledge and existence that no civilization would have been built in the first place. As the case is with most Sufi readings, reference is hardly to the companions of the prophet or to names like Ibn Qayyim, Ibn Taymiya, Malek, Abu Hanifa, or Shafei. It is in the writings of those that a reader will find the fulfilling spiritual aspect of Islam. All that readers find, however, is 'saints,' or mystic scholars whose writings, as known to all Muslim scholars, sharply deviate from the teachings of Orthodox Islam found in the Quran and in the sayings of the prophet (pbuh). Finally, it is important to note that the often praised Sheikh Ghazali, considered by Sufis as the founder of Sufism and, to whom reference is indeed abundant in many Sufi texts, had himself changed much of his ideas near the end of his life and had in fact complied more closely to the teachings of Orthodox Islam.