As for your comments on books on English, when I was a Uni student--in the mid 90s--and became interested in Islam (esp. Sufism) almost all of the books available in English were either by Wahabis and thus anathaema to me, or from the Subcontinent and of extremely poor quality with almost unreadable English. Apart from a few Urdu books the best books I could find in my library and in Islamic bookshops were written either by Orientalists or reverts (or both). People such as Gai Eaton, Martin Lings, Herbert Mason, Massignon, Herny Corbin, Arberry, Nicholson, William Chittick, S H Nasr etc. were a godsend for me. Now the situation is slightly better with Sunni English speakers/writers such as Sh. Hamza Yusuf, Shaykh Nuh, TJ Winter, Shaykh Ninowy, the books of Imam Haddad, Muhtar Holland of al-Baz publications, and so on. Since you appear so knowledgable on this issue brother what is your view on Leopold Weiss--Muhammad Asad? jazak allah khayran. wasalam
I called him a moderate because I've read his biography--a very detailed book--and also some of his books and in one of them he praises both Hazrat Abu Bakr :ra: and Hazrat Umar :ra: as being pious and good leaders (something shocking coming from a Shia right?) and he makes it a point to differentiate between what he calls 'original Shiaism' and 'Safavid Shiasm'--which he criticises stongly. (He does make sarcastic comments about Hazrat Uthman :ra: but one cannot expect a leopard to completely change his spots.) Obviously he was a socialist too and his discourse is peppered with comments which show his class consciousness roots. Taqiyyah perhaps? I hope not! We should have husn e zann. anyway brother could you drop me a PM please I'd like to get in touch. wasalam
Shariati was a Twelver, and an anarchist and many other things. He is the very definition of ideological extremism. Its because of him that so many misguided people in the West associate Shi'ism with social justice and egalitarianism and Sunnism with authoritarianism. I recall one particularly nasty book in which he claimed that the establishment of Abu Bakr Siddique radhiallahu ta'ala anhu as khalifa was the model of all later tyranny. May Allah protect us all from this insanity. Then why stop with him. Why not take our religion from the countless non-Muslims who write about tasawwuf. Many of whom are far more competant historians than Algar. I will admit that there are few authentic sources available for English speakers but the solution is not to settle for acedemic books that were not wrtitten as religious texts. What western Muslims need are books on aqida, when those become available then perhaps we will be equippid with enough knowledge to wade through the muck of Orientalism to find a lost gem or two. Even then we risk mistaking the eloquent bias of disbeleif for academic objectivity. No, another Twelver, but his interest in certain esoteric matters might give that impression. Then you need to read up on the history of religious studies in Western universities. Honesty is not something I would ascribe to someone with his background. He's a man who loves secrets. Perhaps he really is an Ismaili.
Brother Mi'raj, I agree with you entirely about the evils inherent in Shiaism and the apostasy of many of their scholars vis-a-vis the Shaykhayn. I am no admirer of Rafidism. But when I say moderate Shias I mean people like Ali Shariati or the Zaydis. When I said their books [of Nasr and Algar] were beneficial I meant the Sufi books only and from the point of view of a Western, English-speaking Muslim. Isn't Nasr an Ismaili? I am not aware of the position of him on Sayyidina Siddiq e Akbar :ra:. If he shares the same views as Majlisi then he is a khabis but I would expect him to be more honest since he is from the Westernised education system.
Is there really such a thing as a moderate Shi'i. I have a feeling that only means that he rubs elbows with Sunnis but continues to follow Shi'i ulama who all, without exception, reject Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddique and Hazrat Umar ibn al-Khattab, radhiallahu ta'ala anhum. You should also keep in mind that the Shi'i ulama are also very impressive scholars, though hardly beneficial This is a poor excuse. I have the same academic background. Before coming to Islam I spent most of my undergraduate years studying the Shiah and I spent a year in Hyderabad in the company of Shi'i ulama. As an intellectual I had the means and the will to seek out other resources and, alhamdulillah, I did. Professor Algar has had more time and more access to resrouces than me. He should know better. In fact his work on Naqshbandis in Iran indicates that he does know better, but with the Shiah he remains. Nasr is no moderate, he simply has perennialist tastes that might give that impression. He is an outspoken admirer of Muhammad Baqir Majlisi, a Safavid scholar who earned himself the title "Sufi Killer". His Bihar al-Anwar was penned as an alternative to the books of tassawwuf that were popular amongst the educated elite and under his influence Shah Abbas II expelled or killed most of the Sunni ulama and awliya living in Iran. But, even without Majlisi he still is guilty of denying the best of creation after the Prophets. In public, if you ask his opinion of Abu Bakr Siddique, radhi allahu ta'ala anhu, he'll eloquently dodge the question. I've seen this more than once. He might even sit alongside Sunni ulama as he does this. That's not moderation, its infiltration. Taqiyya? Is there any "benefit" that can outway negelct of the Shaykhain?
:s1: Brother Miraj. Until I came across these lectures hosted on a Shia site I had no idea he was a Shi'i. Yet his academic works on Sufism are very impressive and beneficial and, maybe because he is an intellectual of the British variety, he is not a rabid Shia but moderate. I have not come across any of his overtly Shia works except his translation of some lectures of Khomeini. But that alone, I figured, would not mean someone is a Shia. I think maybe he became Muslim via his research into Iran and naturally it would be to Shiaism that he had exposure. So far I personally have not read anything in any of his books that I have read which have made me want to stop reading him. I think the same is true of Seyyed Hossein Nasr. He doesn't hide his Shiaism but it is very moderate. Also I think Henry Corbin and a couple of other of the revert academics are Shia with interest in Sufism (something Shiaism doesn't have: ihsan as they call it is not the same exactly). Allahu alam. In any case, I think the benefits of their books far outway any negatives or subtle hints in favour of Shiaism in there.
As salamu alaikum, He's also Shi'i and a great admirer of Khomeini. For every pro-sufi or anti-wahhabi book he has authored there are countless rafidhi texts he has editied and translated. Many of his translations are published by the Iranian government and his work on tasawwuf seems to be the product of his research as a historian of Iran and not as a sufi himself. But this should be obvious considering that the above link is to a Shi'i database of books and lectures. I'm always quite surpirsed when Sunnis refference him. He and Sayyid Hossein Nasr always manage to pop up like weeds amongst English speakers who have an interest in sufism. Although, they both manage to put on an impressive show in mixed company one simply has too read their Shi'i material to see which side of the divide the stand on.
http://tinyurl.com/2chep2 The above site has a series of lectures on the Ahlul Bayt by a British professor of Islam who converted to Islam a long time ago and who is very intellectual and who sounds like a typical upper class Brit. He is the author of many books on Sufism in English.
