Topic: Martin Lings, Nuh Ha Mim Keller and others

[alurdumaaniyy]

WHERE PSEUDO SUFIS EXPOSE THEMSELVES

P148 Martin Lings wrote … “We find a somewhat analogous but more complex symbolism in his little treatise The Book of the Unique Archetype (al-Unmûdhaj al-Farîd) which signalleth the way unto the full realization of Oneness in considering what is meant by the envelopment of the Heavenly Scriptures in the Point of the Basmalah.
   He begins by quoting two sayings of the Prophet:
   ‘All that is in the revealed Books is in the Qoran, and all that is in the Qoran is in the Fâtihah, and all that is in the Fâtihah, is in Bismi ‘Llâhi ‘r-Rahmâni ‘r-Rahîm.’ And ‘all that is in Bismi ‘Llâhi ‘r-Rahmâni ‘r-Rahîm is in the letter Bâ’, which itself is contained in the point that is beneath it.’”

Here the absence of true spiritual knowledge of Martin Lings and his master is unwittingly exposed. He attributes a saying to the Prophet (salla-llâhu ^alayhi wasallam) which he could not have said for the simple reason that the dot (which he calls ‘point’)  under the letter “bâ’” did not exist at the time of the Messsenger of Allâh (^alayhi ssalâtu wassalâm) . Dots were invented after he had passed away, by the tâbi^is who were looking for a way of helping the ever-growing number of non-Arabs to read the Noble Qur’ân. The invention of this dotting system is attributed to Yahyà ibn Ya^mar, may Allâh reward him.

Now the whole fallacious symbolism invented by al`Alawiyy crumbles because he used a forged hadîth. As for Lings attributing the text to alJîliyy, we know better than to give any credit to the many fallacies attributed to Sufis.

[alurdumaaniyy]

NOW THEIR ACCEPTANCE OF THE CHRISTIAN TRINITY IS EXPOSED

P149 (L16) The poor Lings carries on quoting al^Alâwiyy who is still building on his fatal error, saying: “Whenever I speak of the Point I mean the Secret of the Essence which is named the Oneness of Perception (Wahdat ash Shuhûd), and whenever I speak of the Alif I mean the One Who Alone is  (Wâhid al-Wujûd), 6 the Essence Dominical, and whenever I speak of the Bâ’ I mean the ultimate 7 Manifestation which is termed the Supreme Spirit, after which come the rest of the letters, then single words, then speech in general, all in hierarchy. But the pivot of this book turneth upon  the first letters of the alphabet on account of their precedence over the others. The Foremost are the Foremost, it is they who are brought nigh, (note 1 page 150: Qoran, LVI, 10-1) These are Alif and Bâ’, and they hold in the Alphabet the place that is held by the Basmalah in the Qoran. For together they make up Ab  which is one of the Divine Names. By it  would Jesus speak unto his Lord, and he used it when he said: “Verily I go unto my Father and your Father”, that is, unto my Lord and your Lord…”


This passage further exposes the doctrine of al^Alâwiyy, and there are too many points to deal with in this brief text, from his belief than only Allâh exists, to his baseless interpretations of the Book of Allâh. What we shall stress here is how this paragraph reveals al^Alâwiyy’s Christian references, his belief that the blasphemous name “’Ab” (father) is a divine name. Jews address God in their prayers as “Avinu Malkenu” which means “Our Father, our King” and this awful custom denounced by Allâh Himself in the Qur’ân, was taken up by Christians and put in their canonical texts. Allâh ta^âlà revealed in His Book an 'âyah whose meaning is: “and Jews and Christians said, ‘We are the sons of God and His beloved’, say, ‘why then will He punish you for your sins?…’

To understand are far Martin Lings was from Islamic orthodoxy and real Sufism, one must look closely at note 2 of page 150, where he attempted to support al^Alâwiyy calling Allâh ‘father’ by writing:  “Father. It may be noted here incidentally how close the basmalah is in reality to the In Nomine.”

Here “In Nomine” refers to Latin Christian liturgy, when they say,   “In nomine Patris et filii et Spiritu Sancti” which means “In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit/Ghost”. Lings found this expression of the Trinity, which is so explicitly denounced in the Qur’ân, to be similar to “Bismi-llâhi rRahmâni rRahîm”! In case you would still doubt, he added: “The relationship between the two Names of Mercy in Islam, of which the second only is both Divine and human, is comparable to the relationship between the first two Persons of the Christian Trinity, while the Mercy Itself which is implied in the basmalah, being from both ar-Rahmân and ar-Rahîm, that is ‘proceding from the Father and the Son’, is none other than the Holy Ghost.”

Do not be mistaken about the use of those Biblical references, al`Alawi was not a cryptochristian, rather he belonged to the same esoteric (bâtiniyy) tradition still to be found in some Masonic or Rosicrucian orders. They use any religion, reckoning their tradition is the essence of all religions. The truth is of course that their ancient tradition is that of the devil who makes beautiful in their eyes the evil they do, as Allâh describes it in the noble Qur’ân.

[alurdumaaniyy]

MARTIN LINGS AND FORGED TEXTS

Page 153 of his book entitled 'A Sufi Saint of the Twentieth Century" Martin Lings put a note numbered 5, where he wrote: “The pen symbolizes the Supreme Pen after which Sûrah LXVIII of the Qoran is named. `Abd al-Karîm al-Jîlî (Al-Insân al-Kâmil, ch. 47), says: ‘The Prophet said: “The first thing which God created was the intellect” and he also said: “The first thing God created was the Pen” Thus the pen is the first Intellect, and they are two aspects of the Spirit of Muhammad.’”

Lings managed to put in one note one forged hadîth, a second misinterpreted text, both of them within a forgery attributed to alJîliyy. The forgery is exposed here by the mistake the ignorant forgerer made, which alJîliyy would not have made: the hadîth of the Intellect is a known false tradition, the text about the creation of the pen is understood as its being among the first creation so as not to contradict the reliable traditions which place water as the actual very first creation and the conclusion of the quote about the spirit of Muhammad has no base except in the mind of the forgerer.

[alurdumaaniyy]

AND NOW LINGS DENIES THE EXISTENCE OF ADAM AND ASSERTS
MUHAMMAD WAS THE FIRST CREATION

Page 155 (line 30) and 156 Lings continues with al`Alawi’s text which is: “The letter Bâ’ is the first form wherein the Alif appeared, and thus it manifested itself therein as never anywhere else. “God created Adam in His image;1  and by Adam it is the First Man  who is meant, and he is the spirit of being. It is in virtue of his having been created in His Image that He made him His representative on earth, and ordered the Angels to prostrate themselves to Him.
    ‘Had not His Beauty shone in Adam’s countenance,
The Angels never had bowed down prostrate before him’ (Note 1 says: “Jîlî `Ainiyyah” God forbid)
Was their prostration to other than Him? Nay, God pardoneth not him who is guilty of idolatry.”

The dishonesty of pseudo Sufism is well demonstrated here, from the falsification of the sense of a hadîth to the manipulation of Qur’ânic texts in order to support their belief that eventually, man is God. The meaning of the hadîth is not “God created Adam in His image”, but “God created Adam in his image”. As for angels, they did not prostrate to Allâh in 'Âdam but to the man Adam (^alayhi ssalâm) as a sign of respect, not of worship, for prostration was only restricted to worship in the Sharî^ah of Muhammad (salla-llâhu ^alayhi wasallam).
 
Page 155 Here again it is revealing to look and Lings’s notes and compare them. In note 2 he wrote: “If God created the human being in His image, He created a priori in His Image man’s spiritual prototype, Universal Man, here called “the First Man”, who was the first created thing. This prototype is what Bâ’ represents; it is only remotely, and by extension, that Bâ’ can be said to represent Adam in the sense of earthly man, who was the final outcome of creation.” Now compare this with a previous note (5 page 153) of the author which says “…‘The Prophet said: “The first thing which God created was the intellect” and he also said: “The first thing God created was the Pen” Thus the pen is the first Intellect, and they are two aspects of the Spirit of Muhammad.’”

What it says is that Adam was not really a human being called Adam, but the spiritual prototype of man, that this was the first creation and that the first creation is also the Intellect and the Pen which are two aspects of the Spirit of Muhammad, and that consequently, Muhammad was the first creation.

Lings’s demonstration is tortuous to say the least and based on forged text, but we find that other followers of 'Ahmad al`Alawi, such as Nuh Ha Mim Keller, do believe our Prophet (salla-llâhu ^alayhi wasallam) was the first creation as he advocated it in his article “Haqiqat al-Muhammadiyya”.

[alurdumaaniyy]

Brothers and sisters. I am putting all this evidence against Martin Lings, his sheykh and other disciples of ahmad al`Alawi so that it should not be lost and that their imposture should be exposed.

I advise you to save this posts and print them so as to have proof to refer to if you encounter these Sufi claimants. You are quite likely to meet some of these people or their fans and followers, for they have found little opposition to their expansion so far.

Recently, for the last Eid Milad anNabi, one of my pupils attended a public meeting which had as speakers Martin Lings and Nuh Ha Mim Keller. Since then Martin Lings has died.

[alurdumaaniyy]

I am now going to open a thread in this section, dedicated to evidence I found over the years against Nuh Ha Mim Keller, 'in shâ'a-llâh.

[Martin]

That's a commendable courageous step to take.
Let's hear it.

[silkworm]

I don't know wht to say but I have a book by Martin Lings called Mohammad: His life based on earliest sources" and seems to be perfectly written and extremely readable - I am not sure what this debate is about???