if you are one of the muslims who tries his best to follow the sunnah and stay away from the haram as much as you can, and if you don’t have any innovations or shirk, then Imam Ahmad wouldn’t say anything about you. However, if you are an innovator who starts new matters in our religion and do not follow the sunnah but instead misguide the people by the innovations that you introduce and call people to your falsehood, then he will not be quiet about you and will expose the falsehood and innovations so that the general muslim people aren’t fooled by you and follow the innovations that you are calling others to follow.

May Allah have mercy on Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal, he was a true follower and defender of the sunnah and he put innovations out as soon as they started.

Allah knows best.

Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal also prohibited the people from learning from Alharith AlMuhasibi

Man…sometimes I wonder what Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal would say about us if he was alive today…

Brother MA,
if you know basic Arabic, you would know that a “sahih” hadith means a true hadith (sahih literally means true), and if the opposite of sahih (true) is da’ef or weak, then does that make the weak hadith true as well?! If sahih and weak are opposites, then how can they both be true, and why should we even bother classifying the hadiths and studying their chains if we are going to use them all regardless of how weak they are?!

One more thing. You can quote the previous scholars all you want about tasawwuf, but the truth is that tasawwuf has evolved and changed A LOT from back then, when it ONLY meant Zuhd and not caring too much about this world, while today the word tasawwuf means a bunch of innovators dancing and singing songs that have shirk in them.

Well why don’t you just call it tazkiyah when it’s the same thing? No one has a problem with tazkiyah, it is a concept that has it’s roots deep in the Revealed Texts, both in essence and etymology; no scholar sticking to the Sunnah denies that; they even emphasize it as a correct way of purifying ones heart as opposed to sufism. The reason why you stick to sufism instead of tazkiyah is probably the fact that sufism is not only about tazkiyah as it is described in the Kitab and Sunnah, but contains much more, both in beliefs and pracices, that opposes that which was revealed. Tazkiyah by the way of Sunnah is simply not enough for you.

“Its the same thing. Imam Malik (r) says that “He who practices Tasawwuf without learning Sacred Law corrupts his faith, while he who learns Sacred Law without practicing Tasawwuf corrupts himself. Only he who combines the two proves true.” Do you disagree with this statement?”

I will agree and disagree with that statement when I get to know it’s source, because I’m not unused to seeing sufis use texts of dubious authenticity to support their dubious beliefs. While we’re at it, since you want to stick to what Imam Malik said (if he said it) so rigidly, why don’t you accept the authentic narration from him in which he decrees that it is obligatory to believe that istawa over the Arsh happened in reality (without saying how)? Let me guess, you won’t follow him in this particular case, will you? Why? Because, like in most other cases, your “shuyookh” don’t like it. And this is to what it all boils down, regarding sufism, tawassul, aqeedah, etc.; you believe what they tell you to believe, never mind the evidence.
As far as Imam Malik’s attitude towards sufism is concerned, I will reproduce a text of one of MM post which dealt with precisely that:

Quotes & Stories: The Day Imam Malik Laughed…

“We were with Malik while he was surrounded by his companions, when a man belonging to the people of Nasibin said, ‘There is a group of people among us called Sufis. They eat excessively, then they begin to sing, and then they get up and dance.’ Malik asked him, ‘Are they children?’ The man replied, ‘No.’ Malik asked, ‘Are they insane?’ The man replied, ‘No. They are a group of mashayikh [religious scholars] and other intelligent people.’ Malik replied, ‘I have never heard of anyone from the people of Islam doing such a thing.’

The man said, ‘But these people eat, and then get up and dance tirelessly, some of them striking their heads, and some striking their faces.’ Hearing this, Malik laughed, then rose and went inside his house. The companions of Malik said to the man, ‘Verily you have brought bad omen to our companion. We have been in his company for more than thirty years, and we never saw him laugh until this day.’”
[Qadi `Iyad, Tartib al-Madarik, 2:54]

Enough said…

And your proof that he was implying Hasan al Basri by this is exactly what? Mu’tazilizm’s place of origin is also Basra; if I say that, am I implying that Hasan al Basri was behind it? And by the way, Hasan al Basri was well know for criticism of certain practices typical of the sufis; off the top of my head, I can remember a narration i which he criticized a person who voluntarily forbade himself a certain type of food (obviously trying to be ultra-abstinent, a typical sufi exaggeration). The fact that Hasan al Basri was a zahid in no way means that he practiced innovations and heretical beliefs prevalent among the sufis; combine that with the afct that he never ascribed himself to sufism in name, and your argument crumbles in it’s entirety…