Books and Documents

Islamic Personalities (08 Jun 2019 NewAgeIslam.Com)


  • Arshad sb,
    You can only say that the Sufis also follow Islam but cannot say that the Quran supports Sufism. If Sufism is pure Islam and nothing else, why does it have a separate and distinct existence? There is therefore no question of the Quran supporting Sufism without reservations.
    Islam and the Quran are not based or founded on any 'ism but is the pure Deen of Allah. The Deen of Allah may have spawned many 'isms but even then there cannot be a reverse claim. It is upto these other 'isms to prove that they are in conformity with the Deen of Allah and even if they do so successfully, they are only copies. Why should I be satisfied with a copy when the original is available?
    I am not against Sufism. I only speak out against their fraudulent claims. If they have explained any term or meaning well, bring it out. How have they for example, explained the "wajaha" of Allah? Wajaha is used as metaphor and face is its literal meaning is what everyone knows. No matter how wajaha is explained, the fact remains that "There is none like Allah". So, when there is none like Allah, how can you explain the wajaha of Allah? It is best to recognize that it is used as a metaphor and leave it at that because unless you have seen Allah, you will never know what it is. The Quran discourages from speculation when the truth is beyond you. It is enough to know that you will get to experience the presence of Allah in the Hereafter, if you are admitted to Heaven.
    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/19/2019 3:55:31 AM

  • My sentence was 
     "ghat me baitho aur kafiron ke paur paur Kato yahan tak e would maghlub hokar jizya den." Kind of verses. 
    Mr Naseer Ahmad omitted the phrase "kind of verses" and said that I mosquoted the verse. I did not qoute any verse from the Quran. If I had done I would have qouted it correctly and given the verse number. I meant there are verses that exhort Muslims to kill the kaffir and mushrik. It was in the context that he had in the earlier comment said that sufism is not mentioned in the Quran. I had said that then if we should believe what is mentioned in the Quran then we should believe in the verses that exhort Muslims to kill the kuffar. We do not because we take the context as well. Similarly, the ternm sufism is not mentioned in the Quran, agreed but when we take into consideration various verses that exhort us to utter the name of Allah and remember him morning and evening (again I am not qouting the verses because I know I am not discusssing Quran with novices), verses that preach compassion, non violence, equality etc which the sufis religiously follow, we can say that  the Quran supports Sufism. I am surprised why Mr Naseer Ahmad is so much opposed to sufism, a community which has served humanity and Islam greatly. Mr Naseer Ahmad calls Imma Ghazali a fraud. He may do so given his vast knowledge. I do not have the temerity to do so being a humble student or Quran. He asks what kind of contribution Sufis had made in the understanding of the Quran. Sufis spread the message of Quran through their practices and behaviour. They did not explain to the polytheists of India the meaning of the Mishkatul Anwar verse but treated them with compassion, love and help. Their mystical debates were only within their circle of sufis not with the common public. And nowadasys, Mr Naseer Ahmad promotes his articles in his comments a la read my this article to understand that topic or that article to understand this verse. There are a number of verses in the Quran which can be best explained from a sufi point of view and there are many terms that can only be understood when discussed or explained from a sufi point of view like Haqqul Yaqin, Ilmul Yaqin Aynal yaqin , shahid Mashhud, shuhud, Wajhullah (translators translate it as face of Allah which is wrong).

    By Arshad - 6/19/2019 12:15:54 AM

  • QUOTE: Shah Waliullah Renewed Islam in Eighteenth Century India with Ideas That Were Progressive and Even Revolutionary For His Time
    UNQUOTE: My respect for Shah Waliullah Dehlavi but his progressive ideas mislead his own sons, half of them were affected by the very progressive wahhabi influences that made many crores of wahhabis out of their pristine SUNNIYAT, so Shah Sahebs efforts were controversial. He didn't believe that the moon was cut off into two, but held it will be cut off during the last hour. This stand too is very controversial as every thing would be broken to pieces in the lost hour, so what is the new in his stand? Rather, this is the total denial of the MU'JAZAH of Rasoolullah Sallallahu A'laihi wa Sallam.
    Sultan Shahin and his neophytes are known to deviate from the original Islam, don't mind them and reject their progressive deviant ideas to save your own skin in the AAKHIRAH.

    By Qaseem - 6/10/2019 9:52:29 PM

  • "ghat me baitho aur kafiron ke paur paur Kato yahan tak e would maghlub hokar jizya den."

    There is no such verse in the Quran. Do not blaspheme the Quran. Show some respect by quoting it accurately if you wish to quote it. If this is a perverted version of verse 9:29, then read the following article to understand it and correct your beliefs about it.  

           The Story of the Prophetic Mission of Muhammad (pbuh) From the Qu’ran (Part 6): The People of the Book and Jiziya

     You can believe in Sufism or any other ism but the question is what does it have to do with Islam. In what way does it add to it or has contributed? Be specific. Have the Sufis given us a better understanding of the Quran through their “mystical knowledge”? Cite one good example if you can. They have given us false myths such as about an Alam-e-Arwah and passed it on as knowledge received directly from the Prophet to explain verse 7:172! I don’t blame them for their inability to explain correctly because the correct explanation for the verse is found in modern genetics but I blame them for making a fraudulent claim. You will find the correct explanation of the verse in my article:

    The Quran, Islamic Theology, Philosophy and the Sciences – On Soul and the Creation of Man (Part 2)

    Imam Ghazali’s treatise on the verse 24:35 Mishkat ul Anwaar is another fraud as his explanation contradicts the very next verse 24:36. I do not blame him for his inability to explain as it is a difficult verse to explain but I fault him for being a fraud. Surely, he must have known that his explanation contradicts the very next verse. The treatise is however one of the finest examples of how even falsehood can be made to appear very deep, beautiful and refined. So much for all the inner knowledge and wisdom of the Sufis. Has any Sufi or non-Sufi scholar explained well the many adjurations in the Quran? Why have they failed to do so with their deep mystical knowledge?

    There is no mystery or mysticism to the understanding of the Book. What it requires is uncompromising honesty and integrity and a sensible approach. 

    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/10/2019 8:02:21 AM

  • There are many things that are not mentioned in Quran but we believe in them. Again there are many things that are many things that are mentioned in the Quran but we say that they are not applicable to our times. For example halala is not mentioned in the Quran, that is the term but we believe in it. Again sufi or sufism is not mentioned in the Quran but descendants of the prophet or sahaba believed in it . If we should not believe in sufism because it is not mentioned in the Quran then we should believe in qital and "ghat me baitho aur kafiron ke paur paur Kato yahan tak e would maghlub hokar jizya den." Kind of verses. Shah Waliullah did not coin the terms Wahdatul Wajud and shahud. He mentioned the theoretical aspect of modern sufism. And the case of inner and outer Islam is not presented by Muslim Sufism, the entire Upanishad professes this belief. According to Upanishad knowledge is of two kinds: para Vidya and apara Vidya. The religious practices yagya, puja,upvas etc are called apara Vidya and spiritual knowledge that leads to divine realisation is called para Vidya. Even apara Vidya is called avidya as it does not lead man to divine realisation. It only gives man the feeling of belonging to a religion. So spirituality or in other words mysticism is considered the real soul of every religion.
    By Arshad - 6/9/2019 8:25:39 PM

  • Neither the Quran nor the ahadith have the concept of Wahdat al wujud or wahdat al shuhud or of Sufism. So what do we make of Shah Waliullah who is obsessed with what is neither found in the Quran or Sunna or the ahadith?

    Yes, there is an inner part and an outer part but there can be no outer part without the inner which is why both belief and deeds are important and without the right beliefs, the right deeds are difficult. The test of  a person is however based on his deeds or behaviour and not on his inner beliefs which is why a just, truthful and generous person will enter Heaven irrespective of his beliefs and a tyrant will be flung into Hell irrespective of his beliefs.

    I am not a Sufi but I am able to find a common denominator uniting all good people which Shah Waliullah and every other Sufi failed in achieving.

    In the ultimate analysis therefore, there is no difference between the Sufi, the Salafi and the Wahhabi. They are all bigots and therefore enemies of Islam's Universalism and Humanism.

    The common people are far better than these ideologues.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/9/2019 8:15:57 AM

  • mr. arshad,
    whatever he was or could have been, mr. waliullah was never a friend of the idolaters and polytheists of the sub-continent.

    the argument rests there.

    By hats off! - 6/9/2019 6:40:27 AM

  • Mr hats off, while judging Shah Waliullah, one should also consider the fact that he wrote around 1750 AD when in India even Persian and Urdu translations were not available. He learnt Islam from scholars of Arab and he inherited the extremist ideas from them. So we can reject his extremist ideas by branding them ideas of 1750. But after he developed his own understanding he presented ideas which were ahead of his times and for which he was declared wajibul qatl. No alim except Qadianis say that jihad is not practical today. Today he would have called a Qadiani not Salafi by our ulema. Ulema of deobandi did not heed his advice and declared jihad against the British once century later without proper ground work and without taking Hindus together and paid the price. Shah Waliullah,s thought evolved overtime and he thought in Indian perspective.  Wecan reject his ideas that are inherited by extremist Arab ulema of 18th or earlier centuries and accept the progressive ideas which don't go down well even with most so-called ulema of today who reject Sufism and support ISIS. Taliban and Al Qaida. 
    By Arshad - 6/8/2019 7:51:23 PM

  • this waliullah was a hindu hater of the first order.
    he strived for the arabization of indian converts and put the local converts firmly under the control of persian, arabic and other infiltrator converts.
    his contempt and hatred of the idolaters and the polytheists were what made him most famous and endeared him to the average exploitative ruling ashrafia.
    if he were alive today and were spewing out his pet theories, he would be known as a salafi or wahhabi.

    By hats off! - 6/8/2019 8:02:32 AM