How is Sufism a parallel religion?

[Hassan Ilyas] Mr. Ghamidi, often you say

this to,

especially those who indulge in religious

debates and criticize different opinions,

that, always in the expression of

disagreement

you must only say, what the other person

says about his stance.

Stand in his place and understand

his stance.

And the title, or the phrase or the

The phrase you want to stick to the other,

if he doesn't like it,

then we should use do it.

My question to you is that,

you criticize the Fiqh, there is

criticism on arguments.

in our country, historical traditions have

been mixed with religion; it is criticized

In the same way, philosophy is criticized.

But in your criticism of Sufism, in a line

you said Sufism is a parallel religion.

My question to you is, those Sufis who do

not consider it as a parallel religion,

they may be connecting it to the religion

of Islam with the wrong arguments

So you may critique this argument,

as you have with respect to monotheism,

prophethood, Shariah, Qayamah.

But this sentence, 'Sufism is a parallel

religion',

so not just that Sufis themselves do not

like to say this,

rather, their system of thought,

it will be like placing it alongside the

religion, as if,
it is blaming them for the audacity of
presenting religion as opposed to Islam.

So on which ethical grounds do you

accuse them for this?

[Javed Ahmed Ghamidi] The error is due to

unfamiliarity with the style of language.

That is when you use some terminology to

point to an object or concept,

such terminology may point to something

stable, firm, 'in-itself',

or it may refer to a species of concepts

or objects.

Here the word religion is used under them

meaning of system of thought

I.e. one system of thought is

that, which is given to us by

Prophets (PBUT).

And one system of thought is that, which

is given by the Sufi religions.

These are two parallel systems of

thought.

People think of it as a phrase of

criticism.

In reality, this is an appropriate

introduction.

Of their efforts. It is a beautiful

introduction.

The way, this debate about Allama

Iqbal has existed

That, did he offer a robust philosophy?

Or is he just a mutakallim?

You may know that,

a great philosopher Ali Abbas Jalalpuri

wrote a whole book and said

that Iqbal is not a philosopher.

He is just a mutakallim, a philosophical

theologian.

That is, there are his religious beliefs,

religious thoughts.

He defends it with philosophical

reasoning.

So, for us, we use the word mutakallim for

such a person,

and this field is called philosophical

theology.

Being a proper philosopher means, from

first principles to their applications,

one person creates the whole

philosophical system.

Like we saw in Socrates.

Or we see in Plato, or we see

in Aristotle.

Or we see in Plotinus.

Or among us there is Ibn-e-arabi.

A whole system was created for it.

From the start to the end.

So if you completely understand Sufism

from its scholars and then read it.

That is there's this, that everyone who

assumes the meditative stance,

calls himself a Sufi.

The one who does penance and the one who

chants.

But the learned among them.

That is, the glorious and learned men,

who

have written about Sufism, or expounded

on it. They are great people.

If you understand it through them, then it

is a robust system of thought.

So the word deen has been used as a

genus.

So that in comparison to the system of

thought that the Prophets came with,

Tasawuff is also a complete system of

thought.

So in this sense, this terminology has

been adopted.

[Hassan] So Mr. Ghamidi, you said that, in

the sense of a system of thought

you say, that it is a complete parallel

structure.

So those who themselves have adopted it,

the Sufis,

do they accept that they are presenting

a whole parallel system of thought

and if you compare it to Islam, both

are a parallel, separate system of thought

[Ghamidi] It is exactly so.

I have reproduced the excerpts in which

Shah Waliullah, who is among the greats.

And evidently, he is among the great

scholars, and great Sufis.

He has described it in his books.

He has told us the source of our system.

And it is not what the normal people

think, that from two verses of The Quran,

or from two Hadiths something has been

extracted.

They say that it is a completely parallel

system.

This system was initiated

by Junaid Baghdaadi

Among us, that is among Muslims;

otherwise, they are everywhere, the Sufis.

Among us, it has been given a proper form.

And then he told us how it is derived.

In other words, the nature of getting by

Prophet (PBUH) is not that

he just took from the Quran.

or he took it from the Hadith or from the

Sunnah

He gives examples from it. And I have

further copied his extracts

That, it is a direct 'faizan' or benefit,

that we get.

i.e. for these people, the very source of

its origin is completely different.

And he says, this knowledge or this

skill, that is,

whatever you name it.

In its comparison, this is sui generis,

and it must be understood this way.

All this has been said.

In fact, I summed up his whole point

That the manner of his presentation

is this.

When normal people talk or when they

disagree,

so in its reply, some people interpret it

in that way

that it is the same as Allah having

blessed us, or that he has purified us.

It is not like this.

They describe it as a whole system of

thought

and they present it as a complete system

of thought

Obviously, the matter of religion

itself is such that,

many great scholars have been emerged

in it.

They are interpreting it. We say

religion has a political interpretation.

We say that religion has a mystical

interpretation.

So these things are within the religion

too. Sufism also has these disagreements,

but the great Sufis and the Sufi scholars,

they explain this very clearly.

Shah Waliullah has even answered in
response to a question.

All these things that we get,

if we do get this from Prophet Mohammed

(PBUH), how does it happen?

So he said, only the Prophet is

the source of this 'faizan'.

But its principles are such that, as if

there are melons on a farm

They are getting energy from the sun.

Neither does Sun know that it is raising

and cultivating them.

Nor do they know that they are getting it.

So from its beginning to its end,

this is a complete system of thought.

The meaning of parallel religion is that

in comparison to religion

From beginning to the end, from principle

to application, Sufism gave a whole system

[Hassan] Okay. Mr. Ghamidi,

you just said, that,

giving an example of Iqbal, whether he

was a philosopher or a mutakallim.

Therefore, he offered a whole structure of

argument. Was it a system of thought, or,

was he developing a point of view from

different angles?

You gave an example of Ibn Arabi, and that

we see Socrates, we see Plotinus.

They present a robust system in a holistic

perspective as a structure of knowledge.

You mentioned Ibn Arabi.

We have talked about Ibn Arabi before from

different perspectives.

People pick out from various places of

Ibn Arabi and quote,

He writes that the kernel of guidance,

goodness and everything is our Prophet.
We follow him and he is the evidence in
matters of religion.

So the great Sufis who have their own

system of thought,

In their own books, we see that they think

of the Prophet (PBUH) as the proof.

[Ghamidi] See, democracy is a whole system

of thought

It is just like this, no?

So someone who does not think of democracy

to be against religion,

and is a Muslim,

won't he discourse on religion?

So, in fact, they are also religious

scholars.

That is, one is Sufism and one is Islam.

And they are scholars of Islam also.

They are great scholars.

There is Shah Waliullah, there is Ghazali.

As great Sufis as they are, they are also

great scholars of religion.

They don't think of their system of

thought to be against religion

They do think it is parallel.

They also think it is sui generis, of a

class by itself.

But they don't think of it as against

deen.

When they do not think it against it, as

they are religious scholars,

they will talk about it

And they will give some arguments

also.

That this system of thought is not against

the religion.

You do the same thing in this world.

For how many things do you say that? This
method of the economy should be used.

Although it is in its place, complete,

complete capitalism.

You read Maulana Maududi's book 'Islam

aur jadeed ma'ashi nazariyaat'

Study the last chapter.

Then it will tell you that this whole

capitalistic system,

If small changes are made to it, it will

not be against Islam.

Similarly, many Ulama, even the great

stalwart Ulama of Deoband,

when all of this was going on,

and there was a huge movement about

socialism and communism in the world.

They wrote books and told us that for us

it is like the emergence of Islam.

Like Iqbal, this is attributed, that in

socialism and communalism,

if Allah is included, then

there will be nothing objectionable.

This, I am just giving you an example.

These things happen. I am a Muslim by

religion.

My religion is Islam.

But to any other system of thought,

to a philosophy,

I feel that it is not against religion.

And it greatly appeals to me, I adopt

it.

So when these people describe Sufism,

then, they dispute about the very source.

Where is it found, where will they get it?

You see in the books oh Shaykh Al Akbar

Ibn Arabi
He will tell you at the start of his
Fasoos and Futuhaat.

This is a direct inspiration.

These are our 'unveilings'.

This is a different thing. But they are

Muslims too.

They believe in Allah's religion, and

Allah's Prophet (PBUH)

Obviously, they will discourse about that

as well.

So I have commented on Sufism

Not on any Sufi

Because these two things combine in their

personality

On one hand, they are Muslims, believers

of Allah and believer of Prophets of Allah

They have faith in the Quran, they

follow it.

They offer the best examples of their acts

and you can also object to some actions.

On one hand, there is this thing.

Is Shah Waliullah an ordinary scholar?

He should be called Imam ul hind.

India can take pride in such a scholar.

I am talking about the scholar of

religion, of Islam.

And on the other hand, he's great a Sufi.

So this is what I have highlighted in my

article.

This is the space where, when he presents

his system of thought.

Then it gets highlighted as an entirely

different system of thought.

[Hassan] Mr. Ghamidi you said that all

the great Sufi scholars

They are also religious scholars.

So now that you go read and refer to their
books,

So these two parallel things are mixed

in it.

Somewhere hadith is explained or

Qur'anic verse is interpreted

Somewhere Sufism and observation

and 'unveilings' are mentioned.

My question to you is that, if a scholar,

wants to know about the real system of

thought of this tradition of Sufism

and if he wants to separate the religious

contributions of these religious Ulamas

So which are the basic books, and what

are the parts of those books,

because there is everything in the books,

how can we access those particular points?

[Ghamidi] When you take a closer look into

these things,

they are Muslim Ulama, great Ulama,

so when you read into those,

so everything comes into the discussion

with respect to its source.

When they try to describe religion then

their arguments will be from the Quran.

They would be arguing from the Sunnah or

stating a Hadees

Shah Sahib's Hujjatullah Albalegha,

is an extraordinary statement of the

wisdom of religion, in terms of its epoch.

So he will state the deen in it.

The same is with Ghazali.

When they are talking about religion or

the principles of Fiqh,

So then, obviously they present their

argument as a Muslim

Its sources will be Quran, Hadees and

Sunnat.
And when they will describe Sufism,

it is correct that there are books which

state absolutely different things.

For example, you see, there is Shah

Ismael Shaheed.

His book 'Taqwiyat ul imaan'.

In it, he has described monotheism and

clarified the grounds of religion.

You know he has described monotheism in

such a way that created a tumult in India

India, as you know, is

actually a strange land!

Here every particle is God.

But on the other hand, pick out his

book 'Abaqat'.

It is all Sufism!

In it from the start to the end, its

principles and grounds are mentioned.

Rather it can be said,

that in the last era,

He summed up the whole system of thought

in a short book.

Similarly when you read 'Futuhat-e

Makkiya',

Ibn Arbi's book, you find a mixture of

both the things.

But when you read 'Fusoos',

It is Sufism embodied.

Now in many places, both have similar

interpretations.

So a normal person thinks like this, but a

researcher will pick it out and tell you

that it is a system of thought.

There have recently been many good

discussions about Ibn Arbi.

If you put them forward and see, the

way people defend him,

or they kept stating his interpretations,

so we came to know that he had formed a

system which was called 'Nabuat-e aamma'

That is this person needs 'faizan' for

his very existence.

And after that, for the different levels

of his life,

also for the different levels of his

consciousness, his feelings,

he needs God's favor.

And furthermore, if he,

does some spiritual exercises, and makes

himself capable of it.

As a result, a prophethood is acquired by

this human being.

That, he calls Nabuat-e aamma, and he

says it is acquired.

Rather he gives examples.

That, so was the prophecy of Haroon.

So was the Prophecy of the Prophets of

Bani Israel.

And, on the contrary, they say, those that

you call a prophet,

That is, the Prophets of the religion have

legislative prophethood

That is, actually they bring Shariah, they

bring the law

So that, to bind people by it.

So you see, they described clearly.

That on one hand is our interpretation of

sourcing and taking directly from Allah.

So this is it. He gave it the name of

Nabuat-e Aamma.

On the other hand, it explained the

of uniqueness of Prophet as

a religious institution.
Their problem is that they are Muslims.

That is why they are explaining both the

things as Muslims.

So will have to be separately look at,

analyse both things

[Hassan] Okay, Ghamidi Saab.

Let's move forward.

This narration is under discussion,

The meaning of a narration in Bukhari

Sharif is that Prophet (PBUH) said,

I was asleep, I was given a bowl of milk,

I was drinking it, even as that

I was so satiated with milk that it

started to ooze out of my nails

Then I gave the remaining milk to

Sayyedna Umar,

The companions asked O Prophet, what

is its interpretation? He said "ilm",

So, this narration, many scholars have

expressed their thought on this.

So one result inferred from it is, when

the narration itself tells us,

that when Prophet himself is interpreting

it that he gave his knowledge to Umar(Ra)

Then why shouldn't it be understood that

he too was mulhim (underwent ilhaam)

[Ghamidi] Where is this stated that

'I gave my knowledge' to him?

Where has it been said in the narration?

When something is said about the Prophet,

each word shall be seen as to what is

said.

This is a dream of the Prophet Muhammad

(PBUH).

It is that right? It is his vision.

That is, he was shown this in his dream.

The Ilm or knowledge that he has brought

is religion,

What sources of knowledge do we have?

The Holy Quran.

The Sunnah

And the explanations, elaborations and

Faru' told by the Prophet (PBUH)

The applications that he made clear.

It is a huge treasure of knowledge.

You have also got this knowledge, I have

also got it, everyone has got it

Another thing is that whatever we have

got,

its insight!

When we benefit from the glorious

Ullmaas,

everybody has that same Quran.

The whole Muslim community follows the

Sunnah.

Everyone has access to the Hadith books.

But the insight, the understanding, the

getting to know things in depth.

This is what Prophet has called as

knowledge.

So he got this knowledge.

And this is what the Ulamas of this

community get.

Some get more and some get less.

There are also people of the highest rank.

And there are people of second and third

level too.

When you step into any skill or knowledge,

you,

see doctors, scientists, not all are

Einstein or Newton.

That is Umar (Ra) was among the great

scholars
That is, the insight into the religion of
Allah which they had,

it was not ordinary.

This does not mean that everything they

say would become prophetic.

A prophet's word is free from all faults.

He (Umar) is just a human.

As human beings, their decisions, their

opinions can be disputed.

I myself have disagreed in many places.

But however, this disagreement is with a

great scholar

[Hassan] Okay, Mr. Ghamidi, if anyone

expresses logical doubts about it,

This that you individualized the

knowledge of Prophet. (PBUH)

We see in the Quran and Sunnah, Allah has

given to the prophets

access to the news of the unseen.

He also comes to know, he,

even saw the fate of Caesar and

Khosrow, in their end-state.

So why did you limit it to the Qur'an and

Sunnah only?

[Ghamidi] The Qur'an describes those

sciences that are specific to prophets

as being specific to them.

The knowledge specific to the Prophets

will remain specific to them.

Should I generalize that the way the Quran

was revealed to Prophet (PBUH)

It was in the same way, revealed to

Umar (Ra).

Just like Prophet (PBUH) is a source of

Sunnah, Umar (Ra) is a source of Sunnah!

Should I say this?

Obviously, the things which are specific

to the Prophets will always be theirs.
So whenever something is said, it is not
generalized

It always has reasonable

particularities with it.

It contains narrative particularities.

We are talking in a specific background.

Like I had also said yesterday.

That is, the Quran says that it has

cleared everything.

Even in the Torah, everything had been

cleared.

So this everything means everything

related to the topic.

Here, too, there is a limit to knowledge.

That the religion Prophet (PBUH) has

brought,

Its insight, its understaning,

these are those blessings that

the glorious scholar gets endowed with.

Syedna Siddique (Ra), Umar (Ra)

also had it.

And many sahaba also had it. And till

the day of judgment,

The scholars of this religion will also

get their share.

So that has been described.

'That I saw this.' He interpreted it.

And understand how the prophets are told

the truth

That is, here, knowledge is flowing in the

form of milk from the nails.

This is not the description of an event.

It is a parable.

So in a dream or in a vision, the same

reality is allegorized.

[Hassan] Let's move forward. Mr. Ghamidi

explain one more thing
When ordinary Muslims listen to your
words,

that Sufi religion, and Sufi imagination,

as a system of thought was prevalent and,

the Sufism that came among us is a

parallel system of thought.

So people find it very strange that,

Be it Buddhism, Jainism, or Hinduism,

So they engage in Shirk, there are

superstitions, they indulge in those.

So how do you combine the Sufis, these

traditions of the Sufi religion,

their system of thought matches with

theirs although they are Muslims.

So it is an entirely different world, they

are in a different place.

They worship idols, while these people

do Salah,

they purify people. So how are these

two things similar?

[Ghamidi] These are Muslims and Sufis.

They are Hindus and Sufis

They may be believers of Shintoism and

Sufis.

they can be Christians and Sufis.

Can be Jews and Sufis.

So even there, both these things work

together.

I just told you that democracy is a

complete system of thought.

Socialism is a complete system of thought.

Among us, many collectively believe them

to be a complete system of thought.

They believe and they are Muslims.

They believe and they are Jews.

They believe and are Christians

So what will they say? They will say that
it is not against my religion.

That is, I believe in it as a separate

knowledge.

And I believe in religion as a separate

insight and knowledge.

So there are both things. The actual

question here is,

that is there a conflict between them?

Do they interfere with each other?

Do these explain the same topic in two

different ways?

If this is not so, how will they disagree?

If you ask me I have told you a lot of

times.

I also have some political beliefs

I have stated that.

Fundamental human rights, rule of law,

democracy,

the right of nations to self-determine.

I call these my political beliefs.

Obviously, I am stating these things, so

are these independent and separate?

Which of these are there in the Quran?

That is, it is not like that.

But I do not consider these things to be

against the Quran.

And in some points, I feel these to be

compatible.

So that is why I can say this. In the same

way they also say it.

Now you have to use critique and tell

them that this point is incorrect.

There are such people. For example, when I

talk about democracy,

they say that democracy is Shirk.

This happens, right?

[Hassan] Okay Mr. Ghamidi, Socialism in

China, though it started in Russia,

So their religious interpretation may be

different but they accept it as ideology.

Among us, Mr. Bhutto has called it

Islamic socialism

Socialism is common but religions are

different

[Ghamidi] Okay, see you gave a good

example,

A movement arose among us.

In this context, if you are familiar with

the history of the Indian Subcontinent.

A communist point of view was formed,

books were written on it.

Our poets were influenced by it.

Our writers were inspired by it.

And many sacrificed a lot. They used to

think that for humanity,

this is an extraordinary thing that has

come forth. You read Sahir or Faiz,

In the same way, you read Kaifi Azmi,

Poets, literary experts, all those who

wrote about.

Later they achieved political success as

well.

Obviously, for political success, there

has to be a political identity.

When that came forward in Zulfiqar Ali

Bhutto,

Look how he merged the things together.

He said Islam is our religion.

Democracy is our politics.

Socialism is our economy.

People are the source of power.

He said four things.

So why did he say them?

Because he doesn't consider these four

things as contradictory.

Isn't that so?

However, if you consider, each one among

these is a complete system of thought.

And it is coming from somewhere.

But he states these like this.

So this is the argument.

When I said this, I told you that do not

take Sufism as merely a partial thing.

Or don't think of it as an interpretation

of a verse or Hadith.

It is in itself a whole system of thought.

And religion is in itself a whole system

of thought.

Now the next thing is,

that are these systems of thoughts

contradictory?

I say they are contradictory.

Another person would say no it is not

contradictory.

He has the right to say it and so do I.

I will put my argument and so will he.

[Hassan] But when he justifies this whole

system of thought taking a verse of Quran.

Then you will question, that those people

who claim this

First, see from their framework,

are they grounding their whole thought

on this verse?

[Ghamidi] This happened in the past

as well. See, they said,

"Socialism is our economy."

They used to read the verses of the Quran.

The way Allama Iqbal wrote a poem.

'Al ardo lillah'.

That is all the earth belongs to Allah.

It was tried to derive from this, that

this thing that the communists say,

means of production should not be owned by

anyone, this is already written in Quran.

Isn't it so?

So that is why pointing the mistake in the

argument is an entirely different thing.

But how is the other person presenting

himself?

So all the Sufi scholars that are there,

They may be Ghazali, Shah Waliullah,

Ibn Arabi,

be it Abu Ismael Harvi, all the great

scholars that are there,

who have systematically written and

described their knowledge,

they present it this same way.

That this is a different system of thought

and this is a different system.

That is, this is the religion of Prophet

Mohammed (PBUH),

And this is Sufism.

And then they say there is no

contradiction between them.

Both are parallel but acceptable.

Just like we believe in a lot of things

along with religion.

So the question is, whether, despite

being parallel are they compatible?

Does religion accept it?

So this is the debate.

So some couldn't understand this argument.

So, they keep paying tribute to research!

I think that when they will see it from

this point of view,

my point will become clear to them.