Introduction
Engineer Mirza’s stance on the controversial phrases attributed to Sufi elders requires a nuanced and scholarly response. These phrases, which he deems blasphemous, are found in the writings and sayings of many revered Sufi figures. It is crucial to address the issue in a methodical way, considering both religious and historical contexts. This response will clarify the distinction between the spiritual wisdom of Sufi elders and the claims of kufr (disbelief) that Mirza is making.
1. The Responsibility of Issuing Fatwas
First and foremost, issuing a fatwa (legal opinion) on matters of disbelief (kufr) is the responsibility of qualified scholars who have deep knowledge of Islamic jurisprudence, not self-appointed individuals. To declare a phrase or statement as kufr, there needs to be clear, authentic evidence, backed by a valid chain of narration (isnad). Any claim of disbelief must be based on verified sources and rigorous scholarly evaluation, which Engineer Mirza fails to provide.
Mirza’s Mistake:
Engineer Mirza attempts to label certain Sufi phrases as kufr without proper scholarly grounding. A true fatwa should come from scholars who understand the context, historical background, and the broader religious framework in which these words were uttered. Without a sound, authenticated chain of narration, one cannot issue a fatwa, and this is where Mirza’s argument falls short.
2. Understanding Sufi Phrases
Sufi phrases that seem controversial or problematic are often misunderstood if taken out of context. Sufis use metaphorical, allegorical, and mystical language, which may not align with conventional religious discourse but is deeply rooted in spiritual experiences. Words like “shathiyyaat” (ecstatic utterances), “Ilham” (inspiration), and “Karamat” (miracles) are terms that denote a state of spiritual ecstasy or divine inspiration, often seen as outside the literal interpretation of traditional Islamic law.
Key Point:
Before issuing a judgment, it is essential to recognize that these expressions do not represent blasphemy in the traditional sense. They are often used to describe profound mystical experiences, and most scholars allow for these expressions, understanding that they are metaphorical and not literal denouncements of faith. Misinterpreting them as kufr is a misapplication of Islamic jurisprudence.
Mirza’s Mistake:
Mirza fails to consider the context in which these words were spoken. His judgment assumes a literal and conventional interpretation without taking into account the spiritual and mystical dimensions that many Sufi scholars acknowledge.
3. The Role of Sufis in Islamic History
Sufi elders have historically been revered for their piety, dedication to Shariah, and spiritual wisdom. Figures such as Hazrat Bayazid Bastami, Hazrat Rumi, and others were known for their deep devotion to God and their exemplary character. Their words are seen as expressions of their personal spiritual journeys, not as deviations from Islamic principles.
Historical Context:
In Islamic history, especially during the times of the Abbasid Caliphate and other major Islamic dynasties, there were many debates and trials concerning the views of Sufis. However, even controversial figures like Mansur al-Hallaj (who was accused of heresy) were engaged in intellectual and judicial debates. Importantly, Hazrat Bayazid Bastami, a prominent Sufi, was never subjected to any trial or judicial inquiry regarding his teachings, which indicates that his phrases were not considered blasphemous by contemporary scholars.
Mirza’s Mistake:
Engineer Mirza ignores this historical precedent. If Hazrat Bayazid’s expressions had been considered kufr by the scholars of his time, there would have been formal judicial proceedings. The absence of such trials indicates that the Sufi expressions in question were viewed as within the bounds of Islamic spirituality.
4. The Issue of Book Printing and Responsibility
Engineer Mirza places blame on the Barelvi school of thought for printing books that contain these controversial phrases. However, it is important to note that the printing of books is not the responsibility of religious scholars but of publishers, many of whom may not fully understand the context of the material they are printing. The responsibility for ensuring that no heretical material is published lies with the scholars, who can point out errors but should not be held accountable for the publication of materials that may not have been adequately reviewed or vetted.
Key Point:
Not all books printed by different groups or schools of thought represent the official position of that school. It is not the responsibility of scholars to oversee every book that gets printed. The task of reviewing and approving printed material lies with those who are well-versed in Islamic teachings and traditions.
Mirza’s Mistake:
Engineer Mirza wrongly holds the entire Barelvi school responsible for printed works that may contain controversial phrases, whereas the responsibility lies primarily with the individuals or organizations that print these materials.
5. Clarifying the Role of Scholars in Addressing Controversial Phrases
It is the role of scholars to evaluate controversial phrases and issue fatwas based on sound principles of Islamic jurisprudence. However, as mentioned earlier, these issues must be approached with care, considering the broader context, the intentions of the speaker, and the mystical language used.
Scholars’ Role:
Scholars from all schools of thought can come together to issue a consensus on the controversial phrases found in Sufi literature, ensuring that any harmful or un-Islamic content is appropriately addressed. However, this should be done in a scholarly manner, without jumping to conclusions or issuing fatwas based on misunderstandings or personal biases.
Conclusion
Engineer Mirza’s stance on the controversial phrases attributed to Sufi elders lacks scholarly rigor and an understanding of the historical and mystical context in which these phrases were expressed. The issue of issuing fatwas on such matters should be left to qualified scholars who can properly assess the situation, considering all the nuances of Islamic jurisprudence and spirituality. By oversimplifying the matter, Mirza does not provide an authentic or valid response to these complex issues.
Final Thought:
It is essential to approach the writings and expressions of Sufi elders with respect and scholarly diligence. Instead of hastily labeling them as kufr, we must engage with their words in light of Islamic jurisprudence, acknowledging the spiritual and historical context in which they arose.