Bulleh Shah

Dear Ballukhan

Great point. Wish more of us were in your league, and `not scholars of such calibre.` :)

Regards.



Naqshbandi

I, and many other people like me, admire Sufism, but we don`t want to admire it in complete ignorance - admiring Y thinking it is X. Put simply, we don`t want to be misled. Your kind help in clarifying the following will be much appreciated.

1. Why does an orthodox Muslim like Escapist hold you in such utter and vicious contempt? Who has got Islam wrong?

2. What kind of spirituality or mysticism could one associate with a doctrine based on such dogmas as -

- God is not God unless He is called Allah.

- God sends prophets. But He told whatever He ever wanted to tell, now and forever, to a man named Muhammad, and shut down the prophet production line for good.


If we outright reject such foolish nonsense as unbecoming of any rational human being, did Bulleh Shah believe that we would all go straight to hell, while Muslims went on to enjoy the after-life wonders of heaven?

What exactly was Bulleh Shah`s doctrine? I am asking you in the hope that you know Bulleh Shah.

Thanks for your help, my friend.

escapist....sometimes!

***


Ballu ALL I am trying to convince you and Ralp and others of is that Sufism is nothing other than the spiritual, mystical, inner, dimension of orthodox Sunni Islam...


Name any well known Sufi and find out a bit about his doctrine, and education...every one will have been educated in a madrassah from Hasan al Basri in the 1st century of Islam to Pir Sayyid Mihr Ali Shah in the 20th and all in between from Rumi and Ghazali to Ibn Arabi and Shah Wali Allah...#

That`s all!

#43 by Ralph on September 17, 2004 6:18am PT
I am hardly a scholar of Naqshbandi`s calibre and I do not think you have to fear anyone trying to follow a tariqat. We should be just wary of those who try to `use` politics with the tariqat to score a few temporal points.
It is just that some follow the path blindly by counting the number of steps to the muqam- while some just run along the path with their eyes wide open.

Naqshbandi

I will be honest with you. Your association with Sufism changes the entire meaning of the term.

Why don`t you tell us, in a few short paragraphs, what the essence of Sufism is. What are the few principles without agreeing with which any sympathy with Sufism will be inappropriate? Thanks.

Also, I do not know Mr. Ling, and think extremely poorly of Ms. Anne Marie Schimmel. We would learn much by reading directly your own words.

Naqshbandi.

great to have you back. Are you still posting nudes pics on your i logs in another site in the name of art and beauty? I kinda lost the URL.

regards

Those skeptics who can`t accept Sufism is an integral part of Islam and nothing else but the practical application of the command to `worship Allah as if you see Him and if you do not see Him know that He sees you` should read any of the following renowned books in their field:

What is Sufism? by Martin Lings
Mystical Dimensions of Islam by Anne Marie Schimmel.

Also this website answers the question What is Sufism? from a practising Sufi:

http://www.livingislam.org/fiqhi/fiqha_e50.html


http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/sufitlk.htm

Ralph & Bullukhan:
Fear not Naqshbandi, Contact Deepak Chopra: He agrees with Naqshbandi.
In the mean time chew on this:

---

#20 by echoboom on September 13, 2004 11:14am PT
garam-chai:[ & others] 16

Just to throw cold water on your enthusiastic gloat about shariat. The context here is about intellectualism , bookishness, legal hair-splitting, social-sciencism, spin doctoring, analysis by Harvard harlots , anthropology-for-oil & minerals, `litterature` littorism, and such kind of moderatism.

Shariat and tareequat are an integral part of evey sage The word SUFI has become a polluted word, and I seldom use it now that it has been adopted by westernised vultures. They think it is a kind of gay-soul-, where sword is an alien concept: they forget Ali--the ultimate and unanimous source of all such sages

These sages whose reputation has survived the vagaries of Time & Space of whatever belief system were never sharabis, chursees, bhungees, haraamkaars, or haraam khores.

Ironically the ``muslims``[ or even a wayward-hindu or christian] who try to glean some lustre off from these sages are exactly the opposite in character , creed, and deed than that of these sages.

---

There is no other refuge!

Ballukhan

I am going to accuse you of being a scholar :)

That was an extremely well-written, IMO accurate, analysis. As my #12 would suggest, I hold Sufism, and some of the great Sufis, in very high regard. Sufism, the way I understand it, is a true religous path that made only limited and nominal concessions to Islam, just enough to ensure its own survival under very harsh philosphical conditions. (if a Sufi could survive the physical wrath of Muslims by agreeing to call the Object of his worship by an arabic word, allah, and by paying obligatory deferences to their man friday called muhammad, to a Sufi`s mind, he didn`t lose much).

My fear arises from the connection of gentlemen like Naqshbandi to Sufism. That plants a seed of doubt in my mind. Do I not fully understand Sufism? More interestingly, do Hindus who revere sufis as ones of their own - I can`t tell the difference between Sufism and much of philosophical Hinduism - have got things all wrong?

It`s hard to believe to anything that warms the heart of Mr. Naqshbandi can be good for humanity, particularly non Muslims. This connection makes it imperative that no matter what our own prior right or wrong views of Sufism may have been, we, at the very least, take another look at Sufism. Could it be that despite the best intentions of Sufis, Sufism itself became just a well-decorated gateway for an entrance into Islam?

My humble question to all is as follows.

If the sufies did believe in commonality across religions then why did so many people have to convert - there is a theory that begs more research and that is that sufies were the nice guys who were sent by imperialist Muslim emperors to soften up the general population.

take the example of Sufies in Punjab and Sindh or even the famouse Rumi of Anatolia.

#40 by Ralph on September 16, 2004 9:04am PT
The need to subsume sufism into contemporary Islam or not is a political decision of the supporters/detractors. The sufis were mostly condemned because they took away the spiritual authority from the elites who accused that in the name of tariqat (way) they innovated hundreds of false beliefs, and laid down the basis of another shariat besides the Islamic shariat. The sufis were accused of justifying these innovations on the grounds that it was the spiritual knowledge which had been transmitted by word of mouth from generation to generation and constituted a much more efficacious way of communion with God as compared to the known shariat.
Even the sufi thought has gone great political transformation since ages and may appear in some sufi schools as a rigid institutionalized tariqat that undermines the importance of the informal and intense spiritual communication between the murid and his shiekh/murshid.

This is an area on which I would request the kind input of Hindus on Chowk. In general, I have seen that they are very respectful of Sufis.

Naqshbandi`s #37 and #38 reflect the fact that there is far greater connection between Naqshabandi`s Islam and Bulleh Shah like Sufis than people may at first believe.

Should we ignore this connection? If not, what are the implications of this nexus? What are its social and religious consequences? Have the admiring Hindus, in general, known less about Sufis than they should in order to make a better judgement of the character and role of these individuals?

Great choice of topic romair!

Hazrat Bulleh Shah Qadiri rahmatullah alayhi was, no doubt, one of the greatest saints of the Subcontinent. (Saint is here a translation of the Arabic word `wali` and used in its specific Islamic Sufi sense). His poetry, like that of, eg Rumi, is of a heart annihilated in the Love of Allah! The biggest mistake is to interpret it in a perrenialist sense! He is speaking like a lover so lost in his Divine Beloved that everything *appears* to him to be the same. This is the expression of the Unity of Being [wahdat al wujood] first formulated in these words (the idea and the reality has existed since the first days of Islam eg the Prophet alayhisalatuwa salam`s famous hadith, `He who has seen me has seen The Truth (al Haqq)` ie. Allah or `O Abu Bakr no one knows my Reality except my Rabb!` ) It means that the saint of Allah is reminded of Allah in every object he sees. It does not mean he believes everything is Allah (which goes against basic Islamic teachings and every wali is a Muslim first and foremost; all of them, like Hazrat Bulleh Shah, followers of Sunni orthodoxy and very pious in practise. Thus there criticism of mullahs who practise one thing, preach another! The awliya practise what they preach! )

Main NeevaaN Mera Murshid Uccha...
Main UcchiyaaN naal sang laayee
I am lowly my spiritual guide is lofty!
I have tied my fate to such lofty ones!

BTW nearly every mehfil of the Ahle Sunnat in Pakistan a and the Pakistani Diaspora usually has someone, at least one naatkhaan, who recites from the poetry of Hazrat Bulleh Shah!

Sometimes whole jalsay are devoted to his memory and praise!

May Allah sanctify his innermost being and give us his faiz!

Wonderful article...good job. I am not punjabi, I hardly understand the language but I have always been fascinated by the vision of Bulley Shah...I have been trying to find the translation of his poems in English but so far no luck...if anyone could tell me where I can find something like that, it would be nice.
Once again, thank you very much Umair Raja for writing such a wonderful article about Bulley Shah!

BaluKhan

All that you describe sounds very Buddhist-Hindu in its mindblowing way of looking at the oneness of creation!