Prior to look into the historical analysis of the development of Islam by Dr. Muhammad Iqbal and to identify the growth of Sufiism in parallel to Scripturalist Islam, it is essential to give a passing glance on the historical background at the advent of Islam.   The mountains of the textually claims piled up by Muslim writers specially after 12^th century AD, swings around polemic rhetoric influenced under faith, emotion and sectarian prejudices. The focus to deal the issue empirically is not great that deal the subject with objectivity.  The most of the Muslim minds of today, at least in the religious sense, influenced under an emotionally exaggerated interpretation of Islam.  The history before Islam painted, almost none existence, and, it reflect that Islam landed on this earth as the story of Adam and Eve, having had no bearing on it,  what so ever of the social and cultural conditions of that time.

It is a historical fact that the Mecca, a commercial, religious and literary center, was connected not only with every major tribe and local in the Peninsula, but with Near East at large.  Its commercial relations with the Lakhmids, Tamim and Adb Qays exposed it direct to culture of Sasan (Iran), and even of the Orient, India (The present Arabic figures are Indian and the original Arabic figures are English and still existed in Morocco)  and Central Asia;  the elements of Roman and Byzantine cultures came to Mecca because it’s relation with Ghassanids and their predecessors. Under the leadership of Qusayy, the Quraysh, manage to get back the control of Ka’ba, one hundred years before the birth of the Prophet of Islam (pbuh) and settled them around the Ka’ba so that they could have an opportunity to influence the pilgrimages. There use to be only bushes and no settlement of human population around Ka’ba till that time. The Hejazi culture was dominated by Qurayash, the evidence is that the Qur’anic language after controversies,  adopted Nabatean Arabic, (Qurayshi Arabic) at the time of Caliph Uthman (RA) on the plea that because Prophet was Meccan.  The Nabatean Arabic was the language for writing and worshiped major Nabatean deities, such as Hubal, Manat and al-Lat,  there fore  Qur’an itself arguing,  why it adopted polytheist (Arabic) language rather then monotheist (Hebrew)?   Surah Yusuf: “we have sent it down as an Arabic Qur’an in order that you understand it.” (Qur’an 12:2).  In other words God, almighty is also subject to the law of necessity.

Legally, the Arab society was in possession of two sets of laws, one serving sedentary, agriculturalist and commercial needs, the other supporting nomadic tribal conditions and heavily dependent on customary laws.  Prophet of Islam (pbuh) himself was a trade man and   his wife was a trade woman.  There fore in commercial dealings, even the nomads entered into pecuniary and mercantile transactions and contracts that had commonly been practiced in the Near East as long ago as Babylonian and Assyrian times.  The Thamudite and Lihyanite inscriptions (many centuries before Islam), many texts deal with property rights, both movable and immovable (wells, land), as well as with penal cases and pecuniary transactions. In the case of homicide/criminal matters, for example, both the nomads and sedentary populations followed, more or less, the same set of customary laws.  The murder of a man,  in both cases, required either commensurate revenge or payment of blood-money an ancient Near Eastern law that was as much present in the pre-Islamic Peninsula including Mesopotamia.  In the absence of any legislative authority it is not surprising that there hadn’t existed any official organization for the administration of the law. Enforcement of the law was generally the responsibility of the private individual who had suffered injury. Tribal pride demanded that inter-tribal disputes be settled by force (marshal race) of arms, while within the tribe recourse would be had to arbitration.  A suitable ad hoc arbitrator (hakam) was chosen by the parties to the dispute, mostly the choice for a kahin, a priest of a pagan cult. The inter-tribe notion was to be avenged by the infliction of a corresponding loss upon the culprit’s tribe who was collectively  responsible for the action of one of their member and same is the case today in tribal societies. The natural tendency was for a tribe to set an exaggerated value on the member it had loss, two or more lives might be claimed in revenge for a single victim.   The Qur’anic maxim thus altered the legal incidents of homicide, one life---the life of the killer himself---was due for the life of the victim. The term used tha’r (blood revenge) being replaced by that of qisas (just retaliation). This is an important point to note that the Meccan term such as tha’r replaced by Medina term qisas  because this law “life for life” “eye for eye” already existed there among Jewish community. By employing the rules of anthropology, it would safe to suggest that it was a process of harmonization of value system to survive. The migrant community (Muslims) exposed to the new conditions of Medina and because of direct contact with Jewish value system, resulted in a change of ethics, laws and value system. The Qur’anic Juris Corpus that is 500 out of a total 6,219 verses that refer to legal subjects.  In the real term of law there are only 80 verses out of 500 because rest deal with ritual aspects and this amount is same that is in Jewish scripture. The changes were in direct proportion to the change in socio cultural conditions.  The basic structure of the existing law was left unchanged.  Homicide remains an offence which falls into the category of civil injuries rather than that of public offences or crimes, for it is the relatives of the victim who have the right to demand retaliation, accept compensation or pardon the offence altogether.

All the Muslims rituals such as Prayer, Fasting, Alms (zakat) and Hajj are pre-Islamic. Prophet migrated to Medina by 622 AD,  and  till 624AD,  both Jewish and Muslims were praying together facing in the direction of Jerusalem. The question that Jewish don’t prostrate, only shaking their heads, whereas Muslims prostrate?  In other words, one can speculate that the practice of prostrate may had been started after 624AD.  There fore, till this time the Ka’ba in Mecca,  with all the probabilities,  was a “pagan Shrine” not  the “Muslim Ka’ba.”  The terminology of the Arabic jurisprudence can be traced to the language of the Mishnah (Jewish) and this was the time Prophet (pbuh) had introduced sweeping changes. For example the change in Qibla; “It is not righteousness that you turn your faces towards East or West”  Surah al-Baqarah, is a rational argument for change rather than theological.  In other words it is not necessary that to pray while facing Mecca but because practice of a people is always the source of law there fore it is very difficult for Muslims to change until a new demand to forcing it otherwise. In the words of Iqbal, “the search for rational foundations in Islam may be regarded to have begun with the Prophet himself; His constant prayer was: God! Grant me knowledge of the ultimate nature of the things”.(p-3)  The appetite of  knowledge of the ultimate nature of the things foster rational arguments influenced by socio cultural conditions and new ground realities may be the result of sweeping changes. The verse thus precedes a change in the Qibla (verses 115,177,124,151); in pilgrimage rites ( verse 158); in the dietary laws (verses 168-74); in the law relating to the talion (verses 178-9); in bequests (verses 180-2); in the fast (verses 183-7); and again in pilgrimage (verses 191-203)  but the status quo had been tacitly ratified unless it is expressly amended.

The above historical, cultural and legal picture is to prove the point that every system took birth in the stomach of an old system, and when the old system do not able to respond to  the new realities, the new system slowly and gradually as the need demanded started replacing the old system.  The availability of textual work cannot solve our problem without considering the problem of interpretation. Prophet, himself,  said; be articulate and competent while presenting facts for judgment;  “I am after all a human being like you. In the presentation of case, one of you might be more articulate and competent to present his case, and my decision would go to his favor”[Tafhim-ul-Quran vol.1 page 148 note 197], Abu Bakr (RA) adjudged the whole estate in the first instance to the maternal grandmother, on the ground, that Qur’an clearly define grandmothers, the mother’s mother, but not father’s mother.  But when Abd-ar-Rahman ibn-Sahl raised the question of reciprocity and pointed out that the person from whom the present propositus   have had inherited as an agnate, had been excluded, Abu Bakr (RA) revised his decision and gave both the grandmothers equal shares. Similarly, Umar (RA) adjudging another case of inheritance;  as per  Qur’an, gave the husband 2, the mother 6, and the uterine brothers 3, thus exhausting the estate and leaving nothing for the residuary heirs, the full brothers.  As per the old customary residuary heirs should have equal share.  The full brothers appealed and wished to claim qua  uterine and wave their character of agnates.  “Assume”, they said, “that our father does not count.  Consider him a donkey (himar) but our mother is same. How the judgment could be just because our father is different but our right to inheritance is from mother not from father? After hearing their forceful presentation,   Umar (RA), had changed his judgment and allowed them to share equally with the uterine brothers in their  share of  3. The celebrated case took the name from donkey as Himariyya.

The above three examples,  shows that the interpretation of text was subject to reason and logic with in the time and space as well as a forum of adjudication where arguments and facts from both side must be judge.   The collection, compilation, editing of the basic texts do not meet the empirical standard. Historical study shows us that the notions of Causality, Teleology, and even linear movements are not the exclusive property of salvation history, though is more than likely that they were first articulated there. There are structural concepts, and to the question whether they are imposed upon or elicited from the data of history any convincing reply must involve a careful scrutiny of the methods by which those data are thought to be verified..

The rational principle and logical outcome of the interpretation was the dominant sphere in early development of Islamic culture. In the later development, the process of rethinking and reinterpreting the law, norms and value system independently is known as Ijtihad but in early period ra’y was the basic instrument of ijtihad, a generic term which preceded the growth of law under more systematic principles of Qiyas and Istihsan.

Literally speaking, ra’y means opinion and judgment, but the Arabs had used it for the well-considered opinion and skill in affairs.  The sound judgment and mental perception of a person was known as dhu’l-ra’y  and a man weak in judgment and unsound in mind was mufannad an antonym of dhu’l-ra’y.  The Qur’an itself refer to Prophet Noah, that he was followed by the weak and lowly persons immature in judgment (badi al-ra’y).  This implies that intellectual perfection and maturity in judgment had been since long a criterion of greatness. There are many examples in Qur’an exhorts to deep thinking and meditation over its verses. In fact all Prophets fall with in the domain of free thinking because historically they attacked the existing taboos, faith and value system with the weapons of rationalism and Islam itself had identified past as Jhalia (ignorance) that is in relation to knowledge. There fore Islam chooses it’s domain opposite to Jhalia that is knowledge and fundamental of the knowledge is freedom of thought that is a continue process of enquiry and investigation “to know the ultimate nature of things”.

There had been a wrong perception among Muslim writers that the employment of ra’y is only in the absence of clear Qur’anic verses or traditions.  Since the early days of Islam, there has been perpetual conflict between the letter and the spirit of the law.  For example,  Al-Shafi’i^s opponent argues that difference exists over the problems where no Qur’anic injunction or Sunnah is available.  Al-Shafi‘i^ replied that differences of opinion exists even on points on which there are explicit rules in the Qur’an or the Sunnah. There after al-Shafi’i^ recounts a number of Qur’anic verses and traditions on which the Companions and early jurists differed because of their interpretation.

The companion of Prophet,  especially Caliph Umar (RA), exercised ra’y, even in the presence of the injunction in the Qur’an or the Sunnah.  The problem of the text was that; the Companion if identify one verse or tradition for a situation while another pointed to quite a different verse.   Umar  (RA) abolished a share of zakah being given to certain Muslims and non-Muslims for “their cooperation and support” as required by the Qur’an,  the  Prophet use to give this share to chiefs of certain Arab tribes and Abu Bakr (RA) had written in his caliphate for donation of certain lands to some persons on this basis.  Umar (RA)  argued that Prophet had given this share to strengthen Islam; but as the conditions had changed, this share ceased to be valid. Umar b. Abd al-Aziz, during his caliphate, restored the subject share to some people for the same purpose.   Another example,  to prove the point in question that Umar’s (RA) decision not to distribute the conquered land of Iraq and Syria among the companions. The Muslims insisted on distributing the land among them according to the Prophet’s practice.  Umar (RA) replied to all their demands those were according to Qur’an and  Sunnah, that if he kept on distributing the lands, from where he would maintain the army to protect the borders and the newly conquered towns?  The Companion finally agreed and remarked that al-ra’y ra’yuka  (your’s is the correct opinion) but Qur’an 59:6-10 which entitled the Muhajirun, the Ansar and the coming generations to receive the share from ghanimah (booty).  Clearly, Umar (RA) departed the Qur’an and took decision based on his rational argument.

The Muslims and non-Muslims historian,  agreed  on one chain of events  that the Medini Islam shifted at a great length when it moved into Damascus and Baghdad but they gave different reasons.  That great shift was both in terms of Theological, Political and socio cultural. The advance Byzantine legal, political and social culture in Damascus,  while Persian culture in Baghdad, was the source and mental of the new shape of Islam. The later date researchers and compilers of the texts whether scripture or traditions passed through these narrow streets of Damascus and Baghdad, failed to identify the material change in the course of shift.  The falsification in the traditions was great and a trend of backward projection in the name of Prophet and Caliph of the time. The Prophet (pbuh) and Caliph both were having function as an Executive as well as Judicial.  In both case the function  is pole apart.  A decision as judge is different to that of an order as an Executive.  Further more any statement by an individual, do not fall in the category of a judgment or executive order, except to quote as saying of some one.  This is where one can identify that in the name of divine law, the society moved slowly and gradually to adopt Christian dogma.  The Judges were stopped of their independent function resulting the domain of interpretation moved into private hands where laws, rituals and norms been speculated by individuals. The academician had struggled to interpret the law to meet the demand of the change in social conditions of the society especially when they encountered with advanced culture of Byzantine Empire.  On one hand the Courts been deprived of their independence where as the attempts to form and articulate the legislative body was ruthlessly crushed.  Imam Abu Hanifa (d 767) tried to constitute a law making body comprising 40 of his students.  Apart from great legal exponent he was a civic leader where on many occasion he had to intervene on behalf the victims.  The reason,  that he was subject to sever punishment ultimately  died in jail, because he tried to constitute the legislative body. This could be an institution where the Caliph as an executive head to be answerable.  On contrary the Caliph who was in power because of his warlord supporters,  was not in a position to share power with people through judiciary or legislative.  This is where the new interpretation and even, I, suspect the changes in textual scripture took place to suit the warlords and their Caliph.  This was also the time could be identify the emergence of the Mutakallimin and in our time the so-called Ulemma.  The new direction in the interpretation that is nothing more than a  historical deception and cleverly manipulated direction that the law had been promulgated by the God and Caliph is:  The guardian of the law. This was nothing,  but pure Christian dogma and still persist.  History witnessed at the later stage that the  judiciary was further reduced by instituting Muzalim Courts.  The Christian and Jewish Kings were already ruling their subjects with the same notion that they are only acting as Vicegerent of God on this earth and till 17^th century, no one was dear to challenge this notion.

Historically speaking, this was the stage where researchers can see the parallel development i.e  Mutakallimin verses Sufis.  The Mutakallimin ultimately emerge as the guardian of Shari’at in other words scripturalist.  They had been always the mouth peace of Caliph (dictator) and Shari’at was available tool to turn it in the way Caliph wanted to be and the message always goes out from the mosques to the public especially during the Friday prayers.  The Sufis took totally a different course right after the Prophet. Their approach to God, their way to express it and even the method of worship was different.  There is only one order that is known as Naksh Bandi, who follows the same course of worship as the scriptualists do,  but all the others have different methods to express it.     

Before that I should treat the development of Suffism in Islam, let me try to explain some aspect of religion in general and Islam in particular according to social sciences. A “theory”, that is, to claim to explain some thing need to have hypothesis for sensory experience,  to put to test, if proved become theory otherwise not.  The theological arguments based on faith, metaphysics and supernatural, do not provide any hypothesis for test. The socio cultural, socio economic and socio political aspects of a society presents direct access for an empirical study.  Empiricism is a frame of reference that permits man’s mind to come to a scientific understanding of the nature of reality that is derived predominantly from sensory experience.  Every one in this world agreed on President Bush upon viewing his picture on television but there is no agreement on the nature of the God.  There fore in every society, in the words of Mazhar-ul-Haq Khan “the existing social continuum of the living generations at any particular time;  the steam of  social life, is the society at any particular period of it’s history.  The mental or ideological continuum consists of the living and operating thoughts, beliefs, values, ideals, myths, habits, skills, prejudices and other motivations, conscious and sub-conscious that constitute the living culture and civilizations of the people concerned, operating and actualizing themselves by moulding the characters and personalities and minds of the succeeding generations.” So the succeeding generations would be what?

The change in society have it’s own laws. For example the Qur’anic injunctions, combined with the public polices of the new order, represented modification to the customary laws prevailing among the Peninsular Arabs, laws that contained indigenous tribal elements and to an extent, legal provisions that had been applied in the urban cultures of the Near East—including the cities of the Hejaz – for over a millennium.  These customs and laws were still the only “system” of law known to the conquerors, while the Qur’anic injunctions contained and symbolized the mission in whose name these conquerors were fighting.  Abu Bakr (RA) wrote to his generals while deploying army to conquer Syria, “ to kill neither old man nor child,” to establish a covenant with the conquered people who did not resist,  and “to give them assurances and to let them live according to their laws”.   This is another proof that the alien value system not only have to  harmonies with indigenous value system but respect and recognize their right to exist. Those of today, who are out in mission of divine soldier exploiting their religious sentiments, under the notion that their practices are non-Islamic, there fore they should adopt Njidi cultural values without explaining the difference between Njidi culture and Islamic culture or Arab culture and Islamic culture should have to recourse to the original Islam.   

In the early period there are number of terms used such as “ilm, iman, tawhid, tadhkir and hikmah”  were used in broader sense; but later on their original meaning changed and became more narrow and specific. The word Shari’a was used at very later stage. It derived from the root shara’a.  At the later stage it become among Arabic-speaking peoples of the Middle East common in usage  the terms, such as Shari’at Musa, Shari’at al-Masih and Shari’at al-Madjus etc. The root shara’a  has a wide range of secular usage explored and analyzed in the  Arabic lexicographical tradition.  In the early days the Arabic and Arabs were comprise to some Arab Tribes or part of Hejaz.  For Example, after the death of the Prophet (pbuh),  people gathered in order to elect the new leader.  Abu Bakr (RA) in reply to Ansar’s demand that Caliph would be from them. “Particularly the Quraysh and generally the Arab would not accept the non-Quraysh and non-Arab Caliph, there fore you have choice, here is Umar al-Khatib and Abu Abida, to make consent on any one’s hand,” Said Abu Bakr. (RA)   Here Abu Bakr was addressing Ansar, the indigenous people of Medina.  In other words, the  Medina was not to be considered an Arab territory and so are the people of Medina at that time.   The question arises, than what was the Arabs?   In my opinion, the term Shari’a dominated Arab societies indicated the strong influence of Christian dogma.  In Christian traditions, a similar use of this vocabulary can be found in Christian writers, discussion of abrogation being particularly likely to generate systematic reference to shari’a. The Jacobite Isa b. Ishak ibn Zur’a from 4^th/10^th century in his polemical tract directed against Jews, refers Shar’a to system of laws brought by a prophet and subject to abrogation by later prophets.  The translation of the Old Testament into Arabic attributed to Sa’id b. Yusuf al-Fayyumi, known as Sa’adya Gaon (d. A.D 933) demonstrates that Shar’a had become a central component of the religious vocabulary of the Arabic-speaking Jewish community.

Among early Muslims, the terms used was “figh” instead of “Shar’a.” An Arabic idiom goes: Falan la yufqah o wala yunfiqa (so-and-so neither understands nor comprehends). The Arabs originally used this word for camel.  A person, who distinguishes the she-camel, that are lusting from those are pregnant, known as camel expert.   From this expression,  the meaning of deep knowledge and understanding. In more than one place Qur’an used the word figh. There the word figh used for Law in the original Islam not Shar’a.   Literally, the word shari’ah means a “course to the watering place” and a “resort of drinkers.” The Arabs applied this term particularly to a course leading to a watering place, which was permanent and clearly marked out to the eye. Imam Abu Hanifah as K. al-alim wa’l-Muta’allim ascribed to him, distinguished din from shari’ah on the ground that din was never changed, whereas shari’ah continue to change through history. In other words at the time Imam Abu Hanifah, shari’ah was used to identify the culture of the people.  The word figh that was used for law and the people who developed the law in early Islam were no doubt that they were the men of religion but were the expert of law.  They developed law under the local culture of their own that is why they reached conflicting conclusions.  They were:  Meccan;  Ata b. Abi Rabah (d. 114AH),  Amr b. dinar (d.126 AH),  Medina: Said b. al-Musayyib (d. 94 AH), Urwah b. al-Zubayr (d.93 or 94 AH), Abu Bakr b. Abd al-Rahman (94 or 95 AH), Ubayd Allah b. Abd Allah (98 AH), Kharijah b. Zayd  (d. 99AH), Sulayman b. Yasar (d. 107AH), Al-Qasim b. Muhammad (107 AH),  Salim b. Abd Allah b. Umar (d.107AH), Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri (d.124A.H),  Rabi’ah b. Abi Abd al-Rahman (d.136 AH), Yahya  b. Said (143 AH),  Malik (d.179),  Basra: Muslim b. Yasar (d. 108 AH), Al-Hasan b. Yasar (d. 110 AH), Muhammad b. Sirin  (d. 110 AH),  Kufa: Alqamah b. Qays (d. 62A.H), Masruq b. al-Ajda (d. 63 A.H.), Al-Aswad b. Yazid (d. 75 AH), Shurayh b. al-Harith (d.78 AH), Ibrahim al-Nakha’I (d. 96 AH), Al-Sha’bi (d. 103 AH), Hammad b. Abi sulayman al-Ash’ari (d. 120 AH) Abu Hanifah (d  767 AD) and his disciples. Syria:  Qabisah b. Dhuwayb (d. 86AH),  Umar b. Abdul al-Aziz (d.101 AH), Makhul (d. 113 AH), Al-Awza’I (d. 157AH).  These were the original who try to develop the law and it took two hundred years when it become proper law for the middle ages not for today. There fore it would be a serious miss read of history to confuse the law researcher with ignorant mullahs of today.  Let us move to see the development of Sufiism in Islam.

Though there are different interpretations; some of the western writers claim that Sufiism came to Islam from Christianity from the Greek word Theosophy.  Ibn Khaldun identify different aspects  including the poor companion of Prophet’s who use to sit in the bench located north side of the Prophet’s Mosque and known as Asab-ul-Sofa. Nagila AlWhabi in her PhD Thesis (1988 submitted to the University of London)  also of the same opinion about Asab-ul-Sofa who turned out to be famous teachers.  The reason, that the first century of Islam is problematic to the extent even the question of Qur’an as revelation and as a document have two different dimensions and conflicting opinions. The clear historical evidence apart from the Companion of the Prophet was Hasan al-Basri (d. 728 AD).  By the start of 10^th century, Sufi centers were established.  During 12^th Century AD, the Sufi Centers were in Cities, towns and many rural areas throughout the Middle East and North Africa.  One of the earliest of the Sufi order was the Qadiriyah, named after Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani (d. 1166).  Umar ibn Abd Allah al-Suhrawardi (d. 1234) Iranian town of Suhraward, through-out Iran, Central Asia and India. Ahmad ibn Abd Allah al-Shadhili (Shadhiliyah) (d. 1258),  born in Morocco and educated in Egypt, Syria, Arabia and North Africa.  By the 14^th and 15^th Centuries, these and the other Sufi orders were so widespread that they have considerable political power but always kept at distance from ruling elite. The Sufi centers were a source of spiritual comfort to the people who seek refuge after their day-to-day hard ship. The center as source of spiritual comport brought people together in seeking comfort rather imposing one an others belief system and prejudices.  The Sufis identify themselves as part of the spiritual pole and that spiritual pole is part of oneness.  They do not believe that creator is facing his creation in an empty space and in this way God is an otherness and fall under duality or dualism. The non Sufis believe system, in fact, fall under duality, that is two not one, i.e. The God and it’s creation, both exist in an empty space.      

The Sufis basically were free thinkers and they were disagree at length with so-called the guardian of Shari’at.  I myself when moved from scripturalist Islam into the domain of Sufis,  had encountered with a totally different situation.  One day my colleague asked me a question  while Qur’an was on the table.  “CAN THAT QUR’AN MOVE DUST ON IT’S TOP?”, upon hearing the question,  firstly I was shaken, and then, slowly I said “NO”.  “THEN WHO WILL MOVE THE DUST?”  I replied, “HUMAN BEING”.  THEN WHO IS QUR’AN?  Again  the question. My reply was ….it means “HUMAN BEING”.  This was my own experience of free thinking in sufism.

In the view of Dr. Muhammad Iqbal,  “the Mutakallimin regarded the soul as a finer kind of matter or a mere accident which dies with the body and is re-created on the Day of Judgment.  The philosophers of Islam received inspiration from Greek thought. In the case of other schools, it must be remembered that the expansion of Islam brought within its fold peoples belonging to different creed-communities, such as Nestorians (Christian), Jews, Zoroastrians, whose intellectual outlook had been formed by the concepts of a culture which had long dominated the whole of middle and western Asia.  This culture, on the whole magian in its origin and development, has a structurally dualistic soul-picture which we find more or less reflected in the theological thought of Islam. Devotional Sufiism alone tried to understand the meaning of the unity of inner experience which the Quran declares to be one of the three sources of knowledge, the other two being History and Nature. The development of this experience in the religious life of Islam reached its culmination in the well-known words of Hallaj – ‘I am the creative truth.’ The contemporaries of Hallaj as well as his successors, interpreted those words pantheistically; but the fragments of Hallaj, collected and published by the French Orientalist, M. Massignon, leave no doubt that the martyr-saint could not have meant to deny the transcendence of God. ……………The phrase of Hallaj seems almost a challenge flung against the Mutakallimin.”  I have quoted lengthy passage of Dr. Iqbal to answer some questions that had been raised by some people upon my press release in reaction to the death sentence of Mr. Lateef in Pakistan.  

On the question of Hallaj,  I would like to quote Dr. Iqbal again, “In the history of religious experience in Islam which, according to the Prophet, consists in the ‘creation of Divine attributes in man,’ this experience has  found expression in such phrases as—‘I am the creative truth’ (Hallaj), ‘I am Time (Muhammad), ‘I am the speaking Quran’ (Ali), ‘Glory to me’ (Ba Yazid).  In the higher Sufiism of Islam unitive     experience is not the finite ego effacing its own identity by some sort of absorption into the Infinite Ego;  it is rather the Infinite passing into the loving embrace of the finite.  As Rumi says:  ‘Divine knowledge is lost in the knowledge of the saint!  And how is it possible for people to believe in such a thing?        END