Iqbal on the Prophet (salallahu alayhi wa sallam):

[Abd al-Haqq Marshall]

He slept on a mat of rushes,
But the crown of Chosroes was under his people's feet.
He chose the nightly solitude of Mount Hirá,
And he founded a state and laws and government.
He passed many a night with sleepless eyes
In order that the Moslems might sleep on the throne of Persia.
In the hour of battle, iron was melted by his sword;
In the hour of prayer, tears fell like rain from his eye.
When he was called to aid, his sword answered "Amen"
And extirpated the race of kings.
He instituted new laws in the world,
He brought the empires of antiquity to an end.
With the key of religion he opened the door of this world:
The womb of the world never bore his like.

- Muhammad Iqbal, "Asrar-e-Khudi"

[seeker_of_knowledge]

Brother a request to you please use "Raheemallahu" after Dr Iqbal(Raheemallahu)'s name. The poet of Islam.

"Baatil se dabne wale
Hai Nahi Insaan Hum
Sau bar le chuka hai tu
Imtehaan humara"

[hshad]

Brother a request to you please use "Raheemallahu" after Dr Iqbal(Raheemallahu)'s name. The poet of Islam.


Muhammad Iqbal (rahimahuallah) had the Islamic spirit down pat. But, he wasn't a scholar so he has many mistakes. Not only that, it seems like he was himself confused about the place of philosophy and intellectual discourse in Islam.

I only mentioned this so that you don't become one of those Pakistanis who think whatever he said on Islam was more or less accurate or those who will go to great lengths to make sure Muhammad Iqbal was indeed an allamah, that he had no mistakes, that his philosophy education in the West didn't contribute to his sometimes contradictory positions.

But, this shouldn't stop you from reading his works. He indeed had many beneficial things to say. And, his poetry can really awaken one's desire to do good for Muslims. May Allah give you success.

[seeker_of_knowledge]

jazakallahu khairun for the advice brother. Iqbal(raheemallah) might have made mistakes and so had many other Muslim leaders and scholars, however without criticising him we can take the good and forbid the evil and don't worry I believe in only following the Quran and Sunnah of the Rasul(saw) blindly and no one else in this universe unlike some paki fanatics.

[I_Am_A_Hermit]

- Muhammad Iqbal, "Asrar-e-Khudi"

For the full impact - read it in Urdu.

[leo]

Muhammad Iqbal (rahimahuallah) had the Islamic spirit down pat. But, he wasn't a scholar so he has many mistakes.
I only mentioned this so that you don't become one of those Pakistanis who think whatever he said on Islam was more or less accurate or those who will go to great lengths to make sure Muhammad Iqbal was indeed an allamah, that he had no mistakes

Indeed, he wasn't a scholar, but far better than those religious big-wigs of Sub-continent, who openly opposed creation of Pakistan and their contributions remained limited to guiding the laymen on halala marriages only.

[Adeel]

Muhammad Iqbal (rahimahuallah) had the Islamic spirit down pat. But, he wasn't a scholar so he has many mistakes. Not only that, it seems like he was himself confused about the place of philosophy and intellectual discourse in Islam.

I only mentioned this so that you don't become one of those Pakistanis who think whatever he said on Islam was more or less accurate or those who will go to great lengths to make sure Muhammad Iqbal was indeed an allamah, that he had no mistakes, that his philosophy education in the West didn't contribute to his sometimes contradictory positions.

But, this shouldn't stop you from reading his works. He indeed had many beneficial things to say. And, his poetry can really awaken one's desire to do good for Muslims. May Allah give you success.


What was wrong with him exactly?! When I have'nt come across things you stated. Can you point it out plz?

[kamran]

Assalam o alaikum,

What was wrong with him exactly?! When I have'nt come across things you stated. Can you point it out plz?

It is not easy for me to write down "what is wrong with Mr. X" reports. I'll simply tell you what I have known about him over the years (both positives and negatives). I have read most of his Urdu works and some Persian too.

He was a sincere, gifted Muslim poet with deep insight.

He had a modernist slant for a good number of years before increased knowledge helped him overcome his blues. During this 'modernist' phase, he had a number of strange views as we can find in his Reconstuction of Islamic Thought. This phase is a boon to the modernists (including everyone from Ghulam Ahmad Pervez to Dr. Riffat Hassan).

He had a Sufi obsession going for him as well which he later condemned blatantly (particularly in Zarb-e-Kaleem, in poems like "Jihad" and "Sufi se" for example).

His followers vary:

Outright Hadith rejecters like Ghulam Ahmad Pervez (who is now dead of course) tend to use his views to support their claims. Modernists like Riffat Hassan and his own son, Dr. Javed Iqbal at times refer to him as the only authority when it comes to Islam (completely ignoring that Iqbal's wife, for example, used to be covered head to toe).

Sufis, like the ones at Iqbal Academy (who are pretty close in thought to Hamza Yousuf, Abdul Hakeem Murad and Martin Lings, whom they invited just days before he died), derive their inspiration from him. He exhibited some really strange views. For example, in one of his quatrains, he sounds like a whirling dervish yelling about Laa-Makaan (all linked with Wahdatul Wujood etc.).

Because of his Indian roots and his "Hindustan" poetry, Indians consider him an Indian poet and that includes Hindus and Sikhs too.

Since he wrote a lot in Persian, Iranians own him as well.

Islamic movements in Pakistan own him too and use his poetry and his personality to varying degrees in their favour. This of course depends on their moods as well. I am not condemning them for that by the way.

Among his critics, there are some strange folks like the Jamia Karachi guys who have literally portrayed him as the worst thing to happen to us.

So it is all about that. When it comes to us, and we all read him, it becomes clear that he was far from perfect when it comes to thought. His last works are exceptional and pretty clear with regards to Islamic thought. He remained a gifted poet throughout and not many can match him.

I think this is about it.

Kamran

[hearandobey]

it's rahimahullah:

rahima (he had mercy on)
hu (on him)
llaah (Allah - the one that had the mercy on someone)

not raheem ullaah (the raheem of Allah)etc etc! i see this mistake too often on forums...

[Abd al-Haqq Marshall]

For the full impact - read it in Urdu.

Asrar-e-Khudi is in Persian, not Urdu.

[hshad]

Indeed, he wasn't a scholar, but far better than those religious big-wigs of Sub-continent, who openly opposed creation of Pakistan and their contributions remained limited to guiding the laymen on halala marriages only.

This is an unjust statement. Opposing the creation of Pakistan doesn't mean the scholars didn't care for Muslims. You must know that the ahl-e-hadith scholars did also oppose the creation of Pakistan, and they don't have halala centers! Initially, the opposition came because of Jinnah and other "leaders" of Pakistan movement. The scholars and those who were serious about their religion were horrified that a person like Jinnah was to lead the Muslims of the subcontinent.

They rightly believed that Jinnah, who was in love with Ata Turk, would impose a secular state, and believe me, Jinnah had every intention to do this. We thank Allah that He removed him soon after the creation of Pakistan. But, when the scholars saw that the creation of Pakistan was inevitable, disagreement ensued and they split. One group wanted to support the creation of Pakistan and move to Pakistan and the other didn't. Mufti Muhammad Shafi' Uthmani (father of Taqi Uthmani) was the leader of those who wanted to move to Pakistan, and he did.

It was these "useless" scholars who kept Pakistan from becoming a secular state like Turkey. It was them who criticized modernist thoughts that were injected by people like Syed Ahmed Khan or Hamidullah Farahi or Islahi. It is these same scholars, with all their mistakes, who are fought Gohar Shahi, Ghamidi and Babar Chaudhry, etc.

You shouldn't let your dislike for halala marriages and Deobandis (if you dislike them) cloud your prespective on history.

What was wrong with him exactly?! When I have'nt come across things you stated. Can you point it out plz?

Read Shikwa only. Not its jawab. If I'm not mistaken he wrote jawab-e-shikwa when he was heavily cirticized for writing shikwa. Read Reconstuction of Islamic Thought and you will see a Muʿtazilite, read some of his poetry where he praises darwaish, read his acceptance of peer/mureed in his poems, read his sometimes blanket criticism of the "Mullah" i.e. 'Deen-e-Mullah fi sabilillah fasaad', etc, etc.

Here is the thing, as Kamran has said, you will find the secularist/liberals, the religious ones, the modernists, all of them using something from Iqbal's literature to support their views. You probably don't know how much the nationalist-secularists/liberals use Iqbal's works to support themselves.

The problem is that both Jinnah and Iqbal have been propped up in Pakistan to a level that's only second to Allah, Rasool and sahabah for many people. And, we don't realize it, but it's done in a very subtle way. Early in the evening, it's a quote by Iqbal on TV after 'asr adhaan, then a hadith a few hours later and then a quote by Jinnah usually around maghrib/isha adhaan. The impression given is that all three should be/are our moral compass when Jinnah was an outright secularist who was all for democracy and Iqbal had his mistakes.

Again, this should not lead you abondon Iqbal's writings. But, we must keep an open mind while reading him and we must realize he was far from a scholar. And, he was no 'allamah'. One of the earlist couplets that I was ever able to memorize was (he was addressing to the young adults):

نہیں تیرا نشیمن قصر سلطانی کے گنبد پر
تو شاہین ہے بسیرا کر پہاڑوں کی چٹانوں میں

So, there is lots to be gained from his poetry, and his works can rekindle the zeal for Islam especially amongst the youth/young adults.

[leo]

You must know that the ahl-e-hadith scholars did also oppose the creation of Pakistan

It was these "useless" scholars who kept Pakistan from becoming a secular state like Turkey.


The issue is not of ahle hadith or deobandis, rather of those who joined the other camp and opposed the creation of an independent country. A secular country, as they visualised would have been, in any case, better than the slavery of Hindus, where Muslims were not even allowed to slaughter cows during Eid ul-Adha.

[hshad]

The issue is not of ahle hadith or deobandis, rather of those who joined the other camp and opposed the creation of an independent country. A secular country, as they visualised would have been, in any case, better than the slavery of Hindus, where Muslims were not even allowed to slaughter cows during Eid ul-Adha.

I'm not sure if you would be proud of Pakistan if it was like Turkey. You don't seem to realize how West-oriented Jinnah was. You are right, nobody wants to loose his self respect or dignity so I can see how you might support a secular state for Muslims. But, is your dignity intact if, for example, you wife wasn't allowed to cover her head?

The fact is that scholars thought that it could be potentially more damaging to the spirit of Islam to have a state for Muslims led by Jinnah. Whether they were right or wrong, we would never know. Instead of generalizing and criticizing the whole clergy, what you should realize is that many scholars did decide to move to Pakistan to "hijack" the Pakistani statehood as so many secularists like to say.

[leo]

I'm not sure if you would be proud of Pakistan if it was like Turkey. You don't seem to realize how West-oriented Jinnah was. You are right, nobody wants to loose his self respect or dignity so I can see how you might support a secular state for Muslims. But, is your dignity intact if, for example, you wife wasn't allowed to cover her head?

The fact is that scholars thought that it could be potentially more damaging to the spirit of Islam to have a state for Muslims led by Jinnah. Whether they were right or wrong, we would never know. Instead of generalizing and criticizing the whole clergy, what you should realize is that many scholars did decide to move to Pakistan to "hijack" the Pakistani statehood as so many secularists like to say.

After six decades, one can make fair assessment that those who dreamed of Pakistan becoming Turkey were absolutely wrong. Today, you wouldn't find their admirers on this account and they don't find any place in the pages of the history. The concept of nationhood though divergent to the teachings of Islam is still a reality. The Muslims of those times had justified demand of an independent state, since they were denied everything by the Pundits and their foreign masters and they were living like a persecuted community, with no religious freedom, no share in jobs and no separate identity as Muslims. Under such worst scenerio, if they started freedom movement under the leadership of a secular Muslim, they had the legitimate right and those who who didn't like the idea of an independent Islamic state should have been quiet and could have avoided the criticism made by the later generations. They should have stayed back, instead capitalizing upon the sacrifices made by ordinary Muslims.

Pakistan could have survived easily w/o those few "traditional" scholars, as their blind followers like to use this title with their names.

[kamran]

Assalam o alaikum Leo,

I am simply summing it up for you.

There were four distinct views:

One group favoured partition and believed that under the circumstances, Muslim League's stance was correct. These people believed that under the circumstances, there would not be a better option than to go for this.

A second group believed that since India was an occupied Muslim land, Muslims need to wrest it back completely. Hence, going for only part of it is wrong. For this, this group believed in making sacrifices to the limit. Hence, the sincerity cannot be doubted.

A third group believed that Muslims were ignorant and had lost their sense of Deen (having become Hindufied etc.) and need to be corrected on radical lines. This view also propounded that unless these issues were addressed, they would be yearning to join hands with the Hindus within 50 to 60 years. This group also believed that there were loads of Munafiqs within Muslim ranks and they needed to be shunned.

All the above groups can at least be given the benefit of the doubt even if you disagree with them.

Even though Pakistan has not become Turkey, there are some really bad signs: Our media screams for a unity with Hindus. Our public is obsessed with Hindi movies. Their heroes and heroines are Bollywood film actors. And yes, people like Najam Sethi and co., very much the opinion-makers in their own right, are crying for it all the time.

So at this point, there was a fourth group too and that had no excuse for its stance which was that Indians were one nation regardless of the religion and all struggle should be for this very thing i.e. Indian Nationalism. This was the only stance for which we cannot have any benefit of the doubt, so obviously deviant it was. And many big Maulanas unfortunately had THIS view too.

Furthermore, I have tried to explain these views on the basis of the principles used rather than the personalities that existed at the time.

Kamran

[leo]

Even though Pakistan has not become Turkey, there are some really bad signs: Our media screams for a unity with Hindus. Our public is obsessed with Hindi movies. Their heroes and heroines are Bollywood film actors. And yes, people like Najam Sethi and co., very much the opinion-makers in their own right, are crying for it all the time.

I agree with you brother, but if we couldn't deliver and didn't prove equal to the task, Muslims of Sub-continent, who sacrificed everything in the just cause can't be blamed. Unfortunately, there are Muslims amongst us, who like to propagate the stance held by few scholars of that time, which is irrelevent at this stage.

[kamran]

I agree with you brother, but if we couldn't deliver and didn't prove equal to the task, Muslims of Sub-continent, who sacrificed everything in the just cause can't be blamed. Unfortunately, there are Muslims amongst us, who like to propagate the stance held by few scholars of that time, which is irrelevent at this stage.

I do not think anyone blamed them. As far as I am concerned, only the fourth stance has problems. Every other stance can be justified as a legitimate difference of opinion. When Pakistan was created, everyone accepted it as a reality and then strove accordingly.

Unfortunately, there are Muslims amongst us, who like to propagate the stance held by few scholars of that time, which is irrelevent at this stage.

Not here in general. In Pakistan, yes and for all the wrong reasons.

[suhail]

Leo dont generalize the scholars who differed on the topic of creation of Pakistan. They were sincere ulema. There were few who were calling to Indian nationalism but a lot of them differred because of varying reasons.

They were right or wrong only Allah(SWT) knows. As far as i am concerned they were sincere in there task.

[hshad]

Leo, read my comments again. Looking back over the sixty years doesn't help. Hindsight is always 20/20. Nobody is saying that scholars might not have erred. What I'm objecting to is your generalization of scholars, who in your view opposed the creation of Pakistan.

Also know that Pakistan is not the ideal solution...not then, not today. How can it be when we used to rule India and now play second fiddle to the Hindus? Many scholars and Muslims wanted the restoration of pre-British circumstances...i.e. rule of minority Muslims over majority Hindus. And, this would have been the ideal case. So, do not let your nationalist emotions cloud your judgment.

It's not possible to know how people's minds work in certain situation. I'm not surprised some scholars were weary of the leadership of Pakistan. The leadership of Pakistan was heavily influenced by the West. I mean you had several Qadiyanis in important bureaucratic positions with Zafarullah Khan being the top bureaucrat. You know Iskandir Mirza, the president of Pakistan? Some say he was also Qadiyani, but this is for sure: He had no problems with these kuffar. You've Muhammad Asad who might have been sincere but wasn't exactly expounding orthodox Islam. All these people involved in Pakistan movement and to top it off Jinnah/Liaquat combo must have been enough to make the scholars hesitant about supporting the creation of Pakistan initially.

And, also know that some of those scholars who stayed behind in what's now India did to protect the rights and Islamic spirit of the Muslims there. As you would know India has more Muslims then Pakistan today (meaning only West Pakistan). For example, Abul Hasan Ali Nadwi...read his books/speeches and you will then understand why he stayed behind. He even wrote a book called Tuhfa-e-Pakistan.

Yes, there were some Muslim figures who were Indian nationalist like Abul Kalam Azad and Mukhtar Ansari. And, for all the efforts ahl-e-hadith spend on praising Abul Kalam, for me he was a staunch nationalist who sided with Nehru and Gandhi and scolded those who wanted to move to Pakistan (I've read this). So, such figures I despise too, but they do not represent the ulema in general.

But, it is not highly surprising that most Pakistanis are offended if Iqbal or Jinnah or Liaquat or even Pakistan is talked about in less than divinely manner. Like you, they would rather generalize and throw mud on scholars than understand the reality. We have been taught to think this way...it's not your fault.

[leo]

But, it is not highly surprising that most Pakistanis are offended if Iqbal or Jinnah or Liaquat or even Pakistan is talked about in less than divinely manner.

I agree, majority of pakistanis consider them national heroes.

[seeker_of_knowledge]

I agree, majority of pakistanis consider them national heroes.

Why cant Dr Iqbal(ra) be considered a national hero ??? Just because he made some mistakes can't we respect his work for the deen ? He tried to ignite in Muslims the love for Islam and the love for Al Jihad fe Sabilillah.

Here are some of his quotes :

"Ye Sahadat ka hai ulfat me kadam rakhna
Log aasan samaj te he musalman hoona"

Being a Muslim is like standing in the queue to be a shaheed,
but people still think its easy to be a Muslim

"Islam Zinda hota hai har karbale ke baad"

Islam comes to life after every Karbala (Jihad).

Fear Allaah(swt) and refrain from making comments about a man who cannot defend himself against any accusations. Allaah(swt) is there to judge him,we can take the good from him and make dua for him that Allaah(swt) forgives all his mistakes and help us in benefitting from his knowledge.

[leo]

He is considered national hero.

[hshad]

The point was not whether we should consider him a national hero or not. Rather, I was pointing out the fact that people are not balanced when discussing these personalities and it is because of pure nationalism. The term 'national hero' itself is not in tune with Islam. That's all. I consider him a hero, while knowing he erred often, for the Muslims of Hind, but not a "national hero".

As for Jinnah/Liaquat and such, then they aren't my heroes at all, period.