Can We Let Jinnah Speak for Himself?

For over 70 years, the vision of the founding father Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah has been a matter of intellectual debate, where points and counterpoints are made by writers in order to prove validity of their own personal views and vision of Pakistan. Dialogue, discussion and even debate always helps in at least understanding the positive and negative dimensions of an issue. It is highly unfair and unethical to make a generalisation based on an individual understanding of a single incidence, that too considered out of its context. This onslaught has been going on for a long time specifically with reference to the August 11, 1947, speech of the Quaid as the first President of the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan. This presidential speech is mentioned again and again as perhaps his legal will. No one has the courage to stand up and say that even if a particular interpretation of this speech is allowed, his more than 100 statements contradict this interpretation made by some scholars.

Setting emotions aside’ no one can doubt the honesty, boldness, integrity and clarity of ideas of the Quaid. He was a man of strong principles, integrity and resolution. He never played with words nor with the emotions of people. If we read his post-1940 public policy statements, messages and speeches, he is consistent, coherent and uniform in his views. He never used doublespeak. Let us first understand the context of his address as President of the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan.
The Quaid first touched on three social evils that he called “curses” inherited from the colonial past, namely bribery and corruption, black marketing, and nepotism and jobbery. He declared jihad against all these and stated his zero tolerance towards them.

Then he mentioned the mixed feelings among Hindu and some Muslim segments about the division of India into two sovereign states. Respecting their difference of opinion, he advised them to be realistic and accept the ground reality as a unique event in the modern history of mankind. This is because Pakistan is the only country founded on an ideology of two nations based on their faith and not on ethnicity, color, race or geographic territory like the European nation states.

He referred to another national problem of looking at the Hindu or Sikh minority in the context of the communal riots, brutal murders, rape, hate and violence during partition. He said: “As you know, history shows that in England conditions some time ago were much worse than those prevailing in India today. The Roman Catholics and the Protestants persecuted each other. Even now there are some states in existence where there are discriminations made and bars imposed against a particular class. The people of England in the course of time had to face the realities of the situation and had to discharge the responsibilities and burdens placed upon them by the government of their country and they went through that fire step by step. Today you might say with justice that Roman Catholics and Protestants do not exist; what exists now is that every man is a citizen, an equal citizen, of Great Britain and they are all members of the nation.”

In the same context the Quaid said:

“Now I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal, and you will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the state.”

The context of this statement makes it very clear that he is not talking about relation between “religion” and state which has been haunting the minds of most of the so-called liberal intellectuals globally. The context is Hindu-Muslim riots and violent clashes during partition. He is saying once Pakistan is created, this bitter past need to be buried and like England there shall be no more hate and clash between Hindus and Muslims. They will be just citizens. Why he talks about religious freedom of going to temples and mosques again has to be understood in its proper context. Even before independence that much religious freedom was enjoyed by all religious communities in India. Then why does he mention it?

Dr Javed Iqbal, a known jurist, intellectual and former chief justice and for sure not a ‘fundamentalist’, puts this matter in its proper perspective: “Islamic theology recognises Continue reading “Can We Let Jinnah Speak for Himself?”

Fall of Granada and the Plight of Morisco

 

” My friends, say farewell to her as a noble place, or else entrust her to whomever her affairs [will] belong to [i.e. God]

We have neglected the rights of the Lord so he has allowed us to perish, all but a few of the bonds of Islam have been broken.

Our Muslim community has never distinguished what is right to do from what is forbidden; see how this disapproval is now [turned on us].

We have obtained what [God] has given us through what we have deserved; such is the evil life for those who lead it.

In our miser, splitting up [disunity] accompanies our unity; we have been brought to circumstances that are blameworthy.

Our enemy has gained power over us because of our sinfulness; the lions and leopards of the enemy have wreaked havoc upon us.

Yes, they have pillaged our homeland, our lives and our possessions; its abundance has been allowed [them] s legitimate spoils;

They have seized [ravished] her [Andalus] without providing a bride-price; no spears have been watered for them, nor have her menfolk fought them for her;

The Franks have howled down at us from every hilltop and their vows to Cross have been completely achieved

A lamenting poem by an Andalusian poet from Ronda, Abu al-Baqa’ al-Rundi. [1]

 

2 January 1492 marks the end of Muslim rule in Spain, which lasted for nearly eight centuries. It brought the Reconquista to close, consolidating Christian rule, although it took two and a half centuries for Granada to fall to Christian kings. It also marks the beginning of a dark chapter of religious intolerance to achieve the purity of land on the criterion of purity of blood, thus cleansing the Christian land of the impure infidels and heretics (Jews and Muslims) by their ultimate expulsion.

Fall of Granada was not by a sudden stroke of fate but was the last curtain of a long standing drama of disunity of Muslims, warfare between competing emirs, conspiracies within each dynasty, son rebelling against the father, civil wars, a financially decaying society as well as external aggression. Militarily weak, but protected geographically by Sierra Nevada, Granada was always at risk of being attacked and conquered by the stronger Christian armies. King Ferdinand’s full support to the last Muslim emir, Mohammad bin Ali’s (Boabdil or el Rey Chico i.e. ‘the little one’ in Spanish) rebellion against his father in 1483, that resulted in a civil war, weakened Granada even further. With Christian armies slowly pressing inside the Granadan land, only the city of Granada was left for Boabdil to rule when he took power in 1490. When King Ferdinand asked Boabdil to hand over the city to him, out of surprise and despair, Boabdil sought help from North Africa to assist him militarily, but none arrived. The war and drought stricken city could not resist any further in front of the mighty Christian kings and Boabdil officially handed over the city to Isabella and Ferdinand on January 2, 1492 thus closing the chapter of the Muslim rule in Spain.

Before the handover, Boabdil was in negotiations with the Catholic monarchs who offered him that he should abandon Granada and retire in the Alpujarras in exchange of income for him and his descendants. His mother, who was a converted Muslim, always resisted the idea, as she wanted him to ‘die a king’[2]. But a text from Cronica de los Reyes Católicos by Alonsa de Santa Cruz (1550), explains how, later, she herself tried to convince Boabdil to stay away from war and reach some kind of agreement with the monarchs to avoid massacre of his family and the misery of people and towns under his rule at the hands of the Christian armies, if he goes to fight and gets killed.[3] The city was stricken with hunger and Boabdil had lost many of his men and towns to the preceding military combats[4]. The people had no energy to fight in a state of hunger and desperation and they demanded peaceful negotiation with the monarchs. Some old Moors with military experience advised him to save his neck and pride by entering into a peaceful solution ‘for in this way their Majesties would respect their dignity, and treat him as a friend; if this were not done, they would surely all end up dead or imprisoned’[5]

 Unfolding events of history reveal unmistakably that it was a wishful thinking, and events in Granada, although kicked off with a hopeful start in the shape of a magnanimous treaty written in 1491, ended up in forced expulsion of the Moors in only a hundred years, with all promises broken only under eight years. The terms of capitulation[6] were very comprehensive addressing the tiniest of the concerns of Moors. Put to practice, it would have set a glorious example of accommodating a minority in an unprecedented way. Not only did it guarantee freedom to practice religion and protection of all the Moors, but also promised punishment to the Christians who try to make life of Moors difficult in any way. The properties of Moors would not be confiscated nor would their lives or estates be harmed ‘without due legal process or without cause[7]’. Mosques, minarets and Muezzins were to stay, and actually be respected. ‘The Moors shall be judged according to the code of Sharia, under their judges and qadis[8]. There were promises of protection of customs, traditions, prayers and rituals. Muslims were given a choice of relocation to North Africa for free, for coming three years, and at a small price thereafter. ‘No Moor will be forced to become Christian against his or her will’. The promises were big and no one would have wanted to leave their homes and their beloved land of memories of their forefathers if they were offered such bountiful assurances. These clauses meant that effectively nothing would change for Moors, and there would only be better days to come.

All the Jews of Spain were expelled in 1492 because their conversion to Christianity did not materialize as they ‘apostatized” to Judaism again. The Spanish Inquisition took to task, the ‘heretic’ Jews who secretly practised their faith, and also the Christians converting to Judaism. The Charter of Expulsion of the Jews (1492) cut off all interaction between Jews and Christians to prevent the ‘corruption of the Holy Catholic faith and its followers’ from ‘the evil and wicked purpose that Jews continue wherever they live and congregate.’[9] The intimidating language warned the Jews never to return to the kingdom.

The terms of agreement for Moors were strikingly different. Full of leniencies and freedom to practice faith and retain property, language, dress and custom; it was a remarkable contract. But what did this mean? Were Moors relatively acceptable to the Holy Catholic faith as compared to the Jews, or were the clauses of treaty only a political move with an ultimate goal of pulling the Moors to the Inquisition with ‘a due legal procedure’ and with ‘a cause’, or was the conversion of Moors and their faithfulness to Christianity, not tried and tested until then?

The truth is that Moors were no better than the Jews in the eyes of Christian kings. Sancho IV (1295–1312) of Castile, in his book of advice that he compiled for his son wrote, ‘The Moor is nothing but a dog… Those things which Christian considers evil and sinful, he considers goodly and beneficial for salvation; and what we think beneficial for salvation, he considers sinful.’[10] According to sixteenth century Granadan historian Luis de Mármol Carajaval, in the early period after the fall of Granada, Spanish bishops urged Ferdinand to give the same choice to Moors as given to Jews i.e. conversion or exile, but the king rejected these demands as it would mean a return to war. According to Mármol, the king opted the policy of relaxation so that ‘through domestic communications with Christians, debating and discussing religious matters, [the Muslims] would understand the error they were in and abandoning it, …come to a true knowledge of the faith and embrace it, as many other barbarous nations had done in the past.’[11]

In an under-populated land due to its geographic limitations, Muslims were a source of revenue for Spain. They were hardworking and able craftsmen and losing the entire Muslim population by a radical and absurd move would have resulted in loss of actual manpower to run the country at the grass root level. Also with years of war, Ferdinand wanted to stabilise Christian Spain with a policy of moderation. Thus, the first archbishop of Granada, Hernando de Talavera, was chosen for his saintly reputation and policy of moderation. Although conversion to Christianity was a goal, but persuasive methods, and not coercion, was his policy. He tried to learn Arabic and insisted the priests to do the same in order to get close to the Moors for their assimilation, as Christianising of the Moors meant civilising them. Pedro de Alcalá who composed his Art for Learning Rapidly the Arabic Language, states in his prologue that its purpose was to ‘bring the recent converts out of darkness and many errors induced by that evil, vile, and accursed Muhammad.’[12]

Talavera’s gradualist approach was too slow. Hence, Francisco Ximenez de Cisneros, the archbishop of Toledo was sent to assist him. His strategy, initially, was bribing the Muslim nobles, and later, conversion by harassment. Failure to convert would mean death. Arabic religious books were burnt and main mosque of Albaicín was converted to a church. Cisneros’ radical methods led to the first revolt of Alpujarras (1499-1500). The revolt finally made the terms of Capitulations null and void. The impressive clauses of the treaty were practised only initially, as a cautious political move, not to grant full religious freedom but to win Muslims towards integration into the Catholic faith by conversion. So, were they put on paper with a clear intention of giving freedom? Or were they ever truly practised to the core as ‘live and let live’; the evidence is hard to find with the attitude of the clergy, and the complacency of the monarchs towards it.

The year 1501 marks the beginning of Royal ordinances calling Muslims to disarm[13], to choose between exile and baptism, and abandonment of Moorish dress and customs. 5000 Arabic religious books were put to flames in a public bonfire with thousands of Qurans and texts of ‘Muhammadan impiety’. Moors transformed from Mudejars to Moriscos, a lowly class of converted Christians separate from the Old Christians who enjoyed purity of blood (limpieza de sangre).[14] It was easier for the people, who did not have the means to migrate, to convert to Christianity and keep practising Islam secretly. They were subject to Inquisition on the slightest of suspicion of apostasy or secretly practising their own faith, just like with the Jews earlier, as described by Professor B. Netanyahu quoting an eyewitness account of the time:

Those of them who refused to accept baptism were immediately slain, and their corpses, stretched in the streets and the squares, offered a horrendous spectacle.[15]

This was re-enacted upon the Muslims just a few years after the fall of Granada. As the agreement put in clear words that no Moor would be harmed ‘without a due legal process or without cause’, the due legal process was now the Inquisition, where people would be brought to ‘swift justice’ by torture until they confessed and when they confessed, they would either be baptised or killed any way. ‘The cause’ why they could be harmed or brought to Inquisition was justified by the crime i.e. heresy and apostasy.

Heresy could mean anything i.e.; taking bath on a Friday, wearing clean clothes, eating couscous, dancing on a Berber music, fasting in Ramadhan, retaining Arabic names, working on Christian holidays, refusing to eat pork or drink wine etc. The treaty did have loopholes, which were exploited by the clergy. No Christians who had converted to Islam before the capitulation, were to be abused but Christian women, who had married Muslim men, were subject to be questioned. Prior to the surrender there were incidents, where the converts were tied to stakes and killed with cane spears. Granadan converts were protected, in theory, against such treatment, but Cisneros took advantage of the loophole and started summoning the convert wives of Moors to which people revolted and one of Cisneros cardinals was killed. While Ferdinand was furious of the policies of the archbishop, Cisneros was unrepentant, convincing him that pardoning the rebels against the offer of conversion to Christianity would be a promising political move, to which Ferdinand agreed[16]. It hints that while Ferdinand disliked Cisneros’ radical approach, he never disagreed to conversion of the Moors to Christianity and the terms of the treaty were a pragmatic and political way of gradually Christianising the population, united under the Cross.

Moriscos were considered a hindrance to the unity of Christian Spain due to internal reasons, but they were also considered a threat because of their links externally with the global family of Muslims. They were a force that could potentially get help from North Africans, Egyptians, French, Turks, pirates of the Mediterranean, or other Christian heretics. Discovery of America and Spanish expansion made Spain dangerous to England, France and the Ottomans. Out of these, Turks were the biggest threat to Spain, with a mighty force that had conquered Constantinople and were making way to North Africa. The rise of Protestantism also had its repercussions for the Moriscos who, the Catholic Clergy thought, could conspire with them to weaken Spanish power. Thus, the attitude toward the Moriscos was hardened due to the multiple potential threats to the Peninsula. The irony was that, while in Spain, they were considered as bad and unreliable Christians, they were bad Muslims who had given up their faith and accepted that legitimacy of Trinity and the Church, for their co-religionists outside the Peninsula. Moriscos appealed to both Turks and North Africans for intervention. A letter written in the form of Qaseeda (praise) to Sultan Bayazid[17] in 1501, explained in an unusual way, as to why Moors of Spain were made to convert to Christianity against their wills, and under the fear of death. It was a composition of praise for the Sultan, prayer for his success, plight of the fellow brethren, and plea to him to intervene in the dire situation where young girls were raped by priests, and ‘slaves’ in Andalus had been ‘smitten by misfortune’, forced to eat pork, oppressed in a shameful way and struck by an ‘enormous calamity’. He also protested, subtly, of a total lack of help from those whom Muslims looked to, as their ‘brethren’. He conveyed that all promises of the kings were revoked and books of religion were burnt and to be mixed with dung and filth. The Muslims were asked to curse the Prophet Muhammad and faced beatings, fines and humiliation if invoked or chanted his name. The dead would not be buried (in Islamic way) but left ‘on a dung heap like a dead donkey’ or ‘burnt like charcoal’.

The Morisco was very much a Spaniard. In the words of Spanish historian, Américo Castro, he was ‘heir to the glorious tradition of race that dominated almost the entire Spanish soil’ who ‘maintained a patriotic sentiment for the native country like the sailor, who prefers all sort of danger to the abandonment of ship. No doubt, the Morisco were Spaniards and no less so than the Castilians and Aragonese’.[18] But in the post-1492 Spain, he was considered impure and ignorant and everything attached to him including his customs and lifestyle was seen with contempt. Aznar Cardona, an anti-Muslim Catholic priest depicted Morisco as

‘the vilest of people, enemies of letter and sciences, far from courteous and polite manners and customs who brought up their children as animals without any education or hygiene. They were barbarous in language and ridiculous in dress, ate on the floor and lived on vegetables, grains, fruits, honey and milk. Sensual and disloyal, they marry young and multiply like weeds overcrowding places and contaminating them.[19]

Early in the new century, edicts were issued prohibiting Morisco music and songs, traditional weddings, Moorish clothing, circumcision and slaughtering of animals. The laws also ordered destroying public baths, obliging Moriscos to leave their doors open and unveil their women. Francisco Núñez Muley, an old Morisco nobleman, wrote in protest to the president of the High Court, a comprehensive letter arguing as to why he thought the clauses of the edict were unreasonable[20], but it fell on deaf ears. The next revolt of Alpujarras (1568-70) was a disastrous one. The Granadans burnt churches, killed Christian clerics and innocent people, while the government responded with pillage, rape, mass killing and enslaving people[21]. The text by Huraldo de Mendoza, who was a diplomat, soldier, scholar and a poet, written between 1571-75, clearly depicts what was in store for the Moriscos thereafter. Arabic use was totally banned even among the Moriscos, and their exodus was imminent[22].

It became clear with time that the policy of forced conversion had not worked and would never do. After the Alpujarras revolt, pressures mounted on both sides and co-existence became impossible. The memorandum by the Bishop of Segorbe (1587) to Philip II summarised how Moriscos had failed the repeated efforts of the Church and Monarchs towards their assimilation into society. It all went in vain over time, as the Moriscos still repented to their God instead of confession, practised polygamy and divorce, killed Christians, circumcised their children, performed their own prayer and ablution, buried their dead in virgin lands and refused to go to the church. They conspired with the Turks and North Africans and persisted in following the ‘abominable sect of Muhammad’. They, therefore, must be considered heretics, worse than Jews and expelled the same way[23].

In 1609-10, Phillip III issued the edicts of expulsion. Archbishop of Valencia Juan de Ribera (1609) delivered a sermon in which he said that the land would not become fertile again until these heretics had been expelled. The justification of expulsion was put forward by depicting the Moriscos, as a threat to security of Christian territory, as they had allied with 150,000 Turks for the coming spring to slay the Christians in the name of Muhammad, thus convincing his listeners of the ‘admirable remedy, king had employed.[24]’ Orders were issued to landlords to deliver the Moriscos working for them to the port of departure, only with portable things, which they could carry on their backs[25]. The question of their children[26] was an interesting one. The state was confused whether the children should be allowed to go with their parents in exile or not. The letting go would be sinful and embarrassing as they would be raised as Moors and ‘hell would swallow so many innocent lambs.’ Ribera suggested that children under ten years should remain in Spain to be educated by priests. Infants should be given to Christian wet nurses. But after some negotiations with other theologians, he changed his mind. Children above seven would be sold as slaves to Old Christians as they are old and would be difficult to raise them as Christians. Slavery was morally wrong but would save children from apostasy, hence became an acceptable deed.

The reasons behind expulsion were multifactorial. Apart from lack of transformation successfully into a different faith and set of customs, on the part of the Moriscos, they were a demographic threat as well. According to Ribera, ‘Morisco only thinks about reproducing[27], and would soon outnumber the Christians. Population growth would ultimately make Morisco successful without arms or help from abroad. Ribera described them to Phillip II as an imminent danger, ‘wizened trees full of knots of heresy, who needed to be uprooted before they send out new shoots that quickly grow into trees[28]. Also, Moriscos were hardworking, thus an imminent danger forever, as they retained the possibility of a ‘comeback’ with strength if they were given room to flourish. Danvila wrote about the incompatibility of the two races. He called it justifiable and unavoidable. ‘Humanity and religion fought, but religion emerged victorious. Spain lost its most industrious sons; children separated from the lap of their mothers, and from paternal love. There was no pity or mercy for any Morisco, but religious unity appeared radiant and luminous in the sky of Spain. Happy is the nation that is united in all its sentiment.’[29] And the resultant Spain was like Henry Lea described,

‘The fanaticism which expelled the Jew and the Morisco hung like a pall over the land, benumbing its energies and rendering recuperation impossible… transformed Spain into a paradise for priests and friars and familiars of the Inquisition, where every intellectual impulse was repressed, every channel of intercourse with the outer world was guarded, every effort for material improvement was crippled’[30]

Such was the dramatic end of a realm that the world sees with romance as well as nostalgia. Was it a war of religions or a ‘clash of civilizations’ as fashionably called? Was it a unique story of history that only occurred between Islamic and Christian forces? Was it the last encounter between the mighty and the weak, on the basis of religion and race? The case of this particular century must be viewed in a broad context of eight centuries as a constant struggle of claiming and reclaiming of territories, justified by a religious sentiment and arousal of the competing people with a hope of salvation, that lies in the eradication of ‘the other’, ‘the impure’ and ‘the infidel’. A call to save what belongs to ‘us’ and eradication of what belongs to ‘them’ has been running the political scenario of the world since ever and even to this day. Victory is a shower of support from God just like Christians thought at the Reconquista, and humiliation is a punishment from Him as Muslims interpreted at the time of persecution. Religious supremacy, territorial hegemony, economic benefits, and conspiracies to achieve these, have driven the world vicious. It was a turning point in the history of ‘Islam and the West’, which continues to shape attitudes, affiliations and trust or mistrust in treaties and promises etc. The tragedy of the Morisco is a small component of a bigger picture which manifests itself repeatedly whenever a minority is at the mercy of a powerful ruling majority that makes the use of racial superiority in order to establish a national identity, free of corruption of ‘the other’.

History is very much alive with same or similar manifestation of expulsions, exclusion, walls, denial of rights, separation of children from parents, and other forms of persecution, none of which is new. Fear-mongering, stereotyping the other and justifying the mistreatment in the name of saviourship, worked well throughout history and are still the most useful rules of the game in the world of power. The mighty and the powerful find one way or the other to justify the oppression by portraying ‘the other’, a threat to ‘our’ faith, ‘our’ values and ‘our’ freedom..

 

References: 

[1] S. Mohammed, ed., Une élégie andalouse sur la guerre de Grenade (Algiers, 1914, 1919), pp. 60-65, C. Melville & A. Ubaydli, Christians and Moors in Spain Vol. 3 (Warminster, 1992) pp. 182-85

[2] C. Melville & A. Ubaydli, Christians and Moors in Spain Vol. 3, p.145

[3] Ibid, p.147

[4]Nubdhat al-asr, trans. L.P. Harvey, Islamic Spain, 1250-1500 (University of Chicago Press, 1990) pp. 307-314 in O. R. Constable, Medieval Iberia – Readings from Christian, Muslim and Jewish Sources (University of Pennsylvania Press, 1997) p.350

[5] C. Melville & A. Ubaydli, Christians and Moors in Spain Vol. 3, p.149

[6] L.P. Harvey, Islamic Spain, 1250-1500 (University of Chicago Press, 1990) pp.313-315

[7] O. R. Constable, ed., Medieval Iberia, Readings from Christian, Muslim, and Jewish Sources, p. 345

[8] Ibid, p. 345

[9] Ibid, p.354

 

[10] R. Fletcher, Moorish Spain, (London, 1992) p. 135

[11] L. Mármol y Carajaval, Historia de la rebelión, p.63, in M. Carr, Blood and Faith, The Purging of Muslim Spain 1492-1614, (London, 2009) p. 64

[12] Pedro de. Alcalá, Arte para ligeramente saber la lengua arábiga, (Granada, 1505) in A.G. Chejne, Islam and the West: The Moriscos (State University of New York Press, 1983) p.6

[13] ‘The deprivation of arms was not only humiliation but it left them defenseless at a time when violence was constant and to an Old Christian the blood of the deprived race was little more than that of a dog’, H.C. Lea, The Moriscos of Spain, Their Conversion and Expulsion (Philadelphia, 1901) p. 190

[14] A.G. Chejne, Islam and the West: The Moriscos, p.7

[15] B. Netanyahu, The Origins of the Inquisition in Fifteenth-Century Spain, 2nd Edition (New York, 2001), p. 159

[16] M.Carr, Blood and Faith, The Purging of Muslim Spain 1492-1614, p.70-72

[17] O. R. Constable, Medieval Iberia – Readings from Christian, Muslim, and Jewish Sources, p.364

[18] A. Castro, Espána en su historia: Cristiano, moros y judíos. (Buenos Aires, 1948), A.G. Chejne, Islam and the West: The Moriscos, pp. 7, 176

[19] A. Cardona, Expulsíon Justificada de los Moriscos españoles, cited in G. Arsenal, Los Moriscos, (Madrid, 1975), A.G. Chejne, Islam and the West: The Moriscos, pp. 8, 176

[20] K. Garrad, The Original Memorial of Don Francisco Núñez Muley Atlante, 2 (1954), C. Smith, Christians and Moors in Spain Vol. II 1195-1614 (Warminster, 1989), pp. 160-163

[21] A.G. Chejne, Islam and the West: The Moriscos, p. 11

[22] C. Smith, Christians and Moors in Spain, Vol. II, pp. 164-67

[23] P. Boronat y Barrachina, Los moriscos españoles y su expulsion. (Valencia, 1901), A.G. Chejne, Islam and the West: The Moriscos, p. 12

[24] H.C. Lea, The Moriscos of Spain, Their Conversion and Expulsion, (Philadelphia, 1901), p. 325-26

[25] Ibid, p.320

[26] Ibid, p. 322-24

[27] D. Fonseca, Justa expulsión de los moriscos de Espana (Rome, 1612) pp.161-62, R. Boase, ‘The Morisco Expulsion and Diaspora’, Cultures in Contact in Medieval Spain, ed. D. Hook, & B. Taylor (London, King’s College, 1990)

[28] B. Ehlers, Between Christians and Moriscos: Juan de Ribera and Religious Reform in Valencia, 1568-1614 (Baltimore, 2006), M.Carr, Blood and Faith, The Purging of Muslim Spain 1492-1614, p. 246

[29] M. Danvilla y Collado, La expulsion de los moriscos españols, (Madrid, 1889) in A.G. Chejne, Islam and the West: The Moriscos, p. 15

[30] H.C. Lea, The Moriscos of Spain, Their Conversion and Expulsion, pp. 400-401

 

Bibliography

Boase, R., ‘The Morisco Expulsion and Diaspora’, Cultures in Contact in Medieval Spain, ed. D. Hook, & B. Taylor (London, King’s College, 1990)

Boase, R., Muslim Expulsion from Spain, The History Today, Vol. 52, Issue 4, 2002 http://www.historytoday.com/roger-boase/muslim-expulsion-spain

Carr, M., Blood and Faith, The Purging of Muslim Spain 1492-1614 (London, 2009)

Chejne, A.G., Islam and the West: The Moriscos (State University of New York Press, 1983)

Constable, O. R., Medieval Iberia – Readings from Christian, Muslim, and Jewish Sources (University of Pennsylvania Press, 1997)

Fletcher, R., Moorish Spain (London, 1992)

Harvey, L.P., Islamic Spain, 1250-1500 (University of Chicago Press, 1990)

Harvey, L.P., Islamic Spain, 1500-1614 (University of Chicago Press, 2005)

Harvey, L.P., ‘The Political, Social and Cultural History of the Moriscos’, The Legacy of Muslim Spain, ed. S. K. Jayyusi (E.J. Brill, 1992)

Huntington, S., The Clash of Civilizations (1993)

Lea, H.C., The Moriscos of Spain, Their Conversion and Expulsion (Philadelphia, 1901)

Melville C., & Ubaydli A., Christians and Moors in Spain Vol. 3 (Warminster, 1992)

Smith, C., Christians and Moors in Spain Vol. 2 1195-1614 (Warminster, 1989)

 

I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings – Final Thoughts on Junaid Jamshed

jjI know why the caged bird sings, ah me,

When his wing is bruised and his bosom sore,

When he beats his bars and would be free;

It is not a carol of joy or glee,

But a prayer that he sends from his heart’s deep core,

But a plea, that upward to Heaven he flings –

I know why the caged bird sings

Sympathy, Paul-Laurence Dunbar

 

 

I was a year younger than my son when I first got to know him. “Why can’t he come over to our house?” was the unreasonable question. Four year olds are, after all, unreasonable. And sometimes inconsolable. I was both. Still am, thirty years later. It’s good to keep that child stubbornly alive in you. It’s good to keep something pure and simple in you. And a lot of that comes with memory. The past never lets you rest in peace. And that was Junaid Jamshed’s tragic flaw. As a nation, we mourn the loss of an icon that represented an entire generation. But most of us have unfortunately not forgiven him. Some for the past he chose to walk away from; some for making that choice; some for the alternative he chose. There was something fireworkish about his life. And now that he’s gone, he has left behind a strange silence, the kind of emptiness that gets more pronounced when fireworks that are gasping for breath, are still engulfed by darkness. From Dil, Dil Pakistan to Dil Badal De – what a complete and calculated life. And to those of us who subscribe to the choice he unabashedly embraced – what a complete and calculated death.

Out of the four Vital Signs, he always shone as the brightest. The looks, the voice, the charisma. His songs cannot be forgotten. And he was always a figure who aroused attention. I had seen him perform only once. Not as Vital Signs, but as Junaid Jamshed the solo artist. And then slowly and strategically, he delved deeper into his choice of being alone. His journey as an individual is incredible. Why are we all upset? Because he was a heartthrob. He was a celebrity who was celebrated by all for his music, and by some who could feel the difference. He deliberately chose to be different. The good looking, tall guy who befittingly sang poignant ballads and national songs somehow grew that long, dark beard. Then the cap followed. Then the long robes followed. And the songs changed. The Beloved now was different. For him it was an active choice, a shift from the ridiculous to the sublime, from the profane to the sacred. But somehow – apart from a very tiny minority that enjoys its fair share of hostility in this divided nation – he was never embraced for it. He was always a troublesome figure. He would always blurt out something inappropriate. He would always be questioned. Why was his business a success? Ufff he’s such a misogynist. God, these mullahs are hypocrites. He’s just a commercial sell-out. He has three wives. He’s such a party animal…..And the verbal bashing for some religiously fervent even resulted in literal bashing.

We as a nation are deeply dissatisfied. We are increasingly becoming a nation of nitpickers. We are deeply unkind to each other. Life is another matter, we are ruthlessly unforgiving in death. It’s not a matter of a caustic comment. It’s not a matter of a crass dismissal. It’s not a matter of cynicism and wit that we laud as good journalism or regurgitate as drawing-talk. It shows how deeply divisive our biases are. And yet we profess to be rational, logical, intellectual, and – I daresay – liberal. It’s grim irony to see how those who preach tolerance are the most intolerant of us all. A singer turned televangelist who has a beard: obviously he’s a woman-hater, and so has three wives whom he subjugates in his home and so makes clothes for women as a commercial business. What a loss. What a loser. Why oh why did he go to that super brainwasher of a man who sits in the no-man’s land of Raiwind who (oh em gee) doesn’t sport a cap but a turban! Why doesn’t he go back to music? And so he dared not to. And we have not forgiven him. The most common observation I came across was how almost everyone was lamenting over how Junaid Jamshed was an integral part of their childhood. Some even went so far as to say that they would never forget who he was “before”, and would never forgive who he became “after.” As a public figure who was constantly under the litmus of limelight, this was obviously part of the package. Such is the curse of being famous. But if we see a little more closely, it unveils this troubling truth: either, how we whitewash all religious figures (and may the Lord help them if they are religious icons) as demonic and dangerous misogynists using miswaks, or how we elevate all religious figures to the divine status of being infallible, and therefore Prophet-like, completely free of all possible human weakness. What a tug of war. And perhaps no public figure could feel this friction more than Junaid Jamshed. His death has unearthed this friction. As a friend noted, the secular celebrate his songs, the religious celebrate his naats, and both continue to hate each other.

I have a major regret that I missed an opportunity to hear this man speak (rather than sing), twice. I too was unsure of his faithfulness, perhaps. I too believed that he’s just a sham who’s taking advantage of his fortunate fame. I too was divided. But only until I rediscovered the singer just like he rediscovered himself. I listen to his naats on repeat while driving. I sing his new songs to my son who knows both Dil, Dil Pakistan and Dil Badal De. I had always taken him and his presence for granted. Even when I was told about the deadly crash, my initial reaction was dismissal: of course he’ll survive. But he didn’t. And it’s haunting to hear someone’s voice talking to you, and you suddenly realize that they’re gone. They’re gone away. And only a meteor shower of memories remain. There was a time when his songs would make me sway. There is a time when his songs still make me sway, but to a different tune. I remember his songs. I remember his nasheeds. I sing them both. I’m sure he did too.

And that’s why I am inconsolable about this loss: because in Junaid Jamshed I see my own struggles. I witness the outward and inward tug of war. The choice to change. The attendant backlash. The dismissals. The sticks, the stones, and the words that ever hurt. And then there’s the slippery slope of spiritual strife. The anger. The envy. The arrogance. The ingratitude. The lack of forbearance. The entire catalogue of spiritual ailments that make you a “bad” person when you look like a “good” one. He left a lot behind when he made his choice to rethink his life. And he would stumble. And so, to me, he humanized this lofty claim to be an invincible Muslim. His friends and followers remember him for the goodness he had in him, which was aplenty. His haters and skeptics remember only the bad, or the good that once was and that is why he must be moaned. But a life cannot be celebrated in parts. Life is an uneasy mix. I for one will remember him for selfish reasons alone: how we are fallible and faltering individuals, fumbling on a path of becoming something that we feel to be better. And therefore, right. And judgment is no-one’s business, save One.

Chalo ishq ka kaha maan kar,

Apna Sanam pehchaan kar,

Kisi aisay Rang rang jaayein

Sab se juda nazar aayein…

 

Hum kyun chaleyn uss rah par

Jis rah par sab hee chaleyn;

Kyun na chuneyn Woh Raasta

Jis par nahin koi gaya…

 

Dr Muhammad Iqbal’s Political Philosophy in the light of his poem, The Advisory Council of Satan (Iblees ki Majlis-i-Shura) – (1936)

Iqbal 1. Introduction

‘Muhammad Iqbal – lawyer, jurist, and poet – rests in a simple tomb just outside the main entrance to the Badshahi mosque in Lahore. That simple tomb is a place of pilgrimage to me. For Iqbal was a man who belonged to all races; his concepts had universal appeal. He spoke to the consciences of men of good will whatever their tongue, whatever their creed’. Justice William O’Douglas, Associate Justice, The Supreme Court of the United States of America.[1]

 Iqbal (1877-1938) holds a place of remarkable importance among contemporary Islamic thinkers. He was born on 9 November 1877 in Sialkot, a small town in the Punjab region of British India in modern-day Pakistan. His early education was from Scotch Mission College, Sialkot and he learnt the Quran and the Arabic language in a local mosque school. Iqbal went on to study Arabic, English Literature and Philosophy at Government College Lahore, the best institute of higher learning of the time in the subcontinent,[2] and graduated cum laude in 1897 with a scholarship for further studies.[3]By the time he did his masters in Philosophy in 1899, Iqbal was already recognized as a promising young poet in literary circles of Lahore.[4] In 1903, he published his thesis on Economics titled Ilm-ul-Iqtesad (The Science of Economics). He left for Europe in 1905 and joined Lincoln’s Inn to qualify for the Bar and also enrolled at Trinity College, Cambridge while simultaneously submitting his PhD dissertation in philosophy to Munich University.[5] After returning to Lahore in 1908, over the next ten years, he emerged into public life, both in his province and in Muslim India.[6] Iqbal’s poetical works alone include four volumes of Urdu and seven volumes of Persian poetry.[7]

Professor Arberry remarks that no Muslim author in modern times has provoked so much discussion and varying interpretation – a sure proof of relevance and fertility of Iqbal’s ideas.[8] Smith claims that since Iqbal was anti-capitalist, and capitalism fosters intellect, hence Iqbal was anti-intellect.[9] On the other hand, Hussain argues that Smith’s concept is a misconstruction of Iqbal for the sake of defending capitalism.[10] Abbot was another objector to Iqbal’s views saying that Iqbal was unable to picture the West apart from imperialism[11] and that Iqbal was not immersed enough in Western culture to fully appreciate the various benefits of modern democracy, economic practices and science. Interestingly, Abbot himself mentioned in the same writing that Melville and Emerson found the same flaws in Western Civilization as Iqbal did.[12] This led Hussain to argue that Abbot’s objection is hollow and unfounded, since Iqbal was raised and educated in European institutions even in India, was taught by European teachers, and thoroughly studied Western philosophers and literature.[13]

Professor Anikoy, the Soviet biographer, states that Iqbal passionately condemns weak will and passiveness. He is angry against inequality, discrimination and oppression of all types: social, political, national, racial and religious. He asserts the noble ideals of humanism, democracy, peace and friendship among peoples.[14] According to Kiernan, Iqbal’s poems reflect a complex personality depicting the complexity of a time of changes, attacking a static and torpid thinking and mode of living.[15] While concerned first and foremost with the destiny of his own community, Iqbal seems concerned with the human race in its entirety, which has given his work a universal relevance.[16] Vahid writes that the greatness of Iqbal lies in the fact that he wants to see human life stand on its own dignity, and set itself free from narrow tribal, racial, regional or class bonds and to evolve a brotherhood of man linked together by the ties of humanity’.[17]

Iqbal’s work is an eclectic mix of history, spirituality, philosophy and politics. While glorifying the past and longing for a better future for Muslims, he focuses on spiritual direction and the development of a just human society. Iqbal is called the poet and philosopher of Pakistan. While this title is perfectly well deserved, it is also unjust at the same time, wrongly confining a man with universality in his message and thought to one small area of the world. In addition to a unique status in Pakistan as an ideological founding father and national poet, he is an inspiration in many other countries including Iran, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and India. In Turkey, his symbolic grave stands in the compound of the mausoleum of Maulana Jalaluddin Rumi. In the universities of Heidelberg and Cambridge Universities, there are chairs or fellowships in Iqbal’s name.[18]

Iqbal’s poetry traverses through different phases, which follow the course of political events in colonial India and the wider world. From being a champion of Hindu-Muslim unity to an advocate of a separate Muslim state, Iqbal inherently remains a humanist with hatred towards all injustices and oppression. Iblees ki majlis-i-Shura (The Advisory Council of Iblees) is an allegoric poem that Iqbal wrote in 1936, less than two years before his death. It was published posthumously in Armaghan-i-Hijaz.[19] Dr Shaukat Ali writes that this poem is an imaginative way of expressing his dislike for Western political systems. The verses represent the last phase of Iqbal’s thinking and can be considered to embody his final verdict on the contemporary political scene.[20]Kiernan observes that this is an extremely significant poem of Iqbal in which he made his last approach of passionately denouncing imperialism and capitalism.[21]Raja comments that as a product of colonial system Iqbal exposes Western liberal democracy’s class hierarchies and wealth distribution in this poem, and expresses his longing for a system which offers the best of all other political systems.[22]

Despite extensive and systematic research on Iqbal’s political philosophy, mostly by eastern scholars, it is surprising to see the paucity of scholarly treatment of this particular poem which is a chef-d’oeuvre and covers all of Iqbal’s critiques including of the imperialist and capitalist West, the enslaved and powerless East, sluggish Sufism and inept Muslim leadership. Iqbal also shows his admiration for Socialism and his opposition of Bolshevism, and finally his hope in Islam as a solution for the problems faced by East as well as the West. This paper will analyse the poem and study it in the wider context of Iqbal’s political thought. It will make use of existing scholarship on Iqbal to understand the variety of ideas mentioned in this poem.

2.Influences and Backdrop

Early Years

To follow the evolution of Iqbal’s philosophy, which led him through his journey, it is necessary to discuss his influences and heroes, and the political backdrop that affected and shaped his thought. Iqbal’s father Sheikh Nur Muhammad, affectionately called un-purh falsafi (untutored philosopher),[23] was a religious man who was endowed with the gift of intelligence, piety and mystic temperament of an accomplished Sufi.[24] According to Khalifa Abdul Hakim, Iqbal often said that ‘he did not develop his philosophical Weltanschauung (world view) through philosophical speculation but had inherited it from his parents’.[25]

After the suppressed War of Independence of 1857, Sir Sayyed Ahmad Khan’ Aligarh movement and ‘Nai-Talim’ (a movement to spread modern education of the West) became popular.[26] Western missionaries established the Scotch Mission College in Sialkot in 1889, where Iqbal received his preliminary education. The college offered courses in liberal arts alongside Arabic and Persian.[27] English had replaced Persian as the medium of education. However, the Muslims of the Punjab were inclined to Urdu and poetry was an effective medium of expression of love, lament, humour and philosophy. Lahore was producing and nurturing many young poets. Iqbal became a part of the poetic symposia in Lahore at Bhati Gate where budding poets arranged regular sittings in the centre of the city’s intellectual and cultural activities.[28] Iqbal received his poetic recognition from these symposia which connected him directly to public.

During his early education, Iqbal’s main influence was Maulvi Mir Hassan who taught Persian literature at Scotch Mission College. He was a recognised scholar of Persian and Arabic literature and was appointed as a professor of Oriental Literature at Scotch Mission College due to his pragmatic approach and appreciation of the need of Western education.[29] He was also a supporter of Sir Sayyed’s Aligarh movement. After Iqbal graduated from Scotch Mission College with an award of scholarship, Mir Hassan convinced Sheikh Nur Muhammad to let Iqbal continue his education[30]. It was because of him that Iqbal enrolled to study liberal arts. Iqbal also attended Mir Hassan at home where Hassan cultivated in Iqbal the love of the Arabic language, as well as Persian and Urdu poetry.[31] For Iqbal, Mir Hassan was the first institute of classical poetry.

Iqbal was born the very year the Aligarh University began to function.[32] Sayyed Ahmad Khan’s ideas, his educational societies and Aligarh University had a direct influence on Iqbal’s views.[33] Sayyed’s views were a mixture of ideas; on the one hand there was the anti-imperialist ideology of a nationalist, and on the other, the pro-British communalist ideology of the elite.[34] Iqbal followed Sayyed’s patriotic unity of Hindus and Muslims and his teachings of national self-help. He also accepted the necessity of vigorous activity by man in the name of social good.[35] However, Iqbal did not share his pro-British orientation.[36]

In 1904, at the Annual session of Anjuman-i-Himayat-i-Islam, Iqbal recited his poem ‘Taswir-i-dard’ (Portrait of Anguish), lamenting the lack of unity in the enslaved India, urging it to awaken from its political slumber.[37] He took the task of a revolutionary poet and a religious reformer to awaken people’s patriotic feelings and to teach them how malicious foreign domination was for the entire population of colonial India, regardless of religious, ethnic, and social affiliation.[38] Iqbal compared India to a captive bird in his poem, Parinde Ki Faryad, (The Bird’s Lament). He wrote Sada-i-Dard (A Cry of Pain) after one of the Hindu-Muslim clashes on the eve of revolutionary uprising of 1905-1909.[39] Iqbal’s poems were about the necessity of overcoming internal differences. While colonial authorities were inclined to split country’s national forces, Iqbal was motivated to make a naya shiwala (New Temple) in which religious barriers would disappear and love for mother India would prevail.[40]

Thomas Arnold

The most substantial influence on Iqbal’s intellectual development at the Government College Lahore came from Sir Thomas Arnold, an accomplished scholar of Islam and modern philosophy and a renowned orientalist of his time.[41] According to Muhammad Shibli Naumani,[42] Arnold was the best living example of Europe’s virtuous conduct and praiseworthy character.[43] Unlike most missionaries who presented Islam as the religion of sword, Arnold wrote a ground breaking study ‘The Preaching of Islam’ emphasizing the peaceful propagation of Muslim faith.[44] Iqbal loved and revered Arnold, whose knowledge of Western philosophy and Arabic literature inculcated in Iqbal, a happy melange of East and West.[45] He persuaded Iqbal to pursue higher studies in Europe. In 1904, when Arnold left India, Iqbal composed a beautiful poem, Nala-i-Firaq (Lament of Separation). He followed Arnold to England due to his persuasion and his own quest for learning.[46] During his three years in Europe, Iqbal composed twenty four small poems.[47] While his poetry was causing a stir in India, he couldn’t see the usefulness and effect of his words while in Europe. At one stage he even made up his mind to abandon poetry and put his time and energy into ‘something more useful.’[48] While his friends tried to persuade him to the contrary, the only voice that could convince Iqbal to continue expressing himself through poetry was Sir Arnold’s. Iqbal’s Ph.D. dissertation in Philosophy to Munich University, ‘The Development of Metaphysics in Persia’ was also dedicated to Sir Arnold.

Professor Arnold had a deep confidence in Iqbal’s abilities. According to Atiya Faizee, when Arnold asked Iqbal to examine some rare Arabic manuscripts discovered in Germany, Iqbal humbly pleaded that he was only a novice as compared to him.[49]. Sir Arnold’s confidence and pride in Iqbal was evident when he replied, ‘Sometimes a student excels his teacher.’ Iqbal immediately surrendered at this and bowed his head in submission.[50] Faizee writes that all this was expressed with so much finesse and courtesy that it constituted a perfect specimen of the art of verbal duelling between intellectual and cultivated people.[51] Sir Arnold’s confidence was matched by Iqbal’s deep respect for his teacher.

Exposure to Europe

Iqbal’s years in Europe strengthened his commitment to Islam, distanced him from Sufism and reinforced his resolve to reconstruct Islam with modern science and philosophy of the West.[52] Iqbal enrolled as an undergraduate student at Trinity College despite having Masters in Philosophy from the University of the Punjab. This brought him close to the lectures of the neo-Hegelians, John Mc Taggart and James Ward, who lectured at Cambridge to the undergraduates.[53] He also came to learn from two outstanding orientalists E. G. Brown and Reynold Nicholson.[54]  When Iqbal’s Persian masterpiece, Asrar-i-Khudi (Secrets of the Self), was published in Lahore in 1915, Nicholson read it soon afterwards. He stated, ‘I thought so highly of it that I wrote to Iqbal, whom I had the pleasure to meet at Cambridge some fifteen years ago, asking leave to prepare a translation’.[55] Two years after the publication of the English translation of Asrar-i-Khudi, the British government knighted Iqbal in appreciation of his scholarship and public talent.[56]

Iqbal visited Europe again for the second and third Round table Conferences in 1931 and 1932. During his travel through Europe, Iqbal met scholars and political leaders including Henri Bergson, a renowned French philosopher, Louis Massignon, a French orientalist and expert in Sufism, and Benito Mussolini of Italy. He complained to Massignon that many European orientalists and historians appeared to study Islam primarily with a view to malign it.[57] After Britain and France, he visited Spain and prayed inside the Cordoba mosque with special permission from the Spanish government.[58] Iqbal was emotionally fascinated by the medieval culture and history of Spain, which he called ‘the treasure-house of Muslim blood and the sacred land of Islam’.[59] He wrote three poems included in Bal-i-Jibreel (Gabriel’s Wing) one of which, The Mosque of Cordoba, focuses on the immortality of love.

Shrine of Cordoba! From love all your existence is sprung,

Love that knows no end, stranger to Then-and-Now [60]

Iqbal’s meeting with Mussolini took place before Italy’s invasion of Ethiopia. In his poem Mussolini, Iqbal admires his ‘political vitality and magnetic quality of his bright eyes.’[61] Later in Zarb-i-Kalim, his poems are strongly critical of Mussolini as well as the major powers of the League of Nations.[62] The backdrop of Iqbal’s intellectual growth is extremely diverse and eventful. He was deeply stirred by Italy’s attack on Turkey and seizure of Tripoli in 1911 and The Great War blew his deeply shaken image of the celebrated civilization of white men into pieces.[63] His poetry is a direct influence of the political cataclysms of his time. Exposure to Europe transformed his beliefs. The world became real, life had a purpose to serve and the search for a better world, for him, meant a constant struggle.[64]

Western Philosophers

Iqbal is the only philosopher who made an attempt to understand the modern western philosophy within Islamic context. Kant, Leibnitz, Fichte, Bergson and several other Western philosophers had a profound influence on Iqbal.[65] He was, however, selective in borrowing their ideas. According to Gordon-Polonskaya, Hegel’s dialectics became an important element in shaping the ideas that became the basis of Iqbal’s reconstruction of Islam.[66] Nicholson wrote that Iqbal has drunk deep of European Literature, his philosophy owes much to Nietzsche.[67] The Ego of ‘Nietzsche’s superman’ that strives towards constant action is similar to Iqbal’s philosophical concept of Khudi, (self-affirmation) with a religious hint. [68] Iqbal’s notion of Khudi, arises from a desire to awaken the Muslim millat (community). Iqbal, however, unlike Nietzsche, connects man to God and society. ‘Nietzscheism as whole is unacceptable to him.’[69]He wrote ‘Nietzsche recognizes no spiritual purpose in the universe. To him there is no ethical principle resident in the forces of history. Virtue, Justice, Duty, Love – all are meaningless terms to him.’[70]

Iqbal advocated Khudi, the dynamic individual personality developed through practical activity, as opposed to the lingering Sufi ideal of passive contemplation and mystic absorption.[71]The ultimate aim of Iqbal’s concept of ego is ‘to be something’. He believed in action and effort, and it is through this effort he asserted that man acquires a more fundamental “I am” which finds evidence of its reality not in Cartesian ‘I think’ but Kantian ‘I can’.[72]Gordon-Polonskaya notes that ‘to the Cartesian concept of true existence –‘I think, therefore I am’ – Iqbal contrasted, ‘I act, therefore I am’. [73] It must be noted that Iqbal opposed blindly following the West. For him, Islam had a reforming role in a Muslim’s life as opposed to the bourgeois civilization of the West, which he called ‘a new wine that would weaken minds and only intensify darkness.’[74]

Iqbal had a very close intellectual and philosophical affiliation with Goethe and this affinity increased as Iqbal moved towards philosophical maturity.[75] In a poem, written in admiration of the Urdu poet Ghalib, Iqbal compared him to Goethe,

Ah! You lie buried in desolate Delhi while your

Compeer rests in the Garden of Weimar.[76]

Iqbal’s Piyam-i-Mashriq, inspired by latter’s Western Divan is the greatest tribute to Goethe. [77] Iqbal stated that ‘Goethe possessed an enormous vision.’[78]The idea of the devil is also remarkably similar in the philosophy of both the thinkers. Iqbal’s devil has insatiable urge to conquer environments and is continually striving to establish hegemony in this world. [79]  In his poem, Taskhir-i-Fitrat (Conquest of Nature), the devil prides himself that the blood in the lifelines of this universe circulates because of his fire. Although God has created stars, the devil provides the force behind their movement; God has created man, but the human endeavour is due to the devil.[80] This notion of Iqbal is similar to Goethe’s Mephisto, who is the source of dynamic activity in the life of man.[81] In his Faust, Goethe shows the devil as man’s companion who lures Faust away from righteous pathways.[82] Schimmel summed it up in the following words: ‘Goethe has led Iqbal into inside of things. Perhaps Goethian thought and poetry has influenced him more lastingly than Hegelian or Bergsonian philosophy; he felt in the German poet, a kindred soul of much larger spiritual breadth. Iqbal was more of a prophetic spirit, Goethe more of a poet, but both went in the same direction, working in the hope of winning that immortality which is the privilege of fully developed personalities.’[83]

Rumi

Out of all Western and Eastern philosophers and mystics, the maximum influence and affinity on the ideas of Iqbal came from Maulana Jalal-ud-Din Rumi, whose Mathnawi is an immortal classic of Persian mysticism.[84] In Asrar-i-Khudi Iqbal says,

‘The sage Rumi turned my dust into elixir, and

out of this dust he raised an illuminating spectacle.[85]

Iqbal had extraordinary fascination for Rumi’s thought. For him, Rumi was a guide and a mentor for his philosophical and spiritual pursuits.[86] Rumi’s Mathnawi was a message of faith, hope, and spiritual strength in one of the most turbulent times of Islamic history when Mongol barbarity and ruthlessness was at its peak. Iqbal’s message of love, freedom and equality came when practically every Muslim country was under Western colonial subjugation.[87] To add to the insult, the Muslim public was so indifferent to the Quran and their own values that a section of westernised Muslims saw Islam as a hindrance to progress.[88] Like Rumi, Iqbal used his poetry as a vehicle to liberate Muslims and revive Islam according to the need of the time.

Rumi divides men into three types; the wise man, an embodiment of light and unique personality, the half-wise man who is constantly learning from the wise man and, the fool who learns from no one and knows nothing.[89]The hero of Iqbal, a personification of Khudi, who knows his ‘self’, and bows to no one but God, is a replica of Rumi’s ‘wise man’[90] with the additional characteristics of power, drive and determination.[91] Spiritual Love (Ishq) is a common topic in both Iqbal’s and Rumi’s thoughts. Love according to both is not the fulfilment of physical desires but a refined mystical mechanism, which acts as a motivation towards realisation of the ideals of life.[92] According to Iqbal, love has been the core principle of prophetic mission, since the advent of mankind.[93] It is an unquantifiable force, which defies scrutiny by reason, and makes it possible for man to conquer the universe. All worldly kingdoms dwindle into insignificance before love’s majesty.[94]

Nicholson writes that as much as Iqbal dislikes the type of Sufism exhibited by Hafiz, he pays homage to the pure and profound genius of Jalal-ud-Din, though he rejects the doctrine of self-abandonment of Rumi and does not accompany him in his pantheistic flights.[95] Vahid observes that so far as the fundamentals of philosophy are concerned, Iqbal agrees with Rumi, and both agree with the Quran.[96] In a letter to Hakim Muhammad Hussain Arshi, in 1935, Iqbal wrote, ‘If by reading the Mathnawi of Rumi, you attain the warmth of righteous desire, there can be nothing like that. For quite some time I have abandoned the reading of books. If at all I read, I turn to the Quran and Mathnawi of Rumi’.[97] In Payam-i-Mashriq, he wrote that Rumi unveiled the mysteries of life and death to him[98] and in Armaghan-i-Hijaz, he wrote,

From the intoxicated eyes of Rumi I learnt to enjoy the glory of Divine grandeur[99]

Jamal-ud-Din Afghani

After Iqbal’s return from Europe in 1908, his ideas stood tall on the foundation of spiritual unity of Muslims all over the world. Islam, for him, defined the concept of nationalism and formed the basis of unity, irrespective of state, territory or ethnicity.[100] Muslim nationalism was deeply embedded in Iqbal’s ideas of later years and he saw it as a solution of empowerment of the weak and oppressed peoples of the East.[101] Jamal-ud-Din Afghani, the first ideologist of pan-Islamism, also influenced Iqbal’s ideas.[102] He was attracted by Afghani’s attempt to find in Islam, a means of unity to defy Western domination. He appreciated Afghani as ‘the man who fully realized the importance and immensity of the task’ of ‘ijtehad’ (independent judgement and reasoning) and renewal of religious thought in Islam according to the need of time’.[103] According to Iqbal, Afghani had a deep insight into the history of Muslim thought and life and a broad vision, which ‘would have made him a living link between the past and the future’.[104] Islam, for Iqbal, was never a religion but a philosophy of life with a definite historical and cultural tradition, social and legal institutions and a way of living.[105]  For him, Muslim nationalism never meant intolerance of ‘the other’. While a preacher of Muslim nationalism, he remained a passionate preacher of patriotic unity in the struggle against foreign domination.’[106]

Political Arena

Kiernan writes that ‘Iqbal, a man of the middle class, was close enough both to the landlords and princes above it, and to the labourers and peasants below it, to be able to look at life through the eyes of all of them, and his ideal of religious brotherhood derived from this fact.’[107] Iqbal’s political domain was the Punjab. The political and economic situation of the Punjab had a direct influence on Iqbal’s political policies and poetry.   The implementation of the Land Alienation act of 1900 shaped the economic life of the Punjab. Muslims and Hindus in the province were ‘mutually suspicious and antagonistic’.[108] Muslims formed 55% and the Hindus 35% of the Punjab’s population. Muslims had owned the majority of the agricultural land even under Sikh rule in the Punjab. However, the financial interests before and after the arrival of the British remained the ‘exclusive monopoly of the Hindu moneylenders’ who had existed ever since the Mughal and Sikh rule. [109] After the British defeated the Sikhs in 1849, the Pax Britannica removed legal restrictions on the business transactions of the moneylending castes of Hindus. This helped them to recover their debts and left the peasants entirely at the mercy of the creditors.[110] The British realized the nature of this silent economic revolution and passed the Land Alienation Act of 1900, the main purpose of which was to prevent expropriation of the land of the small peasant proprietor by the village moneylender.[111] Also, the act legally disqualified the non-agricultural classes from owning the land. This act while saving the peasant proprietors divided Hindu and Muslim societies into opposing rural and urban classes.

The act did not eliminate debts, however. By the beginning of the twentieth century, the average debt of tenants, dependent upon agriculture with no land ownership was about twenty cror rupees.[112] The total agricultural debt in the province was around 140 cror rupees or 105 million pounds.[113] Landlords were free from debt. They received rents from the tiller, while doing nothing for the tenants. To make matters worse for the tenants, the same landlords, uneducated and parochial, assumed the role of ‘Pirs’, spiritual leaders.[114] As a counterweight to the newly emerging educated urban middle and higher classes, the British reinforced land aristocracy in rural areas by giving these landlords, titles and grants of land. All landlord classes, thus, became pillars of British rule in Punjab.[115] Kiernan writes that in Iqbal’s times the big landowners were the chief props and bulwarks of British power.[116] The exploitation of the tenants knew no limits after this.

According to the British revenue system the agricultural land belonged to the crown. If a person occupied the land, he was required to pay a share of the gross produce to the government to receive protection.[117] Iqbal declared this a ‘barbarous theory’. He stated that ‘the people of Punjab owned and possessed the land of India long before the race of Babur entered into history, the unmistakable lesson of which is that crowns come and go; the people alone are immortal’.[118] Iqbal protested that the land revenue system was unjust. He proposed large cuts in the salaries of the bureaucrats and inheritance taxes on proprietors, which outraged both British officials and the landlords.[119]

In the background of this exploitation, Iqbal became firm in his belief that a just system would only exist where the land as a means of production would not be owned by individuals but would be for the benefit of all. A poem in Gabriel’s Wing, Al-Ard lillah (The Earth is God’s), he addresses the landlord and asserts that ‘this earth is not thine, nor thy father’s, not mine’.[120] Kiernan notes that Thomas Carlyle had said much the same, and what the two had said did not have much influence on England or India.[121]

3. The Advisory Council of Satan – An Explanation

Written in 1936, Iblees ki Majlis-i-Shura[122] is a contemptuous critique of the socio-political systems of the West, the inactivity of the Muslim minority of British India and at the same time an effort to instil hope in the lifeless body of the Muslim Ummah. The history of the world was evolving at a tremendous pace; there was despair and misery in the political environment. The world was a complicated scene and so is this poem: a complex mixture of ideas, tremendousness beyond the scope of a small research task.

Iblees in Iqbal’s poetry is a very strong character, powerful and busy, building and demolishing socio-political systems of the world, creating havoc and chaos, supporting evil regimes and instilling in men an unquenchable hunger for money, land and power at the expense of the peace of the world. Schimmel observes that there are ‘tendencies towards the development of the Iblees-figure in the traditional way, and yet towards a completely original re-formulation of it’.[123] Iblees is an invincible character with extraordinary powers, who has been let loose by God to create mayhem in this world. The poem is a debate between Satan (Iblees) and his advisory council, on the affairs of modern man and the destiny of mankind.[124] It is set out as a typical meeting of board of advisors, who are flattering the chief of his accomplishments and invincibility of his plans and systems. While praising, they also enumerate their concerns and threats to the system built by the chief. Satan boasts of his triumphs, and dispels their concerns one by one but acknowledges one final threat that can disintegrate Satan’s kingdom, the renaissance of Islam and the awakening of the Muslims who are in deep slumber. For Iqbal, all exploitative systems, which divide humankind into races and classes, are systems of Satan, as depicted boastfully by Satan’s advisors. Any political system, which abolishes this racial and economic division of mankind and creates equality of men, is a threat for Satan’s ‘dominion’. The poet sees Islam’s classless society as an ideal world where the rich do not exploit the poor, the land is owned by God[125] and the tiller enjoys all of his harvest.

Iqbal’s ‘Shikwa’ (The Complaint) in the year 1909[126] was a bold and daring protest of a young man to God, where he talked about the ‘injustices of God to the Ummah of His favourite Prophet and prosperity and achievements of those who, according to Iqbal, disobey Him and pay no heed to His word. The poem was the first of its kind from a Muslim poet and its vocabulary stirred an angry reaction from the orthodox Muslims.[127] Iqbal’s ‘Jawab-i Shikwa’, an answer from God calmed the objections to some extent. Iqbal’s character of Iblees is, therefore, an interesting invention where he expresses himself fully and straightforwardly, but it does not evoke any objections, as anything which is considered derogatory for God expressed by Iqbal, is through the words of Iblees, who is considered as an enemy and rebel to God’s command.

Furthermore, Iqbal and Iblees are opponents to each other in terms of their views. Iqbal loathes the socio-political systems that Iblees creates, strives to establish and boasts about. On the other hand, Iqbal finds hope of a solution in the system that Iblees and his advisors see as a threat to his dominion. Iqbal hates the sluggishness of Muslims and their physical and mental slavery, while Iblees sees it as a blessing for the prevalence of his plans. Iqbal wants colonialism to end completely and wishes for freedom of all weak nations from the hands of a rich capitalistic world, while Iblees wants imperialism and tyranny to prevail and a motionless life for the weak with no impulse to resist.

Iqbal begins his poem with Satan’s roaring claim:

I, it was

Who drew in Europe’s brain the fantasy

Of empire, I who snapped the spell of mosque,

Of church, of temple; I who taught the homeless

That all is ruled by Fate, and filled their guardians

With capitalism’s hot frenzy![128]

Iblees is at war with God. His aim and effort is to destroy, what God made home to mankind. He uses man to materialize his plans. According to the Quran, he was expelled from Paradise after he refused to bow to Adam and disobeyed God.[129] God declared him an enemy of mankind.[130] But he was granted permission till the day of judgement to diverge man’s path away from God and His commandments, to create turmoil on Earth, and enslave man to deities other than God.[131] Iblees confidently promised God that he would take a good share of God’s men for his mission and God answered, ‘Indeed, no authority will you have over my servants, except those who follow you of the deviators.’[132]

For Iqbal, enslavement of man by man was nothing but a fulfilment of Iblees’s plan.  Colonialism and oppression, as witnessed by Iqbal, was the direct rendition of Iblees’s strategy, equivalent to the gravest sin of bowing in front of man.  According to Iqbal, it was Satan’s plan to instil into Europe a dream of absolute monarchy, kingdom and rule all over the world, a sense of superiority and enslaving of mankind. And it was Iblees who made mosque and church i.e. religion and godliness, least important in the lives of men. [133] It was he, who taught to the poor ‘a lesson of fate’ that every misery in their lives was prewritten in a book of destiny so struggle against it is futile. This is in conformity with Iqbal’s repugnance for inactivity of the oppressed and their lack of desire to change the state of despair. Iblees made the rich busy multiplying their capital and instilled in them an obsession for grabbing wealth, even at the expense of subjugating fellow human beings. Iblees is a confident character, self-boasting and self-centred and is sure that the fire of capitalism he has set ablaze in the rich, and the complacence he had fed to the poor, cannot be challenged by anyone on Earth.

The first advisor agrees with Satan and flatters him. He reassures that Satan’s order is firm everywhere. The evidence is the prevailing culture of servitude of man and his lack of disgust for bowing in front of worldly gods. The poor are happy with their ‘sujoods’ and their prayers lack ‘qayam’.[134] According to Iqbal, Iblees’s plan is to remove dignity from man, leaving him so lifeless that he prefers prostration instead of standing on his feet with solemnity and self-esteem. Not only, the body of the oppressed should be unable to stand; even his heart should have no desire to resist. If, at all, there is a fledging wish to change the situation, it should remain raw and never materialize. The biggest marvel of Iblees’s spell according to the first advisor is that ‘Mullah and Sufis’, the religious leadership, all are loyally tied to the king’s fence.

‘Priesthood and sainthood now are servile props for alien dominion’[135]

This was Iqbal’s biggest lament about Muslims apart from their lack of striving against the colonial rule. He had already seen the landlords serving the British and enjoying the titles and land grants bestowed on them. To add to the insult, the religious leaders, who could teach the nation to stand up against foreign rule, were also subservient to the colonial rulers.

The advisor boasts that Muslims have been made busy with the empty rituals of circumambulation of the Ka’aba, and the swords of resistance have been made blunt by the ‘grace of Iblees’. The advisor’s list of accomplishments is essentially Iqbal’s anguish and his lament of the Muslim community of India, both the laymen and the clergy. It is his unique way of conveying a message to his listeners and followers that their inactivity and servitude to the British was, in reality, Satan’s spell which they must break in order to rise and stand in the world with dignity.

The second counsellor, who is a sceptic, exclaims in reply to the flattering that the first advisor is not aware of a ‘new-hatched monster’ called ‘rule of the people’; a dangerous trend, where masses can become kings. He hints towards rise of democracy in the West and sees it as a threat to Satan’s rule. [136] The first counsellor confidently dispels his concern and declares that it is not a threat but actually a part of Satanic plans; ‘a fig-leaf hung to hide the lust of empire’.[137] It is the Satan’s team, which gave the same monarchy a disguise of ‘rule of the people’ when men in Europe started to become increasingly aware of their rights. No danger can result from what is merely a kingship robed in democracy.[138] It is the same autocratic rule, which changes nothing for the masses. The advisor’s reply resonates with Iqbal’s own views about Western democracy.[139] ‘Iqbal is ambivalent about Western democracy’ writes Khalifa Abdul Hakim. [140] In Iqbal’s view, ‘the true democracy was represented by early Islam, in which there was no ruling class and the state was a welfare state’.[141] Since the Western democracy ‘has failed to eliminate class and has normalized the elite privilege’ in the name of democracy, it poses no threat to satanic rule. [142]  It does not matter whether the ruler is a king or a leader of people’s choice. The true secret of power, the advisor says, does not lie with a particular form of government. In fact, the only successful ruler is the one who craves a foreign land.[143]Hence, the mask of Western democracy is rosy outwardly but inwardly is as black as Genghis’s soul, the Mongol invader.[144] The tongue of the advisor conveys nothing but Iqbal’s views to readers all across the world. His disgust for occupation of a foreign land is highly evident in this poem and becomes a point of discussion in every other verse. He mocks naming a system as ‘rule of people’ and then justifying colonial rule in the name of civilization.

The third counsellor half-heartedly accepts this excuse and comments that there is no fear to the satanic dominion as long as the spirit of monarchy stays alive, whatever the disguise may be. But what should be done to a big threat that lurks around as a wave of change, which gives the courage to the slaves to break the shackles of their men-gods. This is Iqbal’s extraordinary tribute to Karl Marx:

But what answer shall we give

To that accursed creature, that vile Jew,

That Prophet of no Sinai, that Messiah

Without a cross – no messenger of God,

Yet in his clasp a Book? How shall I tell you

How many a veil those godless eyes have shrivelled,

Heralding to the nations east and west

Their day of reckoning? What dire pestilence

Could outgo this! The slaves have cut the ropes

That held their lord’s pavilions.[145]

The man that Satan and his company consider ‘vile and accursed’ is Iqbal’s hero in reality, whom he calls ‘Moses without miracles’ and ‘Jesus without a cross’, and has ‘a prophetic book’ which is a threat to Satanic spell.[146] Here again, the advisor’s concern is Iqbal’s hope to see the prevalence of freedom of man and classless world societies represented in the communistic wave beginning to take turn in the world. In Iqbal’s eyes, Karl Marx was not less than a prophet from God on the same mission as Moses and Jesus, to break the ties of servitude and injustice. According to Satan’s advisor, he has lifted the veils off the horrifying face of capitalism and has become a threatening voice by setting up a dooms-day for the capitalists. His voice is like an epidemic wave which would give common men the power to ‘cut the ropes’ of inequality.

The fourth counsellor calms the third, saying that the antidote to Karl Marx’s communism is the fascism taking turn in Italy. The offspring of Caesar, Mussolini, wants to rule the world and he would be the best to remedy to annul the effects of Communism.[147] But the third counsellor is unhappy with Mussolini and is not convinced by his strategy.[148] According to him, Mussolini has exposed the evil plans of Europe, which could give rise to mutiny against satanic plans.

The fifth counsellor [149] takes over the meeting and begins his point by praising the chief. This is a complex part of Iqbal’s poetry. He uses the same words for Satan, which people use for God. The advisor calls Iblees, ‘the sustainer of the world’, the empire of evil and bloodshed. It is Iblees, he says, who taught the heaven’s fools, i.e. men, the wisdom to succeed in life. Here success in the eyes of Satan’s advisor is a race obsessed with materialism at the expense of humanness. The advisor praises Satan for knowing the nature of men more than the deity, who the simpletons know and glorify as God and Sustainer. The followers of God, the fools, have made it their duty to engage in empty rituals: praise, rosary and circumambulation. Their heads are bowed forever, thanks to Satan’s wisdom.

The advisor calls the politicians of the West as Satan’s acolytes[150] but at the same time he has no faith in their wisdom, since they can’t withstand the unstoppable ideas of the ‘mischief-monger’, Karl Marx. The common men which the advisor contemptuously calls ‘desert crows’, are vying and flying with hawks because of Marx’s teachings.[151] The advisor is worried that the storm of Communism demanding the equality of men is a big threat to paraphernalia of Satan. He warns his master that the world, which he has woven, is going towards doom with this wave of equality and egalitarianism.

After listening to all these praises and concerns, Iblees begins his ‘presidential statement’. The address is full of grandiosity and boast about his invincibility and confidence in his plans. Iblees roars like a mighty and omnipotent king who sees no fear in the threats listed by his advisors. In his hand, he says, lie the world’s pomp and show, the sun and the moon and the skies. The East and the West shall witness the power of Iblees’s plans when he nullifies Communism by setting ablaze the blood of European nations.

Let me once fever the blood of Europe’s races.

And East and West shall see with their own eyes

A drama played out![152]

No one would withstand his strategies and plots. The pontiffs of the church, the leaders of the states; none would resist his roar. This is Iqbal’s prediction. While a champion of Marxist ideas, he sees it powerless against the stronghold of fascism taking a new turn in Europe with imperialism still strong worldwide. He sees the world getting ready for another round of mass bloodshed i.e. the World War. Iblees’s plans are indestructible and he calls them fools, who assume that the new revolutionary systems are threat to his throne or would shake and break his kingdom ‘like a fragile flagon’. Karl Marx and his Das Kapital is no threat to him. He shuns his advisors threats with scornful words for the followers of Marx; ‘street-bawlers, ragged things, tortured brains, tormented souls!’[153]

No, if there is one monster in my path

It lurks within that people in whose ashes

Still glow the embers of an infinite hope.

Even yet, scattered among them steadfast ones

Come forth who make lustration of their hearts

With contrite tears in the pure hour of dawn;

And he to whom the anatomy of the age

Shows clear knows well, the canker of to-morrow

Is not your communism; it is Islam[154]

Iblees, however, does mention a sleeping monster, a grave threat to him and his network whose awakening he fears. It is the ‘Ummah’, the followers of Islam whom he sees as embers in the ashes, seemingly harmless and lifeless, but if ignited can become a big fire. There do exist in this ‘Ummah’, though extremely rarely, those who cry out of fear and love of God at the early hours of dawn. These are the ‘steadfast ones’ he fears. It is Islam that is a threat to Satan and not Communism, he corrects his advisors.

These verses are the quintessence of not only this poem but also Iqbal’s other Urdu and Persian poems, and his English prose. He craves for the revival of the Muslim ‘Ummah’, its return to the Quran, rejection of any servitude other than God’s and constant struggle for life. Iqbal has the extraordinary idea of conveying his thought to the Muslims, by claiming that Satan, the opponent of God, is worried about no other threat to his plans but their awakening. Though they are lifeless at the moment, they bear a spark which needs revival and ignition. The bondage, which has rusted them is Satan’s strategy and the empty rituals, useless debates about theology, Ilm-ul-Kalam, Qawwali (the songs of praise of God and Prophet) and Tasawwuf (Sufism and Pantheistic ideas) are nothing but Satan’s scheme to render them useless for any struggle towards breaking the bonds of foreign rule.

The importunities of the hour conceal

One peril, that somewhere the Prophet’s faded path

Be rediscovered. A hundred times beware,

Beware, that Prophet’s ordinance, that keeps safe

The honour of women, that forges men and tries them,

That bears a death-warrant to every shape

Of servitude, admits no Dragon Thrones,

Knows neither emperor nor roadside beggar.

It cleanses wealth of every foulness, making

The rich no more than stewards of their riches;

What mightier revolution could there be

In thought or deed that it proclaims – Earth’s soil

Belongs to no earth-monarch, but to God?[155]

Iqbal’s anguish and agony follows in the next verse when Iblees acknowledges that Muslims are unaware of the message of the Quran. They do not uphold the Quran any more, nor do they know or follow its contents, and the mumin, the believer, has become the follower of capitalism, busy running after wealth. There is ‘no shining hand that Moses raised to Pharaoh’.[156]But he is scared that the turn of events and the upsurge of revolutionary voices in the world may uncover the path of the Prophet, hidden under the debris of capitalism’s machinery.

‘Beware! A hundred times beware’ – Iblees frets the revelation of the Prophet’s way which he calls, a solution to the problems of man; a protector of women, a trier and polisher of men, and a death-knell for every kind of bondage. It is the Prophet’s way that abolishes kingship and beggary, forbids earning by deceit and treachery, and makes the rich trustees of the poor’s wealth. The biggest disruption, in Satan’s eyes, is the slogan of ‘Earth is God’s’ which Iqbal propagates strongly throughout his writing. In his book Gabriel’s Wing, the poem Al-Ard Lillah emphasizes that the Earth belongs to the power who rears the seed in the darkness of the ground, [157]waters it from the cloud, brings the optimal wind, fills the tasselled wheat with pearls of grain and who has created the soil, the sun and the cycle of seasons to make it all happen. [158] It is surely not the landlord but God Himself who owns the land.

Iqbal conveys to the Muslims of India and the Muslims of the world in general, that Satan wants them to remain entangled in fruitless theological debates (Ilaahiyyat) and different interpretations of God’s word. The poet’s desire is to pull Muslims out of useless rituals and timewasting debates, and follow the essence of the Quran which breaks all bondages.

The Muslims of the world are buried into a dark night of dormancy. Iqbal’s agony drives him to tell the Muslims that it is the evil Satan who loves their lethargy and who wishes them never to see the morning light. He also conveys a message through Satan that their Takbeers, the loud proclamation of God’s greatness, can break the spells of the false deities of materialism. What disturbs Iqbal is that the mumin finds ease and satisfaction in futile debates on controversial topics, for instance, whether Jesus died on the cross or was lifted alive by God, whether God’s attributes are His qualities or His self, whether the promised Messiah is Jesus or a new creation with virtues of Jesus, whether God’s words are mortal or were always there like God and which sect of the ummah will have salvation on the day of judgement? [159] Thus, he is rendered inept for struggle.  Iqbal calls these issues the ‘laat o manaat’[160] of ‘these times’. He warns the Muslims that these debates were taking them away from their goal of following the message of the Quran. They are like idols which people worship, thinking that this act will bring them closer to God, but actually God detests it. Satan is so happy with this ‘dark night’ that he wishes it to remain on Muslims forever.

Satan’s closing remarks and allocation of tasks to his team represents a mission to keep the Muslim away from a world of knowledge and awareness, where men stand on their feet with dignity and do not bow in constant prostration. ‘Our khair (best thing) is in a subservient and passive mumin, till the dooms day.’[161] He orders his counsellors to instil in the mumin a sense of piety so that he abhors this ‘temporary and mortal world’ and does not pay attention to struggle or strive to make it better for him. The mysticism should become his deen (religion) and hide life’s vitality from his eyes. His sense of piety should keep him busy praising God in songs, rituals and debates so that it bandages his eyes from the challenges, and demands of a changing world. Satan fears the awakening of a sleeping Ummah, and asks his advisors to keep Muslims busy in rosary beads and worshiping tombs and graves.

4. The Political Philosophy of Iqbal

It is huge task to cover the topics addressed in this poem in one piece of writing. Schimmel comments that since he addresses the personal development of human ‘self’ as well as social, political, religious problems and their solutions; ‘it is difficult to build a system from Iqbal’s work.’[162] Iqbal’s political and philosophical views in prose and poetry show an evolution in thought, which kept pace with the transformation of the collective life of his community.[163]The pre-1905 political poetry depicts his desire to see a self-governing and united India,[164] free of foreign occupation. Iqbal was deeply disturbed by the discord and distrust between Hindus and Muslims[165]. Mullah and Brahman were criticized equally. The poetry conveyed a message of universal love. His poem Naya Shiwala (New Altar) addresses the keepers of temples and mosques:

Come, let us lift suspicion’s thick curtain once again,

Unite once more the sundred, wipe clean division’s stain.

Too long has lain deserted the heart’s warm habitation,

Come, build here in our homeland an altar’s new foundation.[166]

It was a direct appeal to Hindus in their own vocabulary and was a sincere effort to bring them close to Muslims by intellectual communication and spiritual rapport between two communities.[167] In Taswir-i-Dard (Portrait of Anguish), he wishes to unite the nation which he compares to stringing together the separated beads of rosary.[168] He preaches through his poetry an all-embracing principle of human love’ and urges the nation to ‘transcend cultural and religious boundaries, attaining true freedom’.[169] He expresses his helplessness by addressing the candle:

In the Ka’bah and the house of idols, your glow is the same,
But in differences of mosque and temple lost I am.[170]

For the people of India, his message was of faith, which depended upon affection and understanding, and was needed for a swift solution of the political problem of India.[171] Despite his love for the homeland and his call for Hindu Muslim unity, Iqbal deeply felt about the ‘political bondage’ of Muslims, and their spiritual and economic poverty. [172]He was disappointed to see how Islam was distorted by its flag bearers, and was not practised as it was meant to be.[173] For him, religion meant action more than ideas.[174] Naya Shiwala and Tarana-i Hindi (The Song of India) are the hallmarks of this phase of poetry. The latter ‘remains to this day the best patriotic poem written by any Indian poet n modern times… a truly non-communal national anthem of India’.[175]

Between 1905 and 1908, Iqbal came into contact with the Western civilization, face to face with a society totally different from India. Iqbal, a celebrant of love ‘felt nothing more acutely in the West than its lack of love’; heart had been replaced by mind in this part of the world. [176] Nearly all the poems in this phase are concerned with love. For Iqbal, love was the power to conquer the world (Muhabbat Fateh-i Alam) while in the West, it was considered as weakness and surrender.[177] The new shape of Iqbal’s poetry written in these years reveals his withdrawal from the glamorous and materially prosperous West, which ‘intoxicates rather than enlightens.’[178] Away from the political chaos of India, his intellectual horizon widened and he started thinking more broadly about the root causes of problems of the world including India. The most important evolution of this phase is that ‘nationality, in Islam has no geographical basis.’[179]He began to concentrate more on Muslims after realizing that ‘the union of the naturally ill-adjusted nationalities of India, would not fulfil his ideal concept of unity.’[180]

During 1908 to 1938, Iqbal wrote his major poetical works and his lectures on reconstruction of religious thought in Islam. His ideas were taking the shape of a dynamic philosophy, which satisfied the intellect and gave motivation to action’[181] India was a hub of political upheavals, thus a sensitive soul like Iqbal could not part from it. He still wished to see a harmonious India but became firm in the idea that his ideal unity couldn’t be achieved, ‘in view of India’s infinite variety in climates, races, languages, creeds and social systems’.[182] He had moved away from nationalism due to the devastations of ferocious nationalism he had witnessed in West. He also saw nationalism as a ‘weapon of European Imperialism’.[183]According to him, the ‘imperialistic designs of Europe were in great need of this effective weapon – the propagation of European conception of nationalism in Muslim countries – to shatter the unity of Islam in pieces.’[184] Nationalism, he believed, so sharply divides mankind into nations that ‘it becomes impossible to bring about unity among them’.[185] The concept of Islamic millat (community) became his ideal, which, according to him, ‘shares not the language or the country or identity of economic interest, but the belief in certain view of the universe and being members of the society founded by the prophet of Islam. In its essence it is non-temporal, non-spatial.’[186] Iqbal had come to believe that in a world history of ‘deadly combats and internecine wars, a community in which the basis of collective life is peace and goodwill is, Islamic millat. He wrote in a letter in 1909 that despite having a desire to see religious differences disappear from India, he had started to consider it as a ‘beautiful ideal’ having a ‘poetic appeal’ but incapable of fulfilment’ and the preservation of separate national entities was desirable for the Hindus and Muslims.’[187]

In review of Iqbal’s Asrar-i-Khudi, Dickinson wrote, ‘Thus, while Mr. Iqbal’s philosophy is universal, his application of it is particular and exclusive. Only Muslims are worthy of the Kingdom. The rest of the world is either to be absorbed or excluded’.[188] Iqbal rejected his idea by replying, ‘All men and not Muslims alone, are meant for the Kingdom of God on earth, provided they say goodbye to their idols of race and nationality and treat one another as personalities. The object of my Persian poems is not to make a case for Islam; my aim is simply to discover a universal social reconstruction and in this endeavour, I find it philosophically impossible to ignore a social system, which exists with express object of doing away with all distinctions of caste, rank and race, and which, while keeping a watchful eye on the affairs of the world, fosters a spirit of unworldliness, so absolutely essential to man in his relation with his neighbours.’[189]

Iqbal’s Idea of East and West

In the West, intellect is the source of life.

In the East Love is the basis of life.

Through Love, Intellect grows acquainted with Reality,

And Intellect gives stability to the work of Love,

Arise and lay the foundations of a new world,

By wedding Intellect to Love.[190]

East and West are two diametrically opposed worlds in Iqbal’s poetry. For him, the East is a world of ‘heart’; love, sacrifice and giving, while the West is a world of ‘body’; money, materialism and machines where the desire to achieve these three has turned the West into an oppressor, subduing the weaker nations of the world. According to him, through love and passion a man can achieve absolute freedom. The world of heart is an endless passion, a longing to rise and be free. It is eternal and non-perishable.  On the other hand, the world of desire, body and materialism never fulfils itself. Its hunger is never satisfied and its gains are like a mirage. In the world of heart and soul there is no oppression and occupation of the ‘Frankish’. [191]  Also, in this ideal world there’s no role of clergy, Muslim (Sheikh) or Hindu (Brahmin). They would have no control over a world, which is made out of love and passion.[192] His concept of Ishq, love that makes one selfless is an Eastern trait while intellect, aql, is a Western specialty. Iqbal was not anti-intellect. He considered it as a gift of God, which gave man the power to form concepts and thus raised him above the angels.[193]  However, he is against the intellect being the sole driving force in the individual and collective lives of nations.

‘He sang many things, from simple daily events to the metaphysics and philosophy. The Westerner will find in Iqbal’s philosophy of religion a challenging outlook on life and the universe, and a universal concept of God. More than this he will find concrete proposals for building the future world along new lines.’[194]

Iqbal’s ideal world combines the best traits of both worlds to create a new system where East and West benefit from each other’s specialties. While not being opposed to Western education, he did not want Muslims to be dependent on it or to pursue it as a whole but to create a balance between modern knowledge and their own tradition that comes from the Quran.

‘The great contribution of the West to the East is the scientific attitude. One great contribution of the East to the West is Charity or Love, as epitomised by Muhammad and Christ, Buddha and Confucius. Another is the East’s emphasis on relaxation and reflection. The machine tends to make man an automaton. The slower reflective pace of the East tends to develop, unlike people, men with striking diversities. Iqbal recognized what science introduced to ancient Asia might do. He saw its potential for good, its potential for evil.’[195]

The West’s claim to ‘civilizational superiority’ solidifies his distrust in Western political systems. According to Khalifa Abdul Hakim, ‘This tendency to criticize the West is so deeply embedded in Iqbal’s thoughts that in so many of his poems, even if it is completely out of place, he will insert one odd critical strike to the West’.[196] He finds the solution of all problems in Islam, whether they are related to the East, i.e. slavery, weakness, and lack of education, or related to the West, i.e. colonial expansion, civilizational superiority, injustices to the weaker nations and capitalistic economic system.  His poetry conveys the message of focus on eastern values; a source of social and political liberation. In his publication ‘Payam-e-Mashriq’ (Message of the East), Iqbal reminds the West of the importance of morality, religion and the need for cultivating passion and dynamism.

Slavery, slavishness, the root of our

Disease; of theirs, that Demos holds all power;

Heart-malady or brain-malady has oppressed

Man’s whole world, sparing neither East or West.[197]

Iqbal blamed the West for rejecting religion in favour of science and for propagating a dehumanising materialism. He reprimanded the East for abandoning inductive reason and privileging religion as an exclusive mode of understanding to the detriment of science and philosophy.[198] He finds the answers to the tensions between two modes of being, which both deviate from the truth, in a concept of the ‘self’ as the essence of being.[199]

Iqbal and Enslavement

Iqbal detested any form of captivity. Freedom was not only a right but, for him, it was a requisite for natural development of the human intellect and heart. In his poem Hindi Maktab,[200] he writes that the thought of a free man is like a beacon illuminated by truth while the enslaved men of India were devoid of intellectual growth. They are deluded by the ‘wonders of Pirs,’ spiritual leaders who they ask to intercede between them and God.[201] Enslavement inhibits man’s thinking, retards his intellectual growth and makes him lethargic rendering him incapable of any creative action. He complained about India’s passiveness and bowing down to the glamour of the West and compared its people to a corpse. Addressing the fate of ‘poor hapless India, which used to be the brightest jewel in a crown,’[202] he wrote,

Your peasant a carcass spewed from the grave,

Whose coffin is mouldering still beneath the sod.

Mortgaged to the alien, soul and body too,

Alas – the dweller vanished with the dwelling –

Enslaved to Europe you have kissed the rod;

It’s not Europe I reproach, but you.[203]

When an elderly member of Red Crescent Turkey, who accompanied Iqbal to the Shahi Mosque Lahore asked him in wonderment the reason for a lengthy prayer, Iqbal’s reply was: ‘The lengthy prayer is the evidence of Indian Muslim’s purposelessness in life. You (Turks), on the contrary have set before yourselves the task of reconstruction of your national life. Therefore you have no leisure for such empty rituals of lengthy prayer. The lazy mullahs and vain Muslims of India would have nothing to occupy them if they didn’t fill their time with religious quibbles and lengthy formulas or pious recitals and their endless repetitions.[204]. His poem ‘Ghulamon ki Namaz’ (Prayers of the Slaves), written in 1935, depicts his helplessness and disappointment through his sarcastic mockery of Indian Muslims’ satisfaction in rituals and lack of struggle against the foreign rule.

The body of the enslaved is deprived of the ardour of activity,

For him days follow nights unbrokenly,

What is there strange about the service being tedious?

What have the slaves to do when they are not at the service?[205]

Iqbal and Sufism

Despite initially being strongly under the influence of the ideas of a pantheistic school of Sufism, Iqbal became a big critic of Tasawwuf towards the later years of his life. He saw it as a sign of decline for a nation. According to him Greek mysticism, Persian mysticism, and Indian mysticism – all were signs of decline of these nations; the same being true for Islamic mysticism.[206] He had been a fan of the Sufis of earlier times who he described as ‘ascetics with austerity and God-fearing piety as their real concerns. Islam has nothing to do with Wahdat and Kathrat. The essence of Islam is Tawhid and the opposite of Tawhid is not Kathrat but Shirk.’[207] For him, any philosophy or religious teaching that prevents blossoming and maturing of the human personality was worthless. Tasawwuf, according to him, ‘had inflicted much damage on the scientific spirit of Islam. People run after amulets instead of consulting a physician. To shut one’s ears and eyes to the material world and to emphasize only the inward perception is a sign of stagnation and degeneration. It is the search of easy ways instead of making the effort for the conquest of nature by dynamic struggle’.[208] Iqbal’s philosophy challenged the negative attitude of Sufis toward reason and rationalistic philosophy as well as their preaching of man’s estrangement of the real world. ‘The mystic’s condemnation of the intellect as the source of cognition finds no justification in the history of religion.’[209] Writing in his foreword of Asrar-i-Khudi in 1915, Iqbal renounced Ibn Al-Arabi and Wahdat-al Wujud. He complimented Ibn Taimiyya and Wahid Mahmud for raising their voices against life-negating impact of al-Arabi.[210]

Iqbal was an advocate of activism and struggle and also advised his readers to look at the western nations of Europe in order to learn. His critique of the West was selective; to follow the good and reject the bad. While criticizing the oppressive side of the European powers, he not only appreciated the approach of learning and knowledge in the West but also impressed upon the fact that the Muslims buried in rituals and Sufism, should learn from the West, a desire to explore new horizons. ‘By virtue of their will to action, the western nations are preeminent among the nations of the world. For this reason and in order to appreciate the secret of life their literatures and ideas are the best guides for the nations of the East.’[211]

Iqbal and Socialism

Iblees’s ‘accursed and vile Karl Marx’ is deeply admired by Iqbal. He is a revolutionary like a Moses and Jesus, a ray of hope in dark world of greed and inequality. In his Zarb-i-Kalim, he invokes the spirit of Karl Marx to voice disapproval of exploitative order of Western Europe.[212] He declares in his poem, ‘The Voice of Karl Marx’[213] that the days of European economists are counted, as the world has run out of patience with their theatrical show of ‘flowing curves’ and exploitation of economic science to ‘serve only the interests of the ruling classes’.[214] The Socialist Revolution in Russia had a great influence on Indian Intelligentsia, particularly Iqbal. According to him, it would ‘open a new era of the workers.’ It sent out a message to the Indian people and intelligentsia that masses can play a significant role in liberation movements. Hence, the socialistic ideas started getting strength in Indian atmosphere of foreign rule. At the same time, anti–capitalistic ideas became widespread. Iqbal’s philosophy reflected both, in addition to the need of development of East ‘in its own original way, distinct from capitalism and scientific socialism.[215] In his poem ‘Nawa-i-Mazdoor’ (Song of the Workers), he wrote,

Let us give new regulations to the magicians and their temple,

Let us overturn the foundation stones of old taverns.[216]

Iqbal was an admirer of the socialist movement and perceived it as ‘a storm that would sweep away all the foul airs in the atmosphere’.[217] His admiration for socialism was purely because of his dislike for injustice, autocracy and economic inequality. To him revolution in Russia made the death of the ‘old world’ (jahan-i-pir),[218] inevitable. A new world was coming to existence because,

Kuhkan (stonemason) came with a chipping hammer in his hands and

demanded for himself the estate of Pervaiz (monarch)[219]

Another interesting approach towards the socialist revolution was shown in his poem Ishtirakiat (Socialism) where he exclaimed that the progress of Russia actually was a proof that time has come to implement and establish the Quranic principle of ‘spend whatever is surplus.’[220] However, he was opposed to Russia’s godlessness and saw it as the chief flaw. In his poem ‘Bolshevik Russia,’[221] he declared that the failure and corruption of Russian Orthodox Church was mainly responsible for it. In a letter to Sir Youngshusband, he writes, ‘Since Bolshevism plus God is almost identical to Islam, I should not be surprised if, in the course of time, either Islam would devour Russia or Russia Islam.’ [222]

Khalifa Abdul Hakim writes about the factors that determined Iqbal’s views on socialism. ‘The laissez-faire capitalism of the industrial West had pulverised humanity into hostile national groups, and within every nation too there was class war because classes have and have-nots were at loggerheads.’[223] In India the conflict of the landlord and tenant was a serious socio-economic problem. The ‘usurious money-lenders’ were even harsher than landlords. Through usury and judicial support of the system, set up by the British, the ownership of land was rapidly passing into the hands of money-lending owners who did nothing to improve the condition of the tiller. Iqbal’s revolution would sweep away the useless landlord as well as the usurious moneylender. [224] Iqbal’s idea of a political system is ‘Islamic Socialism’. Hakim writes that the difference between Marxism and Iqbal’s ideal system is that Iqbal does not teach the poor to hate elite but through love, he calls the rich and the poor to rise above class divide and realize their real selves.[225]

Iqbal called for a society that founds its principles on social justice. He was a follower of socialist ideas so much so that he stated, ‘If I should become ruler of Muslim state, I would first and foremost create in it a socialist state.’[226] Iqbal’s revolution, however, was different from the communist socialism of absolute equality, with aphorism ‘from each according to his capacity, to each according to his needs’. Instead, he wanted a potential equality with a motto, ‘from each according to his capacity to each according to his merit’ which has its basic principle of not common ownership but ‘elimination of all unearned increment.’[227]

Iqbal was an admirer of Lenin, the leader of the Socialist Revolution. In his poem, ‘Lenin before God’, he expresses his agony and wrath of the working class and their outrage over the injustice in God’s world. Iqbal’s through Lenin’s words condemns the Western capitalism;

‘What they call commerce is a game of dice,

For one, profit, for millions swooping death,

There Science, Philosophy, scholarship, government,

Preach man’s equality and drink man’s blood’[228]

In the same poem, he challenges God and tells him that ‘deity worshipped in the East are the white Europeans and the deity worshipped in the West is shining metal (gold silver coins).[229] In a sequel to the poem, God orders the angels to ‘destroy the homes of the rich, devastate their fields and improve the lot of godly serfs throughout the world’.[230]

Iqbal and Imperialism

Iqbal’s dislike for the politics of the Western powers was intensified by the unprovoked attack by fascist Italy on defenceless Abyssinia.[231]  He was disappointed by the negligent attitude of the European powers regarding Italy’s attack. Iqbal protested against the trivial economic sanctions imposed against Italy and saw them as a measure to defend the interests of the greater powers of Europe, especially England’s maritime routes to East, and not in favour of Abyssinia. The western states in the League of Nations neglected the whole matter and Abyssinia was ruined at the hand of fascist Italy without any effective measure or concern from the rest of the Europe.[232] Iqbal, saddened and dismayed, challenged Indian Muslims to learn lessons from Abyssinia.

‘Fate incessantly brings struggle

We must draw a lesson from the plight of Abyssinia

The law of Europe placidly and without contest,

Allows wolves to devour lambs,

A new order must be established in the world,

A solution cannot be hoped for

From those who pillage coffins[233]

In his poem Abyssinia, he compares Abyssinia to a corpse contaminated with poison, and exemplifies European powers to vultures, who wish to divide the poison as tissues of the corpse decay.

Civilization’s zenith, nadir of virtue

In our world pillage is the nations’ trade,

Each wolf aprowl for inoffensive lambs. [234]

Iqbal’s poem Mussolini is a meticulous critique that actually reveals his fury through sarcasm and mockery of the sanctions imposed by League of Nations on fascist Italy. He condemns the colonial powers that created havoc in the world before Italy, and questions through the voice of Mussolini himself how his crime was different from what European powers had been doing before him. Mussolini says that ‘he had only followed the footsteps of England, France, Holland and Belgium all of which had ‘reaped great wealth from their colonies.’ [235]

Is then Mussolini’s crime unique to the world?

Exasperation ill befits the European innocents.

You are kicking into the longings for the empire,

Have you not shattered the goblets of weak nations,

You have mercilessly despoiled the tents of nomads,

You plundered the lands of the peasantry and pilfered thrones and crowns.

Under the pretext of spreading civilization,

You pillaged and murdered yesterday; so do I today [236]

The excuse of civilizing the African and Asian states made by imperialistic powers was a deception in Iqbal’s view and the real mission was economic supremacy. He could foresee the danger of a World War with Italy and Germany ‘set out on a feverish armaments race. [237] He wrote in Zarb-i Kalim that if the war had to be avoided, it was necessary to educate the leaders of Europe, whose bloodthirsty talons endangered the world.[238] He stressed that empires were built with flesh and bones of innocent people. In ‘Pirate and Alexander’, the pirate objects to Alexander’s punishment of the former’s crime by stressing on the point that they both shed blood alike – what the pirates do on the sea, Alexander does on the land.[239]

Iqbal was outraged at the injustices and the policy of gaining new colonies at the expense of human lives. Condemnation of the exploitative aspects of the European civilization is a repetitive topic in his poetry of his final years.  His anger and loathing is evident in the strong protests where he complains that ‘one nation pastures on the other’ and ‘sows what others harvest’.

Extortion of one’s fellowmen is the law of the new civilization.

And it conceals itself behind the veil of commerce. [240]

Iqbal stressed that for colonialism to become successful, nations were broken and divided into classes that could otherwise amalgamate to strengthen resistance. Islam, by dissolving all the classes into one big force, was a potential threat to imperialistic forces.  In the poem ‘Iblees ka farman apnay siyasi farzandon kay nam’ (Satan’s Order to his Political Offspring), the devil whispers to the statesmen of Europe that they should obliterate Islam to make their subjugating aims come true. The body of the Muslim should be made devoid of the spirit of Muhammad and instilled with materialistic desires of Europe. [241]

Iqbal and Western Democracy

Iqbal was an opponent of all forms of human oppression – oppression of the people of East by colonial West, of peasants by the landowners, and of workers by the capitalists. He mocked Western democracy and questioned the right of the capitalist to appropriate the fruits of the labour, or the landowners to ‘drink the blood of the peasant’.[242]

Iqbal’s oft-quoted verse, which he wrote while inspired by a statement of Stendhal,

Democracy is a certain form of government in which,

men are counted but not weighed,

gives the impression that he was opposed to democracy as a system.  For Iqbal, the chief flaw in Western democratic system was its weightage for numbers instead of merit, capability and character – quantity more than quality. Iqbal was not opposed to democracy as a concept but criticized the system, which does not eliminate classes and is run by the elite. According to him it was

‘the same old organ,

 which strikes the selfsame note of imperialism

That which thou regard’st the fairy Queen of freedom

In reality is the demon of autocracy clothed in garb of deception.

Legislation, reforms, concessions, rights and previleges

In the material medica of the West are but sweet narcotics.

The heated discussions of assemblies

Are the camouflage of the capitalists[243]

He vehemently protested against capitalism and the fancy curves and graphs of the economists, and he despised with same force the seemingly impressive debates of the politicians. ‘Democracy means rows; lets loose aspirations and grievances and arouses hope and ambitions often quite impractical’.[244] In his poem, European Politics, he tells God, that He made one Iblees from fire, but the politics of the West have made ‘two hundred thousand out of clay.[245] In another poem, Satan’s Petition, Iblees warns God that he is no more required under the sky as his task has been taken over by deceiving politicians.’[246]He stresses that democracy fosters a spirit of legality, which may sometimes make ‘illegal and wrong identical in meaning’. Iqbal’s objection to democracy was not based on dislike for institutions,[247] but because:

Colossal oppression, Masquerades in the robes, of Democracy

And with iron Feet it tramples down the weak without remorse.[248]

In a letter to Jinnah, he wrote, ‘For Islam, the acceptance of democracy in some suitable form is not a revolution but a return to the original purity of Islam’[249] According to Kashyap,[250] Iqbal’s Kingdom of God on Earth is a democracy of most unique individuals possible. ‘The rule of one Wise man is better than an assembly of donkeys. What make this man uniquely suitable to guide the society, are his moral and intellectual forces. The possibility of such traits in a single individual is much higher than in many. Thus Iqbal’s concept is Nietzschean through and through’.[251]

Iqbal believes in Islamic democracy as a moral and political ideal,[252] where God is very much alive, an exception from Nietzsche. Nietzsche detests the ‘rule of the herd’ and is ‘hopeless of the plebeian and bases all higher culture on cultivation and growth of an Aristocracy of superior.’ For Iqbal on the contrary, the ‘plebeian is not ‘hopeless’; in fact, the democracy of Islam is a spiritual principle based on the assumption that every human is a centre of hidden power, the possibilities of which can be developed by cultivating a certain type of character. ‘Out of the plebeian ingredient, Islam has formed men of noblest type of life and power and the democracy of early Islam, an experimental refutation of the ideas of Nietzsche?’[253]

Iqbal’s views are similar to Thomas Carlyle whose ‘good man unconsciously walks continually in well-doing.’[254]Iqbal’s ideas about the ideal society are strongly humanistic that is founded on justice and fair play; a society where people trust each other and live justly. They must utilize their forces of nature for creation and enrichment and not for domination on each other. It is a society where, by devotion to the highest ideals, they become co-partners in God’s activity and can help establish God’s Kingdom on Earth.’[255]

Iqbal has an ideal system in mind, which is socialist but not godless. He describes the West devoid of morality and sees it as a civilization on the road to ruin, and the East awaiting renovation and progress.[256] His ideal state is a theocratic democracy, a God-fearing society but by no means run by the clergy as Mullahs and ulema have no participation in the administration of the country.[257] He criticized the Iranian constitution, which gave a committee of ulema the right to determine the conformity of law to Islam.[258] For him, in a Muslim state ‘there can be neither opposition between secular and spiritual authority, nor superiority of the clergy, since Islam has no clergy at all.’[259]

Iqbal’s socio-political philosophy was founded on humanism, a society that protects people of all religions. The humane man ‘receives instruction from God therefore he is humane to believers and non-believers alike’. [260] His idea of reformation of Islam introduces new interpretations to Islamic terminology not known before him. His interpretation of Tawhid, for instance, which is understood as oneness of God, was a working idea of equality, solidarity and freedom of man. ‘The state, from the Islamic standpoint, is an endeavour to transform these ideal principles into space-time forces, an aspiration to realize them in a definite human organization.’[261]

5. Conclusion

Iblees Ki Majlis-i-Shura is Iqbal’s ingenious way of expressing his concerns, his anguish and his hopes. The poem is a masterpiece as a means of looking into the mind of the poet. The choice of words is overwhelming and the immeasurable number of topics Iqbal has touched in this poem, is extraordinary. Belonging to a family that was known for piety and pantheistic Sufism, having studied in Eastern as well as Western education systems, influenced by Muslim religious and philosophical scholars as well as by the great Western philosophers of his time, Iqbal has a sensitive and complicated mind. While he is an admirer of socialism and Karl Marx, equality and justice of men, the idea of a Godless society is unimaginable to him. Although, a follower of Rumi from his early life, Iqbal remains critical of Sufism and the futility of debates surrounding ‘Ilm-ul-Kalam’. While strongly believing in Islam as a solution of all the problems of the East as well as the West, he remains unhappy with lethargy of Muslims and enslaved mentality of the Mullah. Having studied in the West and revering his mentor Sir Thomas Arnold, Iqbal remains critical of the colonial and oppressive side of the West. Thus, his personality and his writings are a challenging task for any researcher.

Smith writes that Iqbal ‘was a poet, not a systematic thinker; and he did not hesitate to contradict himself.”[262] In another book he comments, “Iqbal had a vision of an ideal society, worth striving for. There would be in it no aggressive wars, no colour or race or class or national distinctions, no beggars or unemployed. It would be permeated by the spirit of brotherhood, social services and a spiritual warmth’.[263] ‘Yet Iqbal is so contradictory and unsystematic that it is difficult to assess him. He is the Sufi who attacked Sufism, and perhaps the liberal who attacked liberalism’.[264] Ali writes that there have been very few thinkers like Iqbal, who have so diligently studied Eastern as well as Western thought.[265] Iqbal’s ideas are a careful selection of whatever conforms to his own ideal out of all philosophical thoughts. His own independent thinking remains supreme whether he discusses ideas of Plato, Aristotle, Dante, Kant, Hegel, Goethe, Nietzsche, Marx or Bergson.[266] His concepts were never distorted by prejudice. His disapproval of European systems and thoughts is accompanied by severe criticisms on Eastern thoughts and the Muslim philosophers of his time.[267]

An analysis of his works reveals that his ideas and reflections, amalgamated in the light of his religious and political backdrop, form a compact and coherent system of thought leading to the optimism of an ideal political system.[268] He remained the spokesman for the aspirations of the Muslim intelligentsia of India, a leader of their thoughts, an ardent patriot of his homeland, a fervent warrior against colonialism and any form of man’s bondage by man, and a champion of humanism and freedom. He sees man free of territorial boundaries. According to him, the territorial division of Western nations cultivates an instinct of national possession and gives rise to conflicts among nations.[269] His ideal state rests on universalism and sovereign rule of God and not man, a concept, which he thinks, cures the ills of tyrannical politics, safeguards liberty and inculcates equality among human beings.[270] Interestingly, Iqbal is claimed by all; Marxist-Leninist Russia, clergy-run Iran, Islamist and secular groups in Pakistan and the followers of Rumi all over the world.

‘Iqbal was a voice from the East that found a common denominator with the West and helped build the universal community that tolerates all differences in race, in creed, in language. Although Iqbal was a son of Pakistan, we of America also claim him’– Justice William O’Douglas, Associate Justice, The Supreme Court of the United States of America.[271]

References:

[1]W. O. Douglas ‘Foreword’, Iqbal – Poet Philosopher of Pakistan, H. Malik (ed.) (Lahore, 2005), p. ix

[2] H. Malik & L. P. Malik, ‘The Life of the Poet-Philosopher’, Iqbal – Poet Philosopher of Pakistan, H. Malik (ed.) (Lahore, 2005), p.11

[3]Ibid. p. 11

[4]Ibid. p. 12

[5]Ibid. p. 19

[6]V. G. Kiernan, Poems from Iqbal (Oxford University Press Karachi, 2004), p. xv

[7]M. A.  Raja, ‘Muhammad Iqbal: Islam, the West, and the Quest for a Modern Muslim Identity’, International Journal of Asian Philosophical Association Vol. 1, Issue 1 (2008), p. 389

[8]S. A. Vahid, ‘Introduction’, P. S. Ali (ed.), The Political Philosophy of Iqbal’ (Lahore, 1978),p. iii

[9] W. C. Smith, Modern Islam in India (London, 1946), p.113

[10] R. Hussain, ‘American, West European and Soviet Attitudes to Iqbal’, Iqbal Review, Journal of Iqbal Academy, Pakistan (Lahore, October 1985) Vol. 26, No. 3 p. 145 –

(http://www.iqbalcyberlibrary.net/pdf/IRE-OCT-1985.pdf)

[11]F. Abbot, ‘View of Democracy and the West’,H. Malik(ed.), Iqbal – Poet Philosopher of Pakistan (Lahore, 2005), p. 176

[12]Ibid. p. 177

[13] R. Hussain, ‘American, West European and Soviet Attitudes to Iqbal’, p. 146-47

[14] N. P. Anikoy, Muhammad Iqbal – An Outstanding Thinker and Poet (Moscow, 1959)

[15]V. G. Kiernan, Poems from Iqbal, p. ix

[16]Ibid. p. xi

[17]P. S. Ali, Political Philosophy of Iqbal, p. i

[18]K. A. Shafique, Iqbal, His Life and Our Times (Iqbal Academy Pakistan, 2014), p. 11

[19] M. Iqbal, Kuliyat-i-Iqbal (Islamabad, 2000), p. 817

[20] P. S. Ali, Political Philosophy of Iqbal, p. 278

[21] V. G. Kiernan, Poems from Iqbal, p. xxii – xxiii

[22] M. A. Raja, ‘Muhammad Iqbal: Islam, the West and the Quest for a Modern Muslim Identity’, p.49

[23] H. Malik & L. P. Malik, ‘The Life of the Poet-Philosopher’, p. 4

[24] Ibid. p. 4

[25] K. A. Hakim, Fikr-i-Iqbal (Lahore, 1957), p. 15

[26] H. Malik & L. P. Malik, ‘The Life of the Poet-Philosopher’, p. 5

[27]Ibid. p. 5

[28] Ibid. p. 11

[29]Ibid. p. 8

[30] Ibid. p. 9

[31]Ibid. p. 9

[32] A. Schimmel, Islam and the Subcontinent (Lahore, 2003), p.229

[33] Gordon-Polonskaya, ‘Ideology of Muslim Nationalism’, H. Malik (ed.), Iqbal – Poet Philosopher of Pakistan (Lahore, 2005), p. 109

[34]Ibid. p. 110

[35]Ibid. p. 110

[36]Ibid. p. 110

[37] Ibid. p. 111

[38]Ibid. p. 111

[39] Ibid. p. 112

[40]Ibid. p. 112

[41]H. Malik & L. P. Malik, ‘The Life of the Poet-Philosopher’p. 12

[42] Shibli (1857 – 1914) was a poet and versatile Islamic scholar of Arabic, Persian, Hindi, Turkish and Urdu.

[43] S. S. Nadwi, Hayat-i-Shibli (Azamgarh 1943) cited in H. Malik & L. P. Malik, ‘The Life of the Poet-Philosopher’, p.12

[44] H. Malik & L. P. Malik, The Life of the Poet-Philosopher’, p.12

[45]Ibid. p. 12

[46]Ibid. p. 13

[47] Ibid. p. 17

[48]Ibid. p. 17

[49]A. Faizee, Iqbal (Karachi, 2011), p. 10

[50] A. Faizee, Iqbal (Bombay, 1947), pp. 80-81

[51] A. Faizee, Iqbal (Karachi, 2011), p. 10

[52] L. R. Gordon-Polonskaya, ‘Ideology of Muslim Nationalism’, p. 113

[53] H. Malik & L. P. Malik, ‘The Life of the Poet-Philosopher’, p. 19

[54]Ibid. p. 19

[55] R. A. Nicholson, Secrets of Self (Lahore, 1960) p. vii

[56] H. Malik & L. P. Malik, ‘The Life of the Poet-Philosopher’, p. 27

[57]S. Wahid-ud-Din, Rozgar-i-Faqir (Karachi, 1965), p.135

[58] M. D. Rahbar, ‘Glimpses of the Man’, Iqbal – Poet Philosopher of Pakistan, ed. H. Malik (Lahore, 2005), p. 40

[59] H. Malik & L. P. Malik, ‘The Life of the Poet-Philosopher’, p. 30

[60] V. G. Kiernan, Poems from Iqbal, pp. 102

[61] H. Malik & L. P. Malik, ‘The Life of the Poet-Philosopher’, p. 31

[62]Ibid. p. 31

[63]V. G. Kiernan, Poems from Iqbal, p.xix

[64]K. Singh, Shikwa and Jawab-i-Shikwa (Complaint and Answer, Iqbal’s Dialogue with Allah (New Delhi, 1981), p.19

[65] L. R. Gordon-Polonskaya, ‘Ideology of Muslim Nationalism’, p.113

[66] Ibid. 113

[67]R. A. Nicholson, Secrets of Self, p.10

[68] L. R. Gordon-Polonskaya, ‘Ideology of Muslim Nationalism’, p. 113

[69] Ibid. p. 113

[70] M. Iqbal, ‘Note on Nietzsche’, S. A. Vahid (ed.) Thoughts and Reflections of Iqbal (Lahore, 1992), p. 242

[71]V. G. Kiernan, Poems from Iqbal, p. xviii

[72] M. Iqbal, Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam (Delhi, 2008), p. 198

[73] L. R. Gordon-Polonskaya, ‘Ideology of Muslim Nationalism’, p. 129

[74] Ibid. p. 113

[75] P. S. Ali, The Political Philosophy of Iqbal (Lahore, 1978), p. 38

[76]Ibid. p. 38

[77]Ibid. p. 38

[78]Syed Nazir Niazi, ‘Conversation with Iqbal’ in Muhammad Iqbal (Pakistan German Forum Karachi, 1960), p.112

[79] P. S. Ali, The Political Philosophy (Lahore, 1978), p. 40

[80]Ibid, p. 40

[81]Ibid. p. 41

[82] A. Schimmel, ‘Mohammad Iqbal and, German Thought’, Mohammad Iqbal, (The Pak-German Forum, Karachi, 1960), p. 97

[83]A. Schimmel, Gabriels’s Wing: A study into the Religious Ideas of Sir Muhammad Iqbal, (Leiden. 1963), pp. 313-14

[84] P. S. Ali, The Political Philosophy, p. 57

[85] Ibid. p. 57

[86] Ibid. p. 58

[87]Ibid. p. 58

[88]Ibid. p. 59

[89]Ibid. p. 59

[90]Ibid. p. 59

[91]A. Bausani, ‘Muhammad Iqbal’s Message’ East & West, 1950, Vol. I, p. 138

[92] P. S. Ali, The Political Philosophy of Iqbal, p. 61

[93] Ibid. p. 61

[94]Iqbal, ‘Ilm-o-Ishq’, Kuliyat-i-Iqbal, p. 654-55 trans. P. S. Ali,The Political Philosophy p. 61  

[95]R. A. Nicholson, The Secrets of the Self, p. xiv,

[96]S. A. Vahid, Iqbal: His Art and Thought (Lahore, 1964), pp. 99-100

[97]Iqbal Nama, (Lahore)vol. I, pp.27 – 28inP. S. Ali, The Political Philosophy of Iqbal, p. 63

[98] M. Iqbal, Payam-i-Mashriq (Lahore, 1954), p. 7 trans. P. S. Ali, p. 64

[99] M. Iqbal, Armaghan-i-Hijaz, (Lahore, 1955),p. 108, trans. P. S. Ali, p. 64

[100] L. R. Gordon-Polonskaya, ‘Ideology of Muslim Nationalism’, p. 114

[101]Ibid. p. 114

[102]Ibid. p. 115

[103] M. Iqbal, Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, p.97

[104] Ibid.p. 97

[105] L. R. Gordon-Polonskaya, ‘Ideology of Muslim Nationalism’, p. 116

[106]Ibid. p. 116

[107]V. G. Kiernan, Poems from Iqbal, p. xxi

[108] H. Malik, ‘Man of Thought and Action’, p. 77

[109] Ibid. p. 77

[110] Ibid. p. 77

[111]Ibid. p. 78

[112]1 cror = 10 million

[113] M. Darling, The Punjab Peasant (London, Oxford University Press 1947), pp. 172 -173

[114] H. Malik, ‘Man of Thought and Action’, p. 79

[115] Ibid. p. 79

[116]V. G. Kiernan, Poems from Iqbal, p. xi

[117] H. Malik, ‘Man of Thought and Action’, p. 83

[118] Muhammad Iqbal, ‘Speech on budget at the Punjab Legislative Council’, March 1927 L. A. Sherwani, Speeches, Writings and Statements of Iqbal (Lahore, 2015),p. 51.

[119] H. Malik, ‘Man of Thought and Action’p. 85

[120]V. G. Kiernan, Poems from Iqbal, p. 122

[121]Ibid. p. xi

[122]V. G. Kiernan, Poems from Iqbal, p. 230

[123] A. Schimmel, “The Figure of Satan in the Works of Muhammed Iqbal”, http://www.allamaiqbal.com/publications/journals/review/oct84/3.htm

[124] P. S. Ali, The Political Philosophy, p. 277

[125]V. G. Kiernan, Poems from Iqbal, p. 122

[126]K. Singh, Shikwa and Jawab-i-Shikwa, p. 25

[127]Ibid. p. 25

[128] V. G. Kiernan, Poems from Iqbal, p. 230

[129]Quran 7:12

[130]Ibid. 12:15, 17:53

[131]Ibid. 7:16-1

[132]Quran 15:42

[133] V. G. Kiernan, Poems from Iqbal, p. 230

[134] ‘Qayam’ is to stand upright in front of God with dignity and ‘sujood’
are prostrations and surrender.

[135]V. G. Kiernan, Poems from Iqbal, p. 230-32

[136]Ibid. p. 232

[137]Ibid. p. 234

[138] P. S. Ali, The Political Philosophy, p. 278

[139]M. A. Raja, ‘Muhammad Iqbal: Islam, the West and the Quest for a Modern Muslim Identity’, p.44

[140]K. A. Hakim, Islam and Communism, p. 281

[141]Ibid. p. 287

[142]M.A. Raja, Muhammad Iqbal: Islam, the West and the Quest for a Modern Muslim Identity, p.44

[143]Ibid.

[144]V. G. Kiernan, Poems from Iqbal, p. 234

[145]Ibid. p. 234

[146] Moses is a sign of freedom for children of Israel from the cruel Pharoah, and Jesus is a sign of love and equality for all mankind.

[147]V. G. Kiernan, Poems from Iqbal, p. 236

[148]Ibid. p. 236

[149]Ibid. p. 238

[150]V. G. Kiernan, Poems from Iqbal, p. 238

[151] Hawk is Iqbal’s favourite bird in his poetry. He romanticizes and compares his ideal man to hawk, which is a free bird, explorer of the free skies, lives on the mountains, and catches its own prey alive, unlike the vulture. In Baal-i-Jibreel (Gabriel’s Wing), he writes: ‘Through the kingdom of birds an Ascetic I roam: The hawk builds no nest, for the hawk needs no home.’

[152]V. G. Kiernan, Poems from Iqbal, p. 238

[153]Ibid. p. 240

[154]Ibid. p. 240

[155]Ibid. p. 240

[156]Ibid. p. 240

[157]Ibid. p. 122

[158]Ibid. p. 122

[159] Ibid. p. 242

[160]Laat o manaat were the idols in the Ka’aba, which used to be worshiped as partners of God. The society of Mecca was not ignorant of God. They believed in Allah (literally meaning the one to be worshipped Al-ilah) but associated partners with Him. For the Meccans the worship of laat and manaat was as devout an act as worshipping God.

[161]V. G. Kiernan, Poems from Iqbal, p. 245

[162] A. Schimmel, Islam and the Subcontinent, p.229

[163]K. A. Shafique, Iqbal, His Life and Our Times, p. 12

[164] R. Hassan, ‘The Development of Political Philosophy’, H. Malik (ed.), Iqbal – Poet Philosopher of Pakistan, (Lahore, 2005), p. 137

[165]Ibid. p. 138

[166]V. G. Kiernan, Poems from Iqbal, p. 20

[167] R. Hassan, ‘The Development of Political Philosophy’, p. 138

[168]Ibid. p. 139

[169]Ibid. p. 139

[170]Ibid. p. 139

[171] M. Iqbal, ‘Extract from a letter to Sir Youngshusband in the Civil and Military Gazette, July 1931’, L. A. Sherwani, Speeches and Statements of Iqbal, p. 251

[172] R. Hassan, ‘The Development of Political Philosophy’, p.140

[173]Ibid. p. 140

[174] M. Iqbal, Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, p. v

[175] I. Singh, The Ardent Pilgrim (London, 1951), pp. 24-25

[176] R. Hassan, ‘The Development of Political Philosophy’, p. 142

[177]Ibid. p. 143

[178]Ibid. p. 143

[179]Ibid. p. 144

[180]Ibid. p. 144

[181]Ibid. p. 144

[182] M. Iqbal, ‘Presidential Address at All-India Muslim League, Allahabad’, A. Vahid (ed.) Thoughts and Reflections of Iqbal, p. 173

[183] R. Hassan, ‘The Development of Political Philosophy’, p.146

[184]L. A. Sherwani (ed.), Speeches and Statements of Iqbal, p. 301

[185]Ibid. p. 311-12

[186] Vahid (ed.) Thoughts and Reflections of Iqbal, p.376 – 377

[187]A. H. Al-Biruni, Makers of Pakistan and Modern Muslim India (Lahore, 1950), p. 174

[188] Dickinson, ‘Review of the Secrets of Self by Muhammad Iqbal’, The Nation (London), Dec. 24, 1920, p. 458

[189] M. Iqbal, ‘Letter to Dr Nicholson’, Vahid (ed.) Thoughts and Reflections of Iqbal, pp. 98-99

[190]W. O. Douglas, ‘Foreword’, p. x

[191]M. A. Raja, ‘Muhammad Iqbal: Islam, the West and the Quest for a Modern Muslim Identity’, p. 41

[192] Ibid. p. 41

[193] Quran II, 28-31; M. Iqbal, Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, p. 13

[194]W. O. Douglas, ‘Foreword’, p. ix

[195]Ibid. p. ix

[196]K. A. Hakim, Fikr-e-Iqbal (Lahore, 1988), p.201

[197]V. G. Kiernan, Poems from Iqbal, p. 226

[198]T Ball & R. Bellamy, The Cambridge History of Twentieth Century Political Thought, (Cambridge University Press, 2003), p. 586

[199]Ibid. p. 586

[200] Muhammad Iqbal, ‘Hindi Maktab’, Kuliyat-Iqbal, p. 715.

[201] J. Marek, ‘Perceptions of International Politics’, H. Malik (ed.), Iqbal – Poet Philosopher of Pakistan (Lahore, 2005), p. 166

[202]V. G. Kiernan, Poems from Iqbal, p. 220

[203]Ibid. p. 220

[204] M. Nizami, Malfuzat-i-Iqbal (Lahore, 1949),pp. 66-67

[205] J. Marek, ‘Perceptions of International Politics’, p. 167

[206]M. D. Rahbar ‘Glimpses of the Man’, p. 53

[207]Ibid. p. 53

[208]Ibid. p. 54

[209] M. Iqbal, Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, p.22

[210] H. Malik, ‘Man of Thought and Action’, p. 72

[211]S. Wahid-ud-Din, ‘Dee-Bachah-i- Asrar- Khudi’, Ruzgar-I Faqir, II (Karachi, 1965), p.49

[212] J. Marek, ‘Perceptions of International Politics’, p. 171

[213]V. G. Kiernan, Poems from Iqbal, p. 202

[214] J. Marek, ‘Perceptions of International Politics’, p. 171

[215] L. R. Gordon-Polonskaya, ‘Ideology of Muslim Nationalism’, p. 119

[216] Ibid. p. 119

[217] K. A. Hakim, Islam and Communism, p. 150

[218] V. G. Kiernan, Poems from Iqbal, p. 202

[219] L. R. Gordon-Polonskaya, ‘Ideology of Muslim Nationalism’, p. 120

[220]M. Iqbal, Kuliyat-i-Iqbal (Urdu), p. 769

[221] V. G. Kiernan, Poems from Iqbal, p. 208

[222] M. Iqbal, ‘Extract from a letter to Sir Youngshusband in the Civil and Military Gazette, July 1931’, L. A. Sherwani, Speeches and Statements of Iqbal, p. 251

[223] K. A. Hakim, Islam and Communism, pp. 136 – 150

[224]Ibid. pp. 136-150

[225] Ibid. p. 122

[226] W. C. Smith, Modern Islam in India (London, 1946), p.132

[227] The Encyclopaedia of Social Sciences, 15 vols. (London Macmillan, 1957) XIII, p.189; R. Hassan, ‘The Development of Political Philosophy’, p.153

[228]V. G. Kiernan, Poems from Iqbal, p. 116

[229] B. Koshul & F. Khan, ‘Lenin in Allah’s court: Iqbal’s critique of Western capitalism and the opening up of the postcolonial imagination in critical management studies’, Organization, May 2011, vol. 18, 3, p. 307 http://org.sagepub.com/content/18/3/303.full.pdf

[230] J. Marek, ‘Perceptions of International Politics’, p. 170

[231] Ibid. p. 160

[232]Ibid. p. 160

[233]Iqbal, Pas Cha Bayad Kard Ay Aqwam-i-Sharq? (1958), pp. 58-59 trans. J. Marek, ‘Perceptions of International Politics’, p. 160

[234]V. G. Kiernan, p. 212

[235] J. Marek, ‘Perceptions of International Politics’, p. 162

[236]Iqbal, Kuliyat-i-Iqbal (Alhamra Publishing, Jul 2000), p.781, trans., J. Marek, ‘Perceptions of International Politics’, p. 162

[237] J. Marek, ‘Perceptions of International Politics’, p. 162

[238]Ibid. p. 162

[239]Ibid. p. 163

[240]Iqbal, Pas Cha Bayad Kard Ay Aqwam-i-Sharq?, pp. 38, trans., J. Marek, ‘Perceptions of International Politics’, p. 161

[241]V. G. Kiernan, Poems from Iqbal, p. 214

[242] L. R. Gordon-Polonskaya, ‘Ideology of Muslim Nationalism’, p. 131

[243] Iqbal, ‘Khizr-i-Rah’ trans. S. A. Latif, The Influence of English Literature on Urdu Literature (London, 1924), p. 132

[244] M. Iqbal, ‘Extract from a letter to Sir Youngshusband in the Civil and Military Gazette, July 1931’, L. A. Sherwani, Speeches and Statements of Iqbal, p. 251

[245]V. G. Kiernan, p. 210

[246]V. G. Kiernan, p. 164

[247] F. Abbot, ‘View of Democracy and the West’, p. 181

[248]Ibid. p. 181

[249]Letters of Iqbal to Jinnah (Lahore: Muhammad Ashraf, 1943), p.19

[250] S. Kashyap, ‘Sir Muhammad Iqbal and F. Nietzsche’, Islamic Quarterly (London), II, I (April, 1955), p.185

[251]Ibid. p. 185

[252] M. Iqbal, ‘Islam as a Moral and Political Ideal’, Vahid (ed.) Thoughts and Reflections of Iqbal, p. 51-53

[253] M. Iqbal, ‘Stray Thoughts II’, Vahid (ed.) Thoughts and Reflections of Iqbal, pp. 83-84

[254] F. Abbot, ‘View of Democracy and the West’, p. 181

[255] M. Munawwar; Dimensions of lqbal (Lahore 1986), p. 182

[256] L. R. Gordon-Polonskaya, ‘Ideology of Muslim Nationalism’, p. 130

[257]Ibid. p. 130

[258]Ibid. p. 130

[259]Ibid. p. 130

[260]Ibid p. 130

[261] M. Iqbal, Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, p. 154

[262] S. A Vahid, ‘Iqbal and His Critics’, Iqbal Review, Journal of Iqbal Academy, Pakistan (Lahore, April, 1964) Vol. 5, No. 3, p. 14 (http://www.iqbalcyberlibrary.net/pdf/IRE-APR-1964.pdf)

[263] Ibid. p. 14

[264] W. C. Smith: Islam in Modern History (Princeton University Press, 1957), p. 210

[265] P. S. Ali, The Political Philosophy, p. 350

[266] Ibid. p. 350

[267] Ibid. p. 351

[268]Ibid. p. 347

[269] P. S. Ali, The Political Philosophy (Lahore, 1978), p. 347

[270] Ibid. p. 348

[271]W. O. Douglas, ‘Foreword’, p. x

[272] Kiernan, p. 230 – 244

[273]Kiernan, 234

The above paper is an MA Dissertation submitted to University of London September 2015.

Love Conquers The World

Love-Conquers-the-worldLove Conquers The World

(محبت فاتح عالم)

I thought of contemporary love as a feeling of deception that you have for somebody, enslaving you to inferior desires. It was not until I read عشق کے پانچ درجے1 by Khurram Ali Shafique and discovered Iqbal through his Marghdeen2. This change introduced me to that powerful love through which beloved says بتا تیری رضا کیا ہے (What is your wish?)3.

My original thought was a reflection of the society, a society having boys and girls eager to talk to each other, spending sleepless nights on phone and offering useless gossip about girls/boys in gatherings. It is an ignorant world view to which youth is forced to believe in; this world view of lust, promulgated by media. It is nothing but a means of profiteering from the masses.

Love is much more powerful than all this, it is that curiosity for an infant to take the first steps; it is in those sleepless nights of mother taking care of her child; it is in those scholars who persevere to preach goodness; it is in those martyrs who stand for their countrymen. It is this love  in the universe that holds it all together.

Love is quite a real phenomenon. It exists physically. It is tangible and can be felt and sensed. It can be experienced and then held. It is supreme power of love is that constitutes ‘humanity’ today. It is the foundation of human existence: ‘He placed between you affection and mercy’4.

Iqbal wanted to revive this love, this ‘nigah-e-shoq’ to reach for the ultimate love for the Creator, The Sustainer. We often talk about wrath of Allah Almighty, obscuring His forgiveness, His love and mercy. This introduces to people a God-King who would punish them for wrong doings and reward them for obedience. However, the basic element in this is missing; love. Quran’s message is not the rulings of a King, but a code to search and see in Him the muse ‘So remember Me; I will remember you’.5

This conception is a shared reality with Christianity that ended in a complete denial of the basis of religion. Karen Armstrong writes:

“When I was about eight years old, I had to memorize this catechism answer to the question, ‘What is God?’: ‘God is the Supreme Spirit, Who alone exists of Himself and is infinite in all perfections.’ Not surprisingly, it meant little to me and I am bound to say that it still leaves me cold. It has always seemed a singularly arid, pompous and arrogant definition. Since writing this book, however, I have come to believe that it is also incorrect. . . . As I grew up, I realized that there was more to religion than fear.”6

Islam’s concept is based not on fear; rather it regards fearlessness as the supreme attribute of a Musalman. This love is what inspires freedom from all that restrains the true goodness in humanity. The greatest obstacle Iqbal say ‘that restrains man’s ethical progress is fear’.7

“. . . and no fear will there be concerning them, nor will they grieve.”8

Due to centuries of decline negativity has been embedded in the genes of Musalmans of today. We do not let any incident go without criticizing it, blaming someone or something, and a widely heard line would be:

“Everything happening is because of a third evil power”

It is a loveless life we are living. It was the primary objective of Iqbal to set mankind free of dogmatic following, to think freely and to reach out for goals far reaching the capability of humans fulfilling the prophecy of God:

کنتم خیرامت اخربت للناس تامرون بالمعروف و تنھون عن المنکر

“You are the best nation produced [as an example] for mankind. You enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong.”13

Our society tends to seek reality in those ‘out of the box’ opinions and theories (end of times, illuminati, etc.). Instead of focusing on love for the society, and love for the Creator, our conversations are confined in brackets with a negative outside. Popular belief defines a society, popular actions defines their goal and it is these goals and beliefs in which Iqbal wanted to see growth of a collective ego. Pakistan was founded on the basis of this collective ego and it is still forming our society.

There is also an argument that suggests Iqbal ‘said’ many things but he didn’t materialize them in his own life or:

افکار تازہ سے جہان تازہ کی نمود نہی ہوئ

Iqbal became the President of Muslim League, Pakistan was his conception and it was his goal (that he envisioned through collective will). How can we point fingers on his actions when we are ourselves in deep pessimism? Iqbal believed in a melioristic attitude towards life. He believed man has an innate quality of expressing and developing. He saw in man the infinite possibilities to expand his consciousness and will, to completely change what they believe in, to pursue and dream new worlds, worlds that have new possibilities.

اس ذرہ کو رہتی ہے وسعت کی ہوس ہر دم

یہ ذرا نہی، شاید سمٹا ہوا صحرا ہے

This speck remains incessantly ambitious of expansion

Not a speck but perhaps the constricted wilderness he is

چاہے تو بدل ڈالے ہئیت چمنستاں کی

یہ ہستی دانا ہے، بینا ہے، توانا ہے

If he wills he can change the face of the garden

This entity wise, clear‐sighted and powerful is.9

Another argument that is widely spoken in our society when compelled to do something instead of criticizing, they would say:

آپ سہی کہتے ہیں، ہمارے ٹھیک ہونے سے کیا ہوتا ہے جب تک اوپر سے لوگ ٹھیک نہ ہوں، ہم کیا کریں؟

You are right but nothing would change unless the rulers change, what can we do?

This attitude aggravates the inactivity. It is that state which Iqbal said about Musalmans of that time:

“Truly economic dependence is the prolific mother of all the various forms of vice. Even the vices of the Indian Muhammadan indicate the weakness of life-force in him. Physically too he has undergone dreadful deterioration. If one sees the pale, faded faces of Muhammadan boys in schools and colleges, one will find the painful verification of my statement. Power, energy, force, strength, yes physical strength, is the law of life. A strong man may rob others when he has got nothing in his own pocket; but a feeble person, he must die the death of a mean thing in the world’s awful scene of continual warfare.”10

He points out the degraded state of Musalmans of that time as ‘a mean thing in the world’s awful scene’. Unfortunately we still have to conceive a powerful Musalman in our society whose character is the key to happiness of a freeman/freewoman. Freedom that allows the sterling character to grow in a person, making him fearless of everything that enslaves him. Instead of giving in to such notions we have to think hard what we can give to this society.

The character of a Musalman seems to be incomplete without this integration of love for Allah.  And this love is not instinctive; rather, it is intellectual and conscious in nature, attained through knowledge of His existence. This knowledge must have unadulterated ‘nigah e shoq’ (Fervent Glance) in order to reach for the buried pearls deep down. If this ocean is murky with ‘complexes’ of any sort it would be difficult to witness the shimmering light of the reality of those pearls.

نگاہ شوق میسر نہیں اگرتجھ کو

تیرا وجود ہے قلب و نظر کی رسوائ

If fervent glance and vision keen You have not met or ever seen;

Your being is a source of shame on heart, and sight can bring a blame.11

So, instead of rendering every activity of our society null by disclaiming its effectiveness, complete transformation of thinking is needed to be that Musalman. The natural melioristic attitude, however, can only be achieved if we unlearn what we have learned. It is one of those hardest things we are capable of doing. Let us revive this spirit to adopt a positive, collective goal, by treading the road of shared love for humanity.

ضمیر لالہ میں روشن چراغ آرزو کر دے

چمن کے ذرےذرے کو شہید جستجو کر دے

Make the lamp of desire bright in the heart of the tulip!

Make every particle of the garden a martyr to search!12

 

References:

1. http://panipatnow.com/archives/314

2. Marghdeen Learning Center (www.marghdeenlearningcenter.com)

3. Iqbal: Khirad Mandon Se Kya Poochun Ke Meri Ibtada Kya Hai, Baal-e-Jibril [Translation from: http://iqbalurdu.blogspot.com/2011/04/bal-e-jibril-053-kirad-mandon-se-kya.html]

4. Quran: 30:21*

5. Quran: 2:152*

6. Karen Armstrong: A history of God

7. Iqbal: Islam a moral and Political Ideal, 1909

8. Quran: 2:62*

9. Iqbal: Insan, Bang-e-Dra [Translation from http://iqbalurdu.blogspot.com/2011/04/bang-e-dra-113-insan.html)]

10. Iqbal: Islam a moral and Political Ideal, 1909

11. Iqbal: Nigah e Shouq, Zarb-e-Kalim. [Translation from http://iqbalurdu.blogspot.com/2011/04/zarb-e-kaleem-119-nigah-e-shauq.html]

12. Iqbal: Tulu-e-Islam, Bang-e-Dra [Translation from: http://iqbalurdu.blogspot.com/2011/04/bang-e-dra-163-tulu-e-islam.html]

13. Quran: 3:110*

* The translations are taken from www.quran.com of Sahih International.

Our Shackled Patriotism

Image Courtesy: EPA/ARSHAD ARBAB
Image Courtesy: EPA/ARSHAD ARBAB

So, August arrives again. Like every year, channel logos change to green. Youth begins placing flags on their roof tops, buying badges and flags only to find them on the floor beneath our feet the next day. More deceitful promises and more lies by dearly loved leaders; more national songs and a load of new revolutions.

No one really understands the importance and the privilege of being free. We all jump on the bandwagon because everyone else is, everyone else is because the entire world is hence joining the trend. We are all consumed by a false sense of freedom and independence. We are all living in oblivion celebrating a few days in a year convincing ourselves that we’re “Independent” and we’re “free” but our minds and hearts are chained and we’re probably the most naïve nation there could possibly exist. What exactly are we celebrating? – False sense of freedom? Our deceptive “brotherhood” where no one is willing to help none but himself? As someone who has lived abroad all her life, something that pinched me the most when I shifted to Pakistan for education is the reluctance to help others. What exactly are you celebrating and what exactly are you wishing and praying for with all that calling out to Allah on your religious transmissions and morning shows if you’re unaware of the basic courtesies that make up a stable society? Let alone a stable society we’re not even a society yet. A society that is hell bent on discrimination between different cultures and different religions, a society that thinks its own interpretation of religion from a sea of misunderstood interpretations bewilderingly mixed up with culture is above the genuine religion this country’s creation was based upon? What are we celebrating? Sure every country has its flaws but societies work towards making them right which unfortunately is a mere fantasy in our case. Ours, sadly, is a society of miserable fools looking for a reason to celebrate and it could be anything. Don’t blame my fellow countrymen since Pakistan is one of those countries that have seen the worse of worst yet the people try to remain buoyant but is it really strength or is it just being numb and immune? It won’t be wrong to say that the general public has run out of energy to outrage. So numb that we’re not even bothered about the rulers who rule us in the name of democracy. No, not anti-democratic but certainly not pro-make-a-fool-out-of-me-again. Remember the phrase “Fool me once shame on you fool me twice shame on me” we’ve been shamed so many times, probably lost count.

Don’t mistake this for cynicism. I used to be insanely Patriotic but I didn’t actually understand what patriotism truly was. Patriotism isn’t chanting slogans it’s not hollow rhetoric and meaningless emotions you exhibit on the social networking sites. Patriotism is much more than that; it’s about owning what you have. People who change their profile pictures and statues are the same people who are likely to abandon their homeland for a foreign land and an overseas passport. One wonders where all this patriotism vanishes then? Your patriotism is not living in oblivion about the state of your country. It’s not ignoring the wrong doings of your people. I’m sorry but I cannot call myself a “proud” Pakistani right now. I do call myself and Pakistani, always had and always will but not a proud one. I choose to be conscious rather than living in denial.

Chanting slogans doesn’t help. Singing national songs is nothing but pretense if you’re a greedy leech oppressing the ones below you, seizing someone’s right, misusing your authority you’re nothing but a hypocrite lying to yourself. It’ll be clichéd to write a long list of things we all ought to do as we all know our role, so I won’t go there. I’ll just hope and pray, because that’s what I can do. I hope that one day, hopefully one day we’ll have a country that Jinnah would be proud of. Not a society where people merely live, or rather survive, because they have to but because they want to, thankfully. Not a society that survives on the basis of corruption, wealth and power but a society that accommodates all the caste religions and statuses peacefully. And I hope that someday, soon hopefully, someone like me does not sit down and think about their independence in the manner I have.

The Second Coming

Father of Boys Killed by IsraelTurning and turning in the widening gyre

The falcon cannot hear the falconer;

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere

The ceremony of innocence is drowned;

The best lack all conviction, while the worst

Are full of passionate intensity.

                                                                        –W.B. Yeats, The Second Coming, 1921

This was the first poem I had ever read as a Literature student. And this was about thirteen years ago. I distinctly remember the words of our teacher who said, “Yeats takes strange apocalyptic delight in these words.” Then, while simply making class-notes, the words just sounded cool. Today, after thirteen years, I recall them now with strange apocalyptic dismay. I just read an acquaintance’s post off Facebook – something about detention camps and the systematic (um, strategic?) exit of the Palestinians from their own home. On a permanent basis. I offhandedly posted a comment on the post about how I thought that “history repeats itself” is an obsolete cliché. In this poem, the word “gyre” was Yeats’s philosophical concoction: that history repeats itself every two thousand years. Or something. He obviously had The Great Apocalypse in mind. But how wrong was he. History repeats itself sooner than what he had perhaps calculated.

I will not say that Israel is the new Hitler. That’s been done. I will not say that the suffering of the Jews at the hands of Hitler with his premise to purify the Aryan race was justified. I will not say that the Jews of that unfortunate time were not oppressed. I will not even say that all Jews should now be condemned simply because they are Jews. Thankfully, I choose not to be anti-Semitic. However, what we are seeing today is a telling commentary of profound racism, discrimination, otherization, profiling, stereotyping, ethnic cleansing, apartheid or whatever anthropological/political label you want to choose for convenience. I faintly recall one of the slides from a popular apocalyptically delightful documentary called ‘The Arrivals’ that came out in 2008. No, I am not a conspiracy theorist; however, the documentary had some certain truths. One of them being how The Arab has been systematically and strategically been represented as the convenient villain, the sub-human, the barbarian, the uncouth monster who is incapable of sensitivity that is otherwise so intrinsic to the rest of the human race. How – by that very fact – we feel no sympathy when we see images of the horrors of Abu Ghraib, of Gitmo, of Palestinians or anyone who could be linked in any way to the desolate desert of Hijaz. Who are we kidding? Islamophobia was present even Sayyidna Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) shocked the world with his arrival. The Final One came from Ismail, not Ishaq (blessings upon them both), much to everyone’s surprise. He was an Arab. He was not from Jerusalem, as was the case otherwise with the rest who came before him. He came and changed the way things were done and to be done, forever. And those who rejected him simply because he was unlike them were deeply and detrimentally racist. But some like Sayyidna Salman bin Farsi’ who were out to root for the truth saw the difference. And accepted him.

Yet as time has gone by, the Arab – now loosely seen as the Muslim – is a potential threat. We have all heard of, and some have possibly read, Edward Said’s Orientalism in which he carefully dissects this ambivalent relationship between the Self and the Other. Again, context is an important factor in determining the content of any author’s work. Perhaps seeing himself as a Palestinian, Said’s own analysis can now be dismissed as being prejudiced. But it would be quite disingenuous for us to conveniently disregard his work which offers an incisive introspection of the West’s gaze on the other side of the globe: how is difference viewed – to be fascinated by, and to be feared, and to be controlled. Maybe even conquered. This fear did not just erupt with the tragic events of 9/11. Again, a convenient trump card to look at the Bedouin beast under the microscope.

Islamophobia today – in our very own backyard – is demonstrating itself in the most strange and silly of ways showing how deeply entrenched we are with our fears and prejudices. From people getting so upset by the trivial semantics of sehri versus suhoor and Khuda versus Allah Hafiz, to an entire population that is being bull-dozed and droned and dimed into annihilation, the Arab is an intruder, that “little snake” that has crept into not just our preciously paak Pakistani culture, but is somehow going to take control of the world. We get uncomfortable when we see any woman dressed like an Arab, or any man who is looking like one, or a child who doesn’t say “Hey” but rather says “salaam” even to kids of his own age. We feel and take offence at it as if our own national integrity is at stake. That is why whenever you talk about Palestinian suffering at least in the drawing rooms of Pakistan, what you inevitably get to hear is: oh what about our IDPs? What about our minorities? Hamas is a terror organization like the Taliban; and other such half-baked tautologies. Extend this same dynamic of discourse and thought to the larger drawing rooms of the globe: oh what about animal rights? What about global warming? All these terror organizations are a menace that must be removed – after all, we are the defenders of humanity. Yes, IDPS are a huge and pressing concern for our nation – much more pressing than “suhur” and black abayas; Yes, if we don’t care enough about global warming there won’t be any Maldives for us to party away in the summers and we may just be living off an iceberg. I am deliberately being sarcastic, if not entirely cynical. These issues are grave. But graver still has been the utter apathy of the entire global community over a people that has been duped, manipulated, marginalized, bombed, beaten up, massacred, shot, imprisoned, and now potentially going to be expelled from its own soil. Why: they’re Arabs, why not?

 Thankfully, many are not tuning into mainstream newsrooms to see what is really going on, as was the case before. Little did we know that we had been warned before, long, long ago:

O you who believe, if an evildoer comes to you with a report, look carefully into it, lest you harm a people in ignorance, then be sorry for what you have done! Al-Qur’an(49:6)

Now most of us are quite sorry for our chosen ignorance. Perhaps, we chose not to believe. Finally, due to social media, after nearly a century of silence the world has seen some semblance of the truth. Not perhaps as true as Salman bin Farsi’, but many are getting there. The conflict effectively began as early as 1897 when the Zionist Organization, now ironically known as the WZO (W, stands for World) rose to full throttle in 1948 and now simmers and seethes to this day. And the battle is not perhaps on the face of it about God, the Promised Land, or the Dangerous Neighbor. As Robert Fisk has stated, “as usual, it’s about land.” Veni, vidi, vici. Wonder why the Arabs said, “You’re welcome,” in the first place. A fitting remix of Caesar’s words have now retuned in a rap song.

I came, I saw, I conquered, I shot you down

Your brain no have no conscious, don’t make a sound

I came, I saw, I conquered, what you do now?

Your brain no have no conscious, what you do?

Don’t make a sound…

But social media finally helped the hitherto silent global community speak, and shout. Protests are being raged, petitions are being signed, boycotts are being advocated, webpages are being designed, images, stories, videos are being shared. But many mouths are left gaping in silence. How could someone bully a people like that? How could anyone stand up and root for such bullies? How can anyone not say a word? How can an oppressed people not react? The fact that Protective Edge is a retaliation for the kidnapping and killing of three Israeli teenagers is not new news. What happened to the boys was wrong, unacceptable, and unsavory. And so, IDF killed not three, but four boys playing football on a beach. If simply, and callously, mere numbers are looked at, and the Jewish and Islamic principle of lex talionis – eye for an eye, or qisas – which both religious communities (among other things agree on) is followed, retribution has been grossly served. But the IDF is not winning by just one number, but by a hundred. The retribution is being unleashed on thousands, and nearly 600 have already paid for it, of which 76% are civilians, and 45% women and children, according to the UN’s Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. Yet still protocol demands that this just may be amounting to war crimes. And finger-pointing is always convenient: “ask them, they started it.” But the Arabs can turn around and make the same claim when the conflict began to take its monstrous form nearly half a century ago.

“With the establishment of a relationship of oppression, violence has already begun. Never in history has violence been initiated by the oppressed. …There would be no oppressed had there been no prior of violence to establish their subjugation.” – Paulo Freire.

Both nations have met with oppression in their religious history. Both nations have met with oppression in their recent living history. How can they not understand what it means, and what it entails? How can Hamas’s reaction be simply dismissed as terrorism? How can a home-made rocket be the same as DIME munitions? How can a one-minute warning phone-call be adequate for an entire home to wrap up, pack up, and run for their lives? How can a stone stand in the way of a tank ready to bulldoze? How can the global audience not stir and shout? How can those who have the reins of power wear blinders themselves? As journalist, Ferrari Sheppard noted during his recent trip to Israel-Palestine,

“Zionism has convinced many Jews that they are preserving themselves. The common thought is that if the “savage” Palestinians stop resisting, stop shooting rockets, stop fighting Israel’s inevitable domination, there can be peace. I find this peculiar because during my visit, I felt no danger from Palestinians, only from Israeli soldiers. Perhaps it’s because I’m accustomed to being hunted in America. There is no Palestinian-Israeli conflict; there is only oppression.”

This is a lopsided war. There is no contest really between unequal players. The Nazis were no match for the Jews. The Israel State is no match for a marginalized Palestinian group. The issue of Palestine is not just about a people being wronged and punished for being different. It’s not just about power either anymore. It’s a tug of war for survival, with millions that have been swept away in the struggle. The Jews who have witnessed the horror of the Holocaust have seen how generations have been wasted, never to recover. And the same fate and horror awaits the Palestinian people. Gideon Levy, a survivor of the Holocaust and a prominent literary figure of the Israelite community, poignantly points out:

“I am amazed again and again at how little Israelis know of what’s going on fifteen minutes away from their homes,” he says. “The brainwashing machinery is so efficient that trying [to undo it is] almost like trying to turn an omelette back to an egg. It makes people so full of ignorance and cruelty.”

Yeats was wrong. It really does not take a gyre to unspiral itself through the ages to show how history recklessly regurgitates. History is ruthless in its repetition. We see it every day now on our Facebook pages and our tweets, unravelling as a protracted and pathetic global human tragedy. And we, as the audience, wait yet again – to see what happens next.

Surely some revelation is at hand;

Surely the Second Coming is at hand.

The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out

When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi

Troubles my sight: a waste of desert sand;

A shape with lion body and the head of a man,

A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,

Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it

Wind shadows of the indignant desert birds.

The darkness drops again but now I know

That twenty centuries of stony sleep

Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,

And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,

Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

Israel’s Zionist Foundation and Expansionist Dream – A Short History

palestine-loss-of-land‘At Basel, I founded the Jewish State. If I said it out loud today, I would be answered by universal laughter. Perhaps in five years, and certainly in fifty, everyone will know it.’[1] ~ (Theodor Herzl writes in his diary about Basel Zionist Conference, 1897 where Zionism was officially coined)

The birth of the State of Israel on 14th May 1948 is a turning point in the history of the Middle East and one of the most significant events of the twentieth century. Based on Zionist ideology, Israel came into being as a ‘fulfilment of the promise of the Jewish scriptures’. Since its inception, Israel centres its relations with the native population and neighbouring countries on an existential threat. Alliances, ties, negotiations and treaties all base on Israel’s so-called security concerns faced from within and outside the country. But Israel’s Zionist foundations and expansionist aims have a major role to play in the volatile situation of the Middle East.

Israel, by definition and by essence is a Jewish state and was formed to give the Jews, living in different parts the world after the Diaspora, a national home. While Zionist ideology laid the foundation stone of the state, the native Arab population and the seemingly mighty neighbours joined by the rhetoric of common Arab roots, language and cultures became the immediate security threat for the country. But very soon Israel’s man and military power was evident to her as well as to the hollow and deeply divided Arab world. The idea that there was no power in the neighbouring world that matched the military strength of Israel became evident after repeated humiliating defeats encountered by Arab forces, but the case built by Israel as, David surrounded by the forces of Goliath, continued to play a significant role in Israel’s expansionist plans based actually on the ideas of Zionism.

ZIONIST FOUNDATIONS OF ISRAEL:

Zion is the biblical name for Jerusalem.[2] Political Zionism is a concept of the late nineteenth century, coined by Theodor Herzl, a Hungarian secular Jew, in the background of strong anti-Semitism in Europe. His book ‘The Jewish State’ provided a detailed plan for a state where Jews, who were not a religious group but a nation in his views, were to live in peace. In 1897, at the Basel Zionist Conference, the idea of Zionism was officially founded i.e. a ‘Jewish national home’ in Palestine. Herzl mentions in his diary,

‘At Basel, I founded the Jewish State. If I said it out loud today, I would be answered by universal laughter. Perhaps in five years, and certainly in fifty, everyone will know it.’[3]

The three strands of Israel’s identity i.e. religion, nationalism and the Holocaust, as described by Michael Barnett, help Israel portray herself to be in an isolated state and vulnerable to security concerns from different fronts.

‘While all national identities differentiate between ‘us’ and ‘them’, arguably the centrality of religion, nationalism and the Holocaust in Israel’s identity, make these effective and cognitive boundaries more severe and austere’.[4],[5]

Chaim Weizmann, the elected President of World Zionist Organisation was the strongest link between ideas initiated by Herzl and the British Empire. He put all his efforts to win British support for ‘Jewish Commonwealth in Palestine’ belittling the risk of Arab opposition and portraying them ‘a tiny fraction of large Arab nation’[6]- Balfour Declaration, a letter written by British Foreign Secretary Arthur J. Balfour, promising a national home for Jewish people under British support came as a major achievement for Zionists in 1917. Jews were only 10% of the population. The 90% were a non-existent entity for Weizmann as well as the British. The declaration opened the doors of Palestine to the Jews and the Zionist ideas started becoming clearer with time. Although diplomacy was always the way to the goal, and avoidance of the term ‘state’ and preference for usage of ‘a national home’ was the trend, but Weizmann when asked at a peace conference in Paris defined the Jewish National home as to make Palestine as Jewish as England is English.’[7] The Arabs were not partners in any negotiations and Weizmann’s policy was uncompromising in terms of Jewish settlement goals in Palestine.

Jabotinsky, a staunch Jewish nationalist and the founder of Revisionist Zionism, believed in the supremacy of the Jews. For him, Jews were the source of budding Western civilization in the backward and stagnant East. While he acknowledged that no voluntary agreement was possible between alien settlers and native population, the idea of return to Palestine could not be bargained.

We must either suspend our settlement efforts or continue them without paying attention to the mood of the natives. Settlement can thus develop under the protection of a force that is not dependent on the local population, behind an iron wall which they will be powerless to break down.’[8]

For him, an iron wall, i.e. a strong invincible force, was the answer to the Arab problem. Negotiations would only be fruitful if the Zionists were physically and militarily stronger than the natives. Peaceful coexistence is a possibility only after overpowering the threats, materially and by force. For Jabotinsky, there was nothing immoral about the concept of the ‘iron wall’, if the idea of Zionism and right to return to the Zion was to be achieved. The latter is a sacred truth, so any step taken in whatever shape, no matter how immoral it looks to the world, becomes automatically sacred.[9]

Arab resistance was very natural in these circumstances. Riots against the Jews took the shape of full-blown upheavals. Arabs rejected all proposals put forward by the British. David Ben Gurion, the founder of the State of Israel, pushed the British for establishment of a Jewish state after increasing Arab resistance. Lord Peel’s commission report suggested partition of the land in two states in 1937. Although the Zionist leaders were divided on the issue of borders of the states, Ben Gurion’s idea was to accept it for the start and the rest of the country would soon be under Jewish rule.

‘Erect a Jewish State at once, even if it is not in the whole land. The rest will come in the course of time. It must come.’[10]

This was the foundation of Israel: Religion, Zionism (Jewish nationalism), a history of Diaspora, and a strong belief in moral right to return. As perceived by Jabotinsky, the settlers would naturally be unwelcomed by any native population and that is where importance of security would come into play. Thus, pillars of unmatched security and powerful military were absolutely essential to support the foundation stone of identity. Zionist movements developed their own military power in order to be independent of any outside support for survival through the paramilitary organisation called Haganah, and Irgun. In the backdrop of end of World War II, the Holocaust and strengthening Zionist military force, General Assembly of the United Nations passed a resolution in favour of the partition of Palestine in 1947. In 1948, the state of Israel was born in the midst of confrontation with Arabs, within and outside the state.

THE CONFLICT: A NATURAL OUTCOME OF OCCUPATION:

The Arab-Israel conflict is as old as the proclamation of Israel. The Jewish population in Palestine increased dramatically from 10% (54,000) to 32% in 1947. With military supremacy, Zionists were able to gain control of the territories defined in the UN partition plan. The first war against the new state began immediately with Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon but due to disunity, poor communication, absence of reliable intelligence and poor leadership, coordination and planning[11], the Arab states failed badly. Also, the military balance was in favour of Israel with total number of Arab troops of only 25,000 and IDF over 35,000 increasing to 65,000 within two months and 96,441 in seven months. As Avi Shlaim comments, ‘In this war, as in most wars, the stronger side prevailed.’[12] Armistice was signed between Israel and Arab states in 1949. But the border tensions remained high.

The subsequent crisis came in the shape of the Suez war of 1956. Colonel Gamal Abd al-Nasser of Egypt had reached an agreement with the British to withdraw from the military base in the Suez Canal. Israel for her own security wanted the British to remain in the area, therefore a spy ring was activated so as to blow up the installations and give reason to the British not to vacate the area. Spies were captured, tried and hanged by Egypt. Israel’s public saw it as Egypt’s hostile attitude towards their state. To satisfy the public with government’s prompt action and state’s military superiority, Israel attacked Gaza and caused heavy Egyptian casualties. Nasser signed arms deal with Soviet Union, which caused Israel to get more arms from France. Britain not happy with Gamal refused to finance Aswan Dam. Nasser’s retaliation came in the form of nationalising the Suez Canal which was the lifeline for the colonialists to rule the other side of the world. Britain, France and Israel attacked Egypt in the Suez War of 1956. The Israeli army managed to occupy the Sinai Peninsula within 100 hours[13]and Sharm al-Sheikh, thus opening the Straits of Tiran, which were Israel’s primary route to East Africa but had been blocked by Egypt for several years.

In 1967 the six-day war was the most remarkable military victory in the history of Israel. 5th June to 10th June, Israel had occupied the West Bank and the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip and the entire Sinai Peninsula. Arabs suffered from a humiliating defeat, tipping the balance of power heavily in favour of Israel. ‘The annexation of East Jerusalem, was the first and the most dramatic assertion of Israel’s claim to sovereignty over its ancient homeland. Zion, was at the heart of Zionist dream for the restoration of a Jewish kingdom in Palestine.’[14]

The political and military equation began to change after this war. Syria and Saudi Arabia displayed willingness to recognize Israel, and Egypt and Jordan signed peace treaties. The demand of surrendering the territories occupied in 1967 remained prominent in exchange of recognition and peace with Israel throughout the post war era. The major argument in retaining the West Bank was security-based, as it would form a barrier against any attacks from the East. But the West Bank also formed part of ancient Israel (Judaea and Samaria). The Revisionist Zionist Likud party kept rejecting the idea of any kind of surrender even if peace with neighbours and natives became impossible. Their expansionism towards the fulfilment of a Jewish state did not take into account the opportunities of peace offers. Israel’s military supremacy and invincibility throughout these years had made the expansionist goal much easier even if it meant the subjugation of the native population. Negotiations, compromise and diplomacy did not hold much value due to the ‘iron wall’, the unconquerable force once perceived by Jabotinsky, which had later transformed into a literal physical reality.

 THE MIGHTY OPPRESSOR AND THE HELPLESS NATIVES:

The Palestinian problem remains a real one until today. Israel’s population reached six millions in 1998, nearly ten times what it had been in 1948.[15]Israel’s war of independence in 1948 was Palestinian’s Nakba (disaster) when 780,000 Palestinians, two-thirds of country’s population were driven out by Zionist troops and design.[16]The remaining population was denied any political rights as if they were non-existent in the flow, due to the Zionist program, which had to be implemented by any means necessary. Destruction of an existing society in 1948, conquest of West Bank and Gaza in 1967, the invasion of 1982 with 17,500 Lebanese and Palestinian dead, the Sabra and Shatila massacres; the continuous assault on Palestinian schools, refugee camps, hospitals, civil installations[17] was all a show of asymmetrical power unwilling to create a peaceful society meant for coexistence. Israel’s security issues arise not only from it being a product of Zionist ideology but, simply put, an occupant in a land where the native population has no rights whatsoever despite Israel’s big claims of being democratic. The disparity of power between Israel and the native population also nullifies the security argument especially from inside the state, when Palestinians have no army, air force, tanks or sophisticated defences of any kind.

 ‘There can be no conceivable peace, in my opinion, that doesn’t tackle the real issue, which is Israel’s utter refusal to accept the sovereign existence of a Palestinian people that is entitled to rights over what Sharon and most of the people supporting him consider exclusively to the land of Greater Israel, i.e. the West Bank and Gaza.’[18]~ Edward Said

 A French philosopher Ernest Renan once said, ‘A nation is a group of people united by a mistaken view about the past and a hatred of their neighbours.’ In Israel’s case, the view of the past is not mistaken. The Diaspora, the Holocaust, and anti-Semitism of Europe are a horrible reality. But the translation of a terrible past into an uncompromising dream with results like massacres, subjugation, violation of international laws and expansionism, has given rise to merciless atrocities and has put at risk, the peace of the world. Security for Israel may be a genuine concern and will always be, not because the world is bent upon being anti-Semitic, but an oppressor will always be seen as an oppressor, no matter which part of the world he exists in. Every native population will see an alien settler with concern and the peaceful co-existence would never come into being if the settler’s inflexible passion or hunger for fulfilment of a dream brings endless tragedies, bloodshed and fears for the natives.

REFERENCES:

[1]A. Shlaim, The Iron Wall, Israel and the Arab World (The Penguin Press, 2000), p.3

[2] Ibid, p.1

[3]Ibid, p.3

[4]M. Barnett, Culture, Strategy and Foreign Policy Change, Israel’s Road to Oslo http://home.gwu.edu/~barnett/articles/1999_israel_ejir.pdf

[5]S. Telhami, M. Barnett,Identity and Foreign Policy in the Middle East (Cornell University Press, 2002), p.58

[6]A. Shlaim, The Iron Wall, Israel and the Arab World (The Penguin Press, 2000), pp. 6-7

[7]Ibid, p.8

[8]Ibid, p.13

[9]Ibid, p.15

[10]David Ben Gurion, Letters to Paula,(London, 1971), 153-157, A. Shlaim, The Iron Wall, Israel and the Arab World (The Penguin Press, 2000) p. 21

[11]E. L. Rogan, A. Shlaim, The War for Palestine, Rewriting the History of 1948, 2nd Edition (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007), pp. 80-81

[12]Ibid

[13]A. Bregman, Israel’s War, A History Since 1947, 3rd Edition (Cornwall, 2010), p. 59

[14]A. Shlaim, The Iron Wall, Israel and the Arab World (The Penguin Press 2000), p. 251

[15]A. Shlaim, The Iron Wall, Israel and the Arab World (The Penguin Press 2000), p. 597

[16]E. Said, The Consequences of 1948, E. L. Rogan & A. Shlaim (ed.), The War for Palestine, 2nd Edition (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007), p.248

[17]E. Said, The End of Peace Process: Oslo and After (Granta Books, London, 2002), p. xv

[18]Ibid, p. xv

A Model of Sacrifice in a Despair Stricken Society – Nasrullah Shajee

NasrullahShajeeIn a society stricken by war, insecurity and poverty, where everyone seeks a safe and prosperous life for themselves and their families, and people live lives day to day, we have somehow become self-centered feeling relieved if our families are safe, no matter what disasters are befalling in the other parts of the country. The examples of chivalry, selflessness and sacrifice have become few. Having said that, such examples, no matter how few, light a ray of hope in a bleak and barren landscape of despair.

Nasrullah Shaji, ex-MP Sindh Assembly, just fourty four years of age, a young father of three little children, none of whom has touched even the teenage, dived in the river Kunhaar at Balakot, when his student fell into the river. The year tenth student Sufyan slipped into the one of the angriest known rivers of Pakistan, river Kunhar at Balakot while taking pictures on a school trip. The principal of the school and his teacher, Nasrullah Shaji who was few feet away immediately dived in the river to rescue him. It was a courageous decision indeed. Remembering the speed and flow of river Kunhar, I still feel shivers down my spine as it requires utmost courage to jump into that water for saving the life of a student. Not even for a second, he thought of his three, six and ten year old children back home. A fatherly gesture, a responsibility and courage to fight the furious waves to bring a child back was his way of practicing what he preached all his life.

What made him risk his life for the sake of someone else totally unrelated to him? Indeed the verse of Quran was in his mind that saving one human life is just like saving entire humanity. He is a true hero and a role model as a teacher. He was one of the strongest man I knew, both physically and mentally, always happy to help and guide, a mentor for youth, a friend for the needy and a big brother whatever time of the day you need him. He was a preacher of the Quran, a striver for an Islamic revival, a strong and clean character, a chest filled with knowledge of religion, and eyes set on the goal of seeking Allah’s pleasure, living and dying for the cause of Allah. He practiced what he preached and got what he always wanted, martyrdom. It is a big loss for Jamaat Islami in particular, his political party but also for the society as a whole. But such personalities never die. They set examples for a despair filled society. Such heroes should be celebrated beyond political affiliations as they restore faith in humanity and are rare to find in this selfish world.

It requires fearlessness and nerve, when you see a drowning kid and risk your life for saving his. Such examples are rare in our rotten society.  Taking lives in this society is easier and examples of sacrifice are few. Headlines mean bad news, news of murders, bomb blasts and intolerance. The incidences of heroes of our society need to be given more and more airtime and attention, as they are the role models to follow and celebrate. People who live for others and die for others are the pride of Pakistan.

There are some lessons to learn in this tragic story. Life is so temporary and unpredictable. One minute it’s a picnic and fun, and the other minute it is over. We all make big plans for life but we all have to die. There is no age for death. We go when we have to go.

The worldly life is nothing but a game and fun, and the last abode is surely much better for those who fear Allah. Would you still not understand? [6:32]

Nasrullah Shajee survived live bullets, police beatings, difficult times and terrains throughout his life but he left us in a way destined for him by the Divine. Fearing death is just useless and cowardly. We are all moving towards our Lord, everyday. Wisdom lies in investing in the hereafter, living and dying for the pleasure Allah and leave footsteps that become guidelines for the rest of the world to follow.

O man, you are moving on towards your Lord, willy nilly, and are about to meet Him [84:6]

Khadijah – The Beloved of The Prophet Muhammad (SAW)

KhadijaHe was young, handsome, of noble lineage and of impeccable character. He was known as “The Truthful” and “The Trustworthy”. Yes, he was born an orphan and his financial standing was not the best when Khadija (ra) met him. But he, nevertheless, was the best of the best. The epitome of the human race, when Khadija (ra) proposed to him, was a young 25, when she was 40 and widowed twice before, having borne children from both earlier marriages. He could have had any younger girl, any virgin who did not carry with her the baggage of widowhood and children. So why, then, did he accept her proposal?

Two reasons come to my humble mind.

Firstly, the “he” in question was Muhammad (pbuh), a young man but not just any man. Although he had not yet attained prophethood, he could look beneath the surface….the superficial. Khadija (RA) even on the apparent was a beautiful woman. “Ameerat-Quraish” or “Princess of Quraish” as she was called, she was rich, beautiful and had social standing. Yet, for Muhammad (pbuh), it would have to be more than riches and beauty that drew him towards the decision of accepting this proposal. Khadija had qualities that were unmatched, as time would prove; Maturity, wisdom, intelligence, loyalty, generosity and courage.

Secondly, this was the woman (like all of his other wives) who was chosen to be his wife by Allah in His infinite wisdom. She was the only wife who bore Muhammad’s (pbuh) children and had the longest singular companionship with him – a companionship of almost 25 years. She was to be the backbone of Islam, the foundation stone of Islam, the first ever Muslim who believed in Muhammad (pbuh) as Allah’s last and chosen Prophet. If it were not for her unflinching support for him and unequivocal faith in him, Muhammad (pbuh) would have still done what Allah destined for him to do, but without Khadija (ra) beside, it would have been a lonelier and even more tedious journey.

Whenever I read about Khadija (ra) I am amazed, always, by how much she loved and supported him.

She opened the doors to her home and heart to him. She shared her wealth with him. She took into her home his cousin, the young Ali (ra) And then there was Zaid ibn Harith (ra). And then, there were their own children – Qasim (who died young), Zainab (ra), Ruqayya (ra), Umm Kulthum (ra), Fatimah (ra) and Abdullah (who also died very young). And this blessed home’s doors were open to all – charity was a norm – an abundant norm. As a couple, they complemented each other so beautifully and thought so much in synch, that goodness was what their world was full of.

The years before and around prophethood of Muhammad (saw) would have been tough for her. Imagine how she felt when he disappeared into the cave of Hira and did not come home for days. Any wife in her position would cease to see the bigger picture and let the desire to own her man and his time take over. But Khadija (ra) knew her man. She allowed him the space he needed to grow inch by inch and day by day towards prophethood and her support remained unequivocal. There are reports that she would climb up to the cave of Hira and carry food and water for him. She was not exactly young at that time. But she did what it took to support him.

Perhaps the most well-known and yet never deplete of lessons and emotional impact is the incidence when the Muhammad (pbuh) returned after he received the first revelation from the cave of Hira, having witnessed the angel Gabriel (as); shivering, and scared. Realizing somewhat what a massive responsibility laid ahead of him, understanding that his life would change forever, fearing for his safety, and in those moments as he asked her to cover him with a blanket. It was Khadija (ra) by his side – to comfort and calm him down.

Her words at this moment have gone down in history. In Sahee Bukhari, is mentioned:

“Then he went to Khadija bint Khuwailid and said, “Cover me! Cover me!” They covered him till his fear was over and after that he told her everything that had happened and said, “I fear that something may happen to me.” Khadija replied, “Never! By Allah, Allah will never disgrace you. You keep good relations with your kith and kin, help the poor and the destitute, serve your guests generously and assist the deserving calamity-afflicted ones.”

She was the first to believe in his prophethood and therefore the first Muslim. Today, Muslims are a 2.1 billion strong, and growing. At that time, in those crucial moments that were to alter history, it was just her.

We all need that one person, at least, to believe in us implicitly, to know our mettle, to bring out the best in us and to be our fall-back. We need to know in moments of fear and insecurity and vulnerability that there is someone who will stand by us, no matter what. And the bigger and more important a human’s intended task or goal, the better will be the person Allah chooses to complement us, to facilitate an ultimate aim. For Prophet Muhammad (saw), Allah chose Khadija (ra).

It is then no small wonder that one day, Gabriel (as) came to the Prophet (saw) and said:

 “O Allah’s Messenger! This is Khadijah, coming to you with a dish having meat soup (or some food or drink). When she reaches you, greet her on behalf of her Lord (Allah) and on my behalf, and give her the glad tidings of having a palace made of Qasab in Paradise, wherein there will be neither any noise nor any toil, (fatigue, trouble, etc.).” [Al-Bukhari]

Muhammad (pbuh) included her in the four foremost ladies of the universe: Khadija bint Khuwaylid (ra), Fatimah bint Muhammad (ra), Maryam bint Imran (the mother of the Prophet Isa) and ‘Asia bint Muzahim (the wife of the Pharaoh).

The richest woman in Makkah sacrificed all her wealth for the cause of Islam. The Princess of Quraish had to sustain the hardships of the 3 years of political and economic boycott, during which the Muslims had to stay in Shaib e Abi Talib, at times surviving by eating mere leaves! Yet, she did not complain or let go of her sabr.

It is no wonder, then, that Muhammad (pbuh) never really got over her death. He called the year of her death “the year of grief”. A Companion of the Prophet narrates that whenever any gift was brought to him he would immediately send it to some lady who had been a friend of Khadija (ra). Ayesha (ra), a favourite wife of Muhammad (saw) says that whenever a goat was slaughtered the Prophet (pbuh) would send some meat to Khadija’s (ra) friends; when she remarked about this on one occasion he told her that he had great regard for her friends, as she had a special place in his heart. Ayesha said she never experienced such a feeling of natural feminine jealousy for any other wife of the Prophet (saw) as she did for Khadija. She also narrates that whenever Muhammad (pbuh) spoke of her he would talk at great length and praise her qualities, and pray for her forgiveness.

Once the Blessed Messenger (pbuh) mentioned Khadīja (ra) before Ayesha (ra), the latter responded: “She was not but a such and such of an old lady, and Allah replaced her with a better one for you.” He replied:

“Indeed Allah did not grant me better than her; she accepted me when people rejected me, she believed in me when people doubted me, she shared her wealth with me when people deprived me, and Allah granted me children only through her.”

Ayesha (ra) says, after this incident, “I learnt to keep quiet, whenever Khadīja’s name was mentioned by Muhammad.” (Sahih Muslim)

Her place in his life can easily be understood by the fact that till she lived, the young Muhammad (pbuh), in the prime of his youth, did not marry any other woman.

She fulfilled all his needs and gave him the happy content married life that is required for anyone who wishes to achieve or do anything great in life. Khadija (ra), Mother of the believers, took care of the home front and gave Muhammad (pbuh) support in the worst of times, enabling him to do what he did. For her part, she understood and appreciated him and his responsibility. For his part, he cherished and appreciated who she was and what she meant to him. Together, they complemented each other, working hand in hand for a cause bigger than anything.

Such a companionship, then, is the material of the truest love story ever.