Abu Hasan, I admit--most pakistanis will admit if they're honest- that Pakistan currently is a failed state but that is more due to corruption and poor management and the army-feudal-pir nexus which runs the country and is holding it back. Add to this the power given to the --here's that word again !--the political Deobandi /Wahabi mullah since Zia ul Haq's time and it's become a **** with all the terrorism etc perpetrated by those ***** and their financiers. But if it had been governed and run properly it could have been a great place. It still can if these problems are sorted out. First remove the terrorists and their supporters and then destroy the power of the army-feudal-pirs and thirdly enforce a secular state (like India was thanks to Nehru--a great leader--and which Jinnah envisaged). The irony is that only a militarily ruler would be able to do it. Admitting all of the above doesn't negate that a separate state for Muslims in theory isn't bad as at least pogroms don't happen. Also, I've admitted in the other long reply I gave to you on Iqbal that he didn't actually want a separate nation he wanted autonomy within a United India. But really would it be better if we were together? Instead of 200 million poor people in Pakistan and the same in Bangladesh and 1 billion such in India we'd be a nation of 1.5 billion poor people! Muslims might be 40 or 50% because we breed like rabbits thanks to certain people who tell the poor people that family planning is wrong. India can't feed it's current population - surely adding another half a billion or so people to its population would make it an ever bigger craphole. I think it'd be better for India and Pakistan to be split into smaller states as it was when they were mostly independent kingdoms before it was united. I'd support for example a United Punjab. Not cos I against unity but smaller states are easier to manage. Caveat emptor: if Sunnis maulvis in Pakistan had been given the same political power as Deobandis were by Zia they'd make just as big a mess of things. Our differences are only theological. In practice a theocracy run by Sunnis in Pakistan or anywhere else would be as horrid and totalitarian as one run by any other sect. Anyway, Pakistan has happened. It's not going away. What pakistanis need to do is put the Islamist genie back in the bottle and make the country a liberal socialist democratic republic and drop the "Islamic" just as bangladeshis have done. Turkey must be the role model or better still Scandinavia. Before anyone jumps on me the truth is that almost no one would want to go and live their if they are lucky enough to be living in the west or the rich gulf states like Dubai. Same holds true for India. But at least India in theory has things right -- which is why it is slowly rising on the world stage. India's biggest issue is it's population.
whoa! that explains a lot. Because it's hard to imagine how and why the sunni ulema would first exhort people for a divided India and then stay back when it was time to move. People say that Pakistan was created on the night of Qadr yet we see that right from the outset it has been in the clutches of the unscrupulous, the corrupt, the sell-outs and the traitors. Few Indian muslims wold disagrees that India is much safer and has better opportunities than Pakistan. Reportedly, Maududi had declared that all those who do not migrate to Pakistan are hypocrites. couldn't agree more. Have seen it and continue to see it first hand in the society which is rife with this zulm. Such scorn and such words that I dare not reproduce here. I have always said to those fellow-konkanis who would care to listen: wahhabism is a punishment that befell us because of our oppression against the ulema - nothing else can explain how the very people who treated the the ulema like toe-rags suddenly turned into docile servants of the wahhabi mullas. A humiliating curse. Allah('azzawajal) knows best.
not really. wars and conflicts are based on ideologies. there have been many cases of one white from the commie east bloc doing the bidding for the capitalist west bloc and vice versa. just recently, there was this news about an american navy guy who died in jail. he was doing time for aiding the russians. among the Muslims too, munafiqeen have always existed. this is a general comment. not directed at iqbal. in the case of 911 too, there are white westerners who posit all kinds of theories involving other whites, the mossad and their own folks in the government. not super-smart. just that they are dedicated to their side of the conflict and their causes and interests, while our sole aim is to earn the luxuries of duniya. it all boils down to that hadith of al-wahn - love of duniya and fear of death. and to the other hadith - two classes of people essentially make or break the rest of the ummah - leaders and scholars. not everything in their scheming works like clock-work. like all things in life, it's somewhere between 'they schemed nothing' and 'it's all as per plan'.
as usual, "intellectuals" have the divine right to make any accusation against maulvis, without admitting any possible rationale for their actions, because...because they are 'maulavis' and by definition, they are backward, uneducated and you know, the stereotypes whose simple minds cannot go beyond how many fard are there in wuDu. right? but even in explicit kufriyat of iqbal as i said, "intellectuals" will try to find the farthest possible ta'wil; they will try to justify his 'weaknesses' and appeal to compassion, understanding everything. but mulla? no he does not deserve it. because, a mulla is not a celebrity. a mulla is not a hypocrite, saying nice things about people in power and kings and the wealthy. a mulla is frank and honest. a mulla fears for his hereafter and is not afraid to call a kafir a kafir, even if it means to accuse a powerful, popular celebrity. a mulla does not worry about world opinion. a mulla does not go to lengths to justify his case even bringing examples of kuffar and citing them as authorities - he simply states, look here it says in the book; i follow the book. (iqbal wrote a demeaning piece on mawlana sayyid didar ali alwari, which devbandis gleefully reproduce). ---- so mulla is fair game. does anybody have to provide any proof for their accusations? or "mulla" is just a homogenous, cloned species? (meaning every mulla is the same). no, it is common knowledge. all mullas are backward, they ganged up on iqbal and called him kafir because their minds could not comprehend his "genius". ====== but nobody can provide proof WHY they called him kafir; suddenly the high standards of scientific inquiry and corroborating evidence disappears. iqbal is grossly over-rated. (i repeat, it is not about his poetic skills - which are first rate, without dispute) just because he could read english/german and knew about western philosophy, which was mostly out of reach of ulama due to language barriers, he got away with his stuff. what most of these pseudo-intellectuals don't know is that dars nizami is full of philosophy albeit outdated. one of our major criticism of dars nizami is that teaching logic/mantiq through the prevalent texts is cumbersome, mainly because very few experts remain today; and in my viewpoint, they should take out sullam and introduce symbolic logic, which is faster, easier, relevant and can help knock some sense into deluded knuckleheads who will have any opinion on mere heresay; and do not even have the ability to do research and prove their point. ====== actually, his asrar e khudi is a bundle of contradictions and full of fallacies. if only alahazrat had seen it, he would have ripped it to pieces. uninformed orientalist tripe. true, muslims fell behind in the 18th-19th century, but the cause was more due to imperialism. besides, it is the hasan nisar version (that talk about shaykh al-islam he mentions that he forbade printing press and thus set-back muslim progress by 200 years; and i refuted it.) blame it on mulla. even though they are the most underprivileged category of people in our society (except countries like saudi arabia where they are paid handsomely) people talk as if they consult mulla for everything and diligently obey his commands. sub'HanAllah, people have become so shameless and mean that even a small service they do to a student/scholar of islamic knowledge, they do it as charity - even beggars are treated with more respect, than a self-respecting mulla who refuses to ask others and endures his state of penury without debasing himself. but when their own sins and their own liberal ideas come down to strangle them, they find a scapegoat in the mulla. except in recent years, when wahabi/devbandi extremism grew, mulla was sidelined in everything. ---- iqbal said in his own words, and this is NOT translation: The Koran indicates the possibility of other creators than God. ---- The Prophet said,'Takhallaqú bi-akhláq Allah,' ‘Create in yourselves the attributes of God.’ Thus man becomes unique by becoming more and more like the most unique Individual. What then is life? It is individual : its highest form, so far, is the Ego (Khudí) in which the individual becomes a self-contained exclusive centre. ---- He who comes nearest to God is the completest person. Not that he is finally absorbed in God. On the contrary, he absorbs God into himself. --- a mulla only tells you that this is kufr. if it bothers you, make tawba. if you are haughty and won't make tawba, <<shrug>>. my breakfast is getting cold. wa's salam.
see? pakistanis tend to bend their minds to convince themselves that fantasies are true. it is a desperate need to believe. otherwise intelligent and educated pakistanis refuse to even consider that jinnah's idea was (regardless of the circumstances and the pressures, the historical context) ill-conceived; AT LEAST in hindsight. no, they continue to justify that pakistan WAS the best thing to happen, even though common muslims are far more insecure in pakistan than in india.
two nations as a concept - meaning we muslims are a different "ummah" or "qawm" and hindus are another, does not correlate to "separate homeland for muslims" and migration of muslims en-masse. pakistanis hold dear to this idea - with due respect to their feelings - that muslim leaders envisioned a 'partition' of india, a geographical partition and that muslims should migrate to this new land. sunni muslims of pakistan also hotly debate (you can dig on this forum itself) and insist that alahazrat was among the 'architects' of a geographical separation, which in other words is today's pakistan. ---- yes. and except die-hard pakistanis who are not willing to accept the reality, will continue to justify the creation of pakistan. where did this come from? this is another cop-out for those who are desperate for acceptance and do not have the courage to take a stand. whether he realises it or not, indian muslims do not oppose pakistan because it was created as a muslim state; our argument is that it broke our unity and hence our strength. indeed, only that happens which Allah ta'ala wills and we submit to His Will. but for the sake of argument, if pakistan were not created, we would be the world's biggest muslim nation. (as bangladesh wouldn't be created either).
Mr Jinnah wasn't against Shari'ah because he needed support of people like the Pir of Manki Sharif, a Sunni sage. They wanted Muslims to live by Shari'ah. Mr Jinnah did not deny it for them, and promised local Muslims of the five provinces freedom to choose how they wanted to live by. He just did not want hindu supremacy over these essentially Muslim lands. For example, western Punjab was like 80% Muslim.
indians -- whether sunni or not--generally don't accept pakistan's creation or think it a bad idea at best! It is more evidence for my argument that education and regional culture are far bigger uniters than religion -- in practise at least!
Jinnah (ra) was a great man who achieved, by sheer force of will, i creating a separate homeland for his people. Sure, he wasn't a an orthodox Muslim -- as he is now portrayed in official government of Pakistan portrayals -- and he had his flaws but his achievements have helped more Muslims than people like you will ever do in your life. He provided, rightly or wrongly, a safe haven for Muslims of the Subcontinent. The sad issue for Pakistan is that he died too soon and since then Pakistan hasn't been able to decide whether to be a secular democracy or a theocracy. I believe --and it is pretty obvious from Jinnah's life -- that the great Quaid wanted it to be a secular democracy. Unfortunately vested interests and politics and mullahs have ensured this hasn't happened and Pakistan is in the mess it is. I also don't take seriously--since we are on the topic -- the sanctification of Jinnah which certain Barelvis in Pakistan especially have taken upon themselves to promote. These death-time conversions seem v common. The evidence is that he was a Shia but so what? His achievements are legendary and I'm sure Allah will give him a place in jannat (insha Allah). Because of him we aren't a stateless people like the poor Palestinians or the Kurds. That alone is worthy of jannat!
I actually agree with you on this. I love Iqbal (ra) but I do not agree with him on everything for sure. Like any intelligent person his views evolved with time and as Muhammad Ali (the great boxer and black civil rights champion) said, "if a man thinks the same at 50 as he did at 20 he has wasted 30 years of his life". For example, I disagree with Iqbal on his views about the Mahdi (as) -- he didn't believe in the Mahdi -- and I also disagree with his criticism of Hafiz Shirazi (q) but these are minor quibbles and I agree with his general gist which was as I wrote on another forum: Allama Iqbal was a genius and like most geniuses the people of his time -- esp. the traditional maulvis -- couldn't understand what he was doing and gave fatwas against him. He realised that Islam had been made stagnant due to the intellectual hangover of the Muslim ulema who were still stuck in the 12th century whilst human learning had moved on and this was the cause of the entire Muslim world being dominated and colonised by the West as without intellectual progress you cannot get scientific and technological progress and hence societal progress. He wanted to keep the essential message of Islam but reform a lot of the fiqh which was made for a different era. His Islam was dynamic not static. It is sad he died before he was able to put flesh on his ideas. He was working on writing his own tafsir of the Koran but alas died before he could do it. Sure, he didn't get everything right -- apart from the Prophet (saw) who else is infallible? -- but he saw huge problems and his education in the West especially equipped him with the critical faculties to look at the history of Islam and its learning critically and not in the reverential way of the traditional ulema and he saw what he considered were reasons for our stagnation and he tried to find solutions. At least he didn't just rely on quoting ulema of the past and thus offer 'proofs by authority' which is a type of logical fallacy which Muslim traditionalists are prone to. 'It must be true be Hazrat XYZ said it in book ABC in the PQR century!' - -that is the kind of taqlid he abhorred and now I agree with him. I don't expect or even want you guys to agree with me on this but I think his ideas of reform were on the right track. I also don't agree with the image of him presented officially in Pakistan as it is just hagiography and not realistic. He was a man and like all men he had his faults. He also, if you try to read as much about him as possible from different sources which I do, did NOT want a separate homeland for the Muslims of India. He rather wanted the regional boundaries in India redrawn along Muslim and Hindu majority lines and the areas with Muslim majorities to be given autonmous powers to govern themselves but as part of a greater India. This is clear from a letter he wrote to The Times of London. Similarly, and you're right, he was influenced by many people such as Rumi, Nietzsche, Bergson, Goethe and Freud as well as Ghalib and other Muslim thinkers This is normal for any freethinking person. His idea of the Mard-e-Momin owes a lot to Nietzsche's Übermensch idea. And Iqbal wanted Muslims to become such 'supermen' - Men of Action. At the same time in his later poetry his views on women as primarily a homemaker and his disapproval of female voting are things I disagree with on. And yes he did love the Prophet (s) very much throughout his life and especially near the end there are some stories about him which indicate he had reached a high spiritual state. He was a complex man, full of contradictions -- but which man in history isn't? The issue with Iqbal is that his life has been studied in great detail and he is close enough to our time that such details are available so of course, being human, he didn't always live up to his ideals. Genius is troubled. As a poet -- and we all agree on his genius in that field-- he often has many different themes and ideas and it spans most of his adult life so people pick and choose those bits that fit their own views and use his name to promote their own ideas. He wrote, for example, the anthem 'Saare Jahan Se Accha Hindustan Hamara' which I believe is still sung in India to this day? And he wrote poems in praise of Ram and many others such as Shikwa which rubbed the mullahs the wrong way. I think we can agree that he was a complex individual and he had flaws like any man but he was also a great lover of Muslims and the Prophet and a forward thinking genius and master-poet who tried his best to fix the issues he saw with Islam in practise and I think his ideas are on the right track and need to be continued. He certainly wasn't 'orthodox' in the sense in which you guys consider orthodox. (He has fatwas of kufr against his name by khulafa of Imam Ahmad Raza Khan such as Deedar Ali but then again Deobandis also wrote fatwas against Iqbal and he wrote satirical poems about Hussain Ahmad Madani but that doesn' make him a Barelvi!)
if that's what he stated, then mr. jinnah was an idiot par excellence. it's oxymoronic to say someone doesn't want Shari3ah but wants Muslim supremacy. read the history of Islam and you will see that every time the Muslims upheld and implemented Shari3at, they maintained supremacy, and as and when they let go of parts of it, their supremacy dwindled.
sorry. here's the right link: http://www.razanw.org/data/13-English/13B-Books_on_Alahazrat/A_Baseless_Blame.pdf bottom of page 52 to page 54. what I am trying to point out is that the author of the above work says that sunni ulema were not inimical to the concept of a separate homeland for muslims and that when Pakistan was being born many sunni ulema were right in the thick of it. besides, I have read something along these lines (can't find it now): http://eprints.hec.gov.pk/2317/1/2172.htm
thereafter, i do not shy away from criticising sunni ulama for being sloppy and not investigating stuff before endorsing, or blindly endorsing others based on hearsay or other scholar's (mistaken) appraisal. along with the rider, that it is possible that they were not aware of iqbal's philosophical meanderings and simply took the "husn-zann" route. and i do not agree with them, just because they are pious or elder or more knowledgeable - when facts stare us in the face. Allah ta'ala knows best.
right link bro? that link takes to a blog with a downloadable doc file. pg 52-53 is just bibliography. the file is only 53 pages long.
these conspiracy theories have an element of racism to it. for example, to suggest that iqbal was a stooge and did the bidding of the empire, in other words says: "the coloured people are good for nothing. even their revolutions should be orchestrated by whites/west." the other aspect of this racist idea is that the white/european/west is super-smart and everything in their scheming works like clock-work. only Allah ta'ala knows the truth, by i personally feel that iqbal was genuine; his feeling for muslims AS a muslim were also genuine. indeed, he might have been carried away in this zeal to even suggest a radical overhaul ("reconstruction") but on the ground, he was as pragmatic as any politican can be, in spite of being an idealist poet that he was. one of his well-known short poems, titled "in lighter vein/zarifana" is rather self-deprecating: masjid to bana di shab bhar meiN, eemaN ki Hararat waloN ne man apna purana paapi hai, barsoN meiN namazi ban na saka ... iqbal baDa updeshak hai, man batoN meiN moH leta hai guftar ka ye ghazi to bana, kirdar ka ghazi ban na saka those with the zeal of faith in their hearts, built the mosque overnight i am an old sinner; i couldn't become a worshipper, in years iqbal is a great preacher - he charms you with his words a champion of words, he was never a warrior of deeds ==== if you look at pakistan, it appears that they took the line literally - in their blind devotion to iqbal. --- my criticism of iqbal can be summed up as follows: - his views about religion, are a mixed-bag; much of his poetry inspired by rumi and sa'adi is endearing to me and appears close to the orthodox path; but his "reconstruction" is ill-informed and should be consigned to the bin of "also-said" - some of his poems breach the adab a muslim should observe (which is generously explained by his admirers as poetic licence)and sometimes borders on, if not outright blasphemy; some poems are beneath the stature of a self-respecting individual (praising rulers, and famous people, authorities, etc.) which is par for a poet, but not for an upright muslim. (i find such things offensive). - some of his views (and his philosophy of khudi and its explanation in his letters) is at loggerheads with islamic aqidah of destiny, which he tries hard to make congruent with islam, but obviously due to his lack of knowledge of kalam (or his ignorance of hadith, which is our guide in this department) he appears sloppy and inconsistent. some people may be flabbergasted at my criticism of iqbal's philosophy, which may sound fine to an outsider, but as i said, from a muslim's point of view - inconsistent and sloppy. sometimes he sounds even more foolish than high-school muslims writing on facebook or blogs. for example, this is what he said: The Koran indicates the possibility of other creators than God. he does not turn to commentators for meanings of verses and hadith, but rather runs away with his own understanding and interpretation. another example: The Prophet said,'Takhallaqú bi-akhláq Allah,' ‘Create in yourselves the attributes of God.’ Thus man becomes unique by becoming more and more like the most unique Individual. What then is life? It is individual : its highest form, so far, is the Ego (Khudí) in which the individual becomes a self-contained exclusive centre. those are his own words, and not translations, to the best of my knowledge. and some more: He who comes nearest to God is the completest person. Not that he is finally absorbed in God. On the contrary, he absorbs God into himself. ------- (note to NJ: if you read iqbal enough, you will notice that he does not shy away from criticising and dissing philosophers left and right, those whose views do not agree with his own philosophy; thus he would even have a go at hafiz and plato and nietzsche (even generalising that ash'aris are followers of platonic philosophy and trashing them!). hopefully, you will see my criticism of iqbal in better light than: "oh you impudent and haugty self-made philosopher? you dare criticise iqbal? what is your worth and who are you? go back to your forum posts". criticise my comments with proofs instead of attempting to measuring my worth - which, i concede without contest that it is lesser than a worn out rag. wa billahi't tawfiq.) Allah ta'ala knows best.
coming from a sunni, this is a first. 1. author of the above blog thinks that iqbal was, wittingly or unwittingly, a stooge for the empire and was used to incite the muslims to demand a separate state on the basis of religion only because just a few years later they wanted to hand over Palestine to the jews on the basis of their religion. He claims that this idea was not iqbal's own but was in fact suggested to him by the British in order to create a precedent which the zionists could then cite to bolster their own demands for a separate 'Home for the Jewish people" - but this time, at the expense of the muslims (read if interested). 2. Then read this, pages 52-54. what do other members think?
i would like to concur. Iqbal was a Sunni considering his links with Ala Hazrat's grandson and other Sunni ulama in Punjab [ later in life ]. His views evolved over time. This is the case with most of western Punjab and some adjoining eastern Punjabi districts now located in india Pakistan wasn't made for shari'at. It was made for local Muslim supremacy as stated by Mr Jinnah. He was against Muslim migration from india, but neither hindered educated and upper-class Muslims from migrating and building a nation. Pakistan is a massive country Area: 890,000 sq.km [ bigger than Turkey ] [ 3 former Andhra Pradeshs or Maharashtras or 4.5 Karnatakas ] Population: 210 million [ excluding permanent emigrants according to my research, that is those now in North America, Europe, and Austalasia ~ 3 million, and a million others around the world like Baloch in Middle East, Punjabis / Sindhis in East Africa etc. ]
bump - a little older than an year, this thread just saw the video again by Shaykh Ashraf Al-Qadri wherein he mentions his tahqeeq on iqbal perhaps iqbal retracted from all the maghreb-nawaz stances drenched in abject ignorance of the Islamic sciences, presented in this thread - http://sunniport.com/index.php?thre...-religious-thought-of-iqbal.11773/#post-46836 - even if he didn't get a chance to publicize his tawba or retractions and died a person of Sunni 3aqidah and immense love of the Prophet, 3alaihis salam, despite not being a wali. that is all great. in such a case, people should not tout him as a scholar of Islam, but rather as a great well-wisher of subcontinental Muslims, despite the fact that pakistan is a failed experiment. it's disgusting to hear their politicians chant "jumhuriyat" day in and day out, rather than "Shari3at" furthermore, the ulema should caution the awam from reading his 'stray thoughts' (as far as religion is concerned) from the earlier portion of his life when he was just an intellectual slave looking up to saab, as opposed to the state of his death when he liberated himself from that slavery and developed a 'cultish' adherence to the 3aqidah of the Ahlus Sunnah Allah knows best.
"tagore" is the english version of "thakur" - http://hi.wikipedia.org/wiki/रबीन्द्रनाथ_ठाकुर it's not just this blog or author. in the past, even as a kid i have upset a few desi unkils and school teachers, with this issue of the title of "sir" being accepted by Muslims. to this day i cannot imagine a justifiable reason for the likes of iqbal or ahmed khan (of aligarh) accepting the title of "sir" on the one hand, and claiming to be reformers and liberators of Muslim diaspora on the other hand. staunch aligarians have never taken too well to my cynicism of ahmed khan, and my intense dislike for celebrating 'sir syed day' but barking bidah at Milad (though not all aligarians are hard core deo). i choose to call a spade a spade and call a clash of word and deed for what it is. and yes, awarding the title of 'allama' to a clean shaven man who never formally gained Islamic education, only because he 'thought' a lot, raises my guards. while i admit that i haven't dived in depth into the issue regarding the origins of the title, at this point in time, i find his 'allama' just as mysterious as tahir's 'shaykhul Islam' from the yahoo groups link you posted: sorry, but I choose to see it as the deliberate division of the subcontinental Muslim diaspora in three parts, giving the hindus a political upper hand in the region, all for the sake of some individuals holding some power, and nothing else. i certainly don't see the formation of Pakistan as any positive development for Muslims, quite the contrary in fact. jazak Allah khayr for that. will read/watch more youtube on that. indeed, with Allah he is great if the state of his death is great. but the harmful effects of the used/abused lives of leaders of those and these times, can't be ignored.
I assume judging from the wiki URL you posted you are in fact referring to Rabindranath Tagore and not "Thakur". In respect of the charge levelled at Iqbal, it appears to be a case of the blogger treating Iqbal's literary corpus as a unitary and internally consistent whole. So that in his view the "Mard-e momin" and "khudi" leitmotifs are conceived of as being all-pervasive and encapsulating Iqbal's lifelong outlook. However, there appears to be, at the level of intuition at least, and at best there is strong evidence to suggest, there is scope for treating the apparent dissonance of word and deed as being reflective of an evolution in Iqbal's own thought. After all it is he who penned the line "na peyd tere bahr-e takhayyul ke kinarey" so why should we conceive of his thought as being immutable? This answer on a Yahoo group makes the point: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CharminarConnection/message/6206 Mufti Ashraf al-Qadri touches on the theme of Iqbal's intellectual/spiritual journey and cites Iqbal's own Last Will and Testament to this effect and in confirming his Sunniyat. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6qSMJ5-T75Y As to whether or why he did not take steps to renounce the Knighthood and thus he honorific 'Sir' is a curiosity that is perhaps worthy of exploration and I hope someone else can help shed some light on this.
