Is this person merely seeing things or is there any substance to his claims? ------------------ From the above Article ------------------------ “Sir” Muhammad Iqbal doctrinally instrumented a forced separation of a people that remains unprecedented in the entire fourteen and a half century history of the Muslims to this very day. And he did it all in the name of “Renaissance of Islam” – Many literate Muslims to this day love him for it! I am not sure who is the bigger abuser of Islam, the atheist Jewish superman Zbigniew Brzezinski who confessed to “giving to the USSR its Vietnam war” by goading the Afghan Mujahideens with: “God is on your side” (see http://tinyurl.com/Islam-Socialization ), or, the theist Muslim marde-momin “Sir” Muhammad Iqbal who caused the blood-drenched partition of an entire subcontinent using pretty much the same doctrinal goading. ........................................................................... To proclaim on the one hand the great Allama's brilliant mind, and on the other hand excuse him for his pathetic ignorance of world affairs while he is a most distinguished political player representing the political future of an entire subcontinent, is a non sequitur. ............................................................................. The fact that “Sir” Muhammad Iqbal did serve long term British imperial interests, or more aptly put as the Anglo-American interests, is not in question. The truth of these words is once again beyond doubt. The conferring by the King of the British empire, and Iqbal's acceptance, of the royal knighthood alone make it self-evident that “Sir” Muhammad Iqbal was their prized doctrinal scholar and he knew it. The affect of Iqbal's two nation dogma which debilitated the entire Indian subcontinent, perpetually enslaving it to the Western powers, loudly bespeaks it. Judging a tree by tasting its fruit – and not by the elegant narrative of the orchard from a poet's fertile imagination – underscores the undeniable truth of the matter. ..................................................................................... Was “Sir” Muhammad Iqbal only unknowingly the stooge of the British empire, easily cultivated by them due to the size of his own ego, or was he also their Trojan Horse? Was it due to his shortsightedness alone that he effectively handicapped an entire subcontinent from ever becoming a world power by using empire's own strategy of divide et impera, or was it due to his long range thinking on behalf of the British empire whose king had so honored him, that he diabolically employed divide et impera using his poetic skills and expertise of Islam? Does it matter which one – if in either case Muslims fell for it? The fact that the British ruled their colonies by cultivating both useful idiots and Trojan horses is not in doubt. All the feudal titles and “sirs” bestowed upon the natives of the Indian subcontinent speak to the brilliant governance of over three hundred million peoples by a handful of foreigners sitting ten thousand miles away. They employed the same class of strategic thinking for their withdrawal as they had employed for managing their occupation for over two centuries. A similarly celebrated “Sir” of the Indian subcontinent of that colonial era is “Sir” Syed Ahmed Khan, the man who helped implement Lord Thomas Babington Macaulay's English-only Indian Education Policy, effectively constituting a “brown sahib” Muslim class and separating them from the languages of their birthplace – and hence their own heritage! The flattersome tickling of their native informant with “Sir” speaks to the brazen cultivation of that house nigger who so successfully led the implementation of Macaulay's education policy among Muslims. Its impact is visible to this very day among the post-partitioned nations so violently spawned from that once fabulous Jewel in the Crown by harvesting the untiring labors of another one of their key “Sirs”. .................................................................................. It is a fortunate gift of providence to the Muslims that their masterful foe has not yet found a talent like “Sir” Muhammad Iqbal to preach “moderate Islam” to them – for the Allama's lofty teachings on Islam are actually its deadly nemesis. Surely only a talent like the Allama's could even counter it. ............................................................................................. I have already unmasked several such wanna-be, including the famous “Ambassador of Peace”, similarly dispatched by the masterful foe to the Muslims, mainly of Pakistan, to now preach “moderate Islam” and “khilafat” --- the same sort that “Sir” Muhammad Iqbal remained silent on while the same imperial masters were dismantling it as the Ottoman empire. Fortunately, this “Ambassador of Peace” isn't quite in the Allama's intellectual class – too transparent ( see http://tinyurl.com/Fatwa-Tahir-ul-Qadri ). And nor is this clever convert to Islam in the United States of America whose dazzling oratory and brilliant command of the Arabic language has acquired him a large following among the educated “moderate Muslims” ( see Hamza Yusuf in The Mighty Wurlitzer http://tinyurl.com/MightyWurlitzer ). They are almost always imposing experts on Islam, they say and do mostly the right things with much eloquence, also carefully don't say and do all the right things with stone silence, and sometimes purvey half-truths, quarter truths, and outright lies wrapped in the veneer of truth. That veneer is often Islam. Muslims come flocking to them because of it, and because of their endearing power of expression as orator, or littérateur, or both. With their power to mold public opinion, they assist the superpower empire du jour in its aims of primacy and hegemony just as the good “Sir” Muhammad Iqbal, “Sir” Syed Ahmed Khan, and all the rest of the pious “Sirs” assisted the superpower empire of their time. ----------------------------End of Qoutes --------------------------- Firstly, this person has completely ignored Iqbal's anti-english poetry (hasn't he?) secondly, he seems to suggest that Iqbal alone is responsible in conjuring the two-state theory and that jinnah was perhaps naive thirdly, he claims that a single & united subcontinent would've worked in favor of the muslims, but i am yet to find one subcontinental muslim worth his salt who laments the formation of Pakistan (but then maybe i'm in the well?) well-read brothers may be able to put more light on this.......
