THE RECONSTRUCTION OF RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ISLAM (1930) INTRODUCTION

By Mohsin Qasmi

Between December 1928 and January 1929, at the invitation of the Muslim Association of Madras, Iqbal delivered a series of lectures in Madras, Hyderabad (Daccan) and Aligarh. In 1930, these lectures were published under the title Six Lectures on the Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam. A later version was published in Oxford in 1934 with an added chapter, "Is Religion Possible." In these talks, Iqbal calls for the renewal of the intellectual foundations of Islamic philosophy in a manner suited to the scientific climate of the modern age. He also tries to meet the challenge of materialist thought on its own ground.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF METAPHYSICS IN PERSIA (1908) INTRODUCTION

By Mohsin Qasmi

This was a thesis submitted to the University of Munich for his PhD. It was published in London in the same year. The book traces the development of metaphysics in Persia from the time of Zoroaster to Bahaullah. No similar monograph had been written in the English language before or since. Iqbal explains in his introduction that he is attempting to:

1. Trace the logical continuity of Persian thought and interpret it in the language of modern philosophy; and
2. Discuss Sufism in a scientific manner and explain the intellectual conditions encouraging the phenomenon. He argues that Sufism is the necessary product of the play of various intellectual and moral forces and could take the slumbering soul to a higher ideal.

Iqbal’s Dream to Takmeel-e-Pakistan

By Mohsin Qasmi

Dr. Allama Muhammad Iqbal envisioned a sovereign and independent state for the Muslims of Sub-continent. A state where Islamic teachings will establish the core ideology, a way of life and socio-politico-economic system, practiced as the true religion and celebrated as the ideal way of life. His vision was not merely a dream rather it was a divine invocation, an order from the spiritual domain, which was destined, to be executed, which already had Almighty’s approval, which He brought into existence for a special purpose.
The personality appointed by Almighty to propagate the underlying ideology, which ultimately laid the foundation of Pakistan, was Allama Iqbal. He was more than a scholar, more than a philosopher, more than a saint and much more than a visionary. We cannot attempt to sum up in one article what this legend really was, since he himself once said, “Iqbal himself isn’t aware of what Iqbal really is”. What we know and should always remember is that he was the one who ignited the spark of self-awareness in the Muslims of Sub-continent, who infused the passion to acquire freedom and independence in the blood of Muslim youth of the time. He was who unveiled the true meaning and spirit of Islam and hope in the otherwise pessimistic minority.
“Kia ajab meri nawa-haaye sahar gaahi say
Zinda ho jaye woh aatish kai teri khaak mein hai”

Allama Iqbal uplifted the spirits of Muslims at the time of great misery and darkness. At a time when the nexus of Hindus and the British rulers was leaving no stone unturned to damage Muslims, deploying all the resources and means to malign the Muslim identity and exerting full force to crush them as an ideological nation. The deceitful British rulers had no intention of doing any good to Muslims and instead they connived with Hindus to throw the Muslim nation in front of the Hindu scavengers as a helpless prey.
Allama Iqbal’s poetry was the divine voice from the sky that was channelized through Iqbal’s soul, it came as the true reflection of the message of Islam. The incredible message that revitalized the uncivilized Arabs, the message that triggered burning passion in the hearts of the Muslims of Sub-continent, infusing them with paramount courage. Allama Iqbal was most certainly the chosen one who was assigned the duty to rejuvenate the nation and to convey the glad tidings about the creation of Pakistan as a Muslim State.
He made Muslims realize, what they actually are, what their true stature is and that they shouldn’t be overwhelmed by any kind of complex, fear and frustration:
“Apni Millat par qayaas aqwaam-e-maghrib say na kar
Khaas hai tarkeeb mein qaum-e-Rasool-e-Hashmi”
“Un ki Jamiat ka hai mulk-o-nasb par inhesaar
Qoowat-e-Mazhab say mustahkam hai jamiat teri”
He imparted the message of hope and belief, the message of oneness of the Muslim nation and gathered the confused, scared and scattered Muslims on a single platform:
“Millat kai saath raabta istawaar rakh
Paywasta reh shajar say umeed-e-bahar rakh”
“Fard qaim rabt-e-millat say hai tanha kuch nahin
Mauj hai darya mein bayroon-e-darya kuch nahin”
He likened Muslim youngsters with “Shaheen” (Falcon) and gave them the inspiration to have the vision, the flight, the character and the attitude of a Falcon. He established that this character and attitude would actually enable them to reach their destiny, to achieve what they deserve and to regain their lost glory.
“Tu Shaheen hai Parwaaz hai kaam tera
Tere saamnay aasmaan aur bhi hai”
“Nahin tera nasheman qasr-e-sultani kai gumbad par
Tu Shaheen hai basera kar pahaarhoon ki chatanon mein”
Iqbal then led the Muslims towards even broader scope and higher goal. He was a visionary, an ideologue and a foreseer, He saw it long ago that the Islamic empire will be resurrected yet again, no matter what happens, no matter how adverse would apparently be the conditions for Muslims, no matter what the elite of the world plans, he had his faith in just one fact that Allah is the best of all planners. He was convinced that the Almighty has decided for this nation to rise again and this time it will be in the true spirit of Islam.
He further saw, even before the creation of Pakistan that the Muslims of this Islamic state to be established in the sub-continent will ultimately lead this rise of Islam. It is their destiny and a duty that has been assigned to this nation. With his poetry, Iqbal unveiled this word and also urged Muslims to be prepared for it, get ready for it and to work towards achieving it:
“Sabaq phir parh, Sadaqat ka, Adalat ka, Shuja’at ka
Lia jaye ga tujh say kaam dunia kia imaamat ka”
“Yaqeen afraad ka sarmaaya-e-tameer-e-millat hai
Yehi qoowat hai jo soorat gar-e-taqdeer-e-millat hai”
At one point, Pakistan Movement was surrounded by total frustration and despair. Muhammad Ali Jinnah was so disheartened that he flew to London and settled there leaving everything behind. It was Allama Iqbal who gave him the spiritual inspiration that he needed and brought him back. It was Iqbal’s spiritual support and presence in the background, which transformed Muhammad Ali Jinnah into Quaid-e-Azam.
Allama Iqbal left this world in 1938, about 9 years before Pakistan’s creation, but his poetry had already set the Muslim souls on fire and ignited burning flames of love in the hearts and complete devotion to achieve the impossible, do the unthinkable.
Pakistan resolution was passed in Lahore in 1940 and an independent, sovereign state for the Muslims of Sub-continent came into being on August 14, 1947. It was just 17 years after Iqbal dreamt about it and transfused the vision in Muslims. Almighty blessed us with the gift of Pakistan where Muslims could live with peace, harmony and freedom and practice the religion of Islam in its true sense.
Unfortunately, Iqbal’s dream was only partially realized ever since independence. We were blessed with a sacred Islamic state but we converted into a mere piece of land. Since the time of its inception till today, we have been unable to take Pakistan to the heights it deserved; we couldn’t make it the fortress of Islam. We hadn’t established the systems on the basis of Islamic teachings, and as a result, Pakistan ended up as a state with injustice, conflicts, economic and social problems, resource misuse and mismanagement, corrupt leaders and bad governance.
Pakistan was hence created but never completed or ‘realized’. The people of Pakistan have been waiting for a time when the dreams that were seen at the time of its creation, will come true. They have been waiting for a system that would facilitate them, an environment that will liberate them from their troubles and desolation.
That wait is about to be over! The winds of change have already started to blow. The scenario is changing and the dynamics of the state are taking the right direction! The Shaheens of Iqbal have finally awakened. They have realized what went wrong with their country and how to correct it. They have understood what Pakistan was meant to be and what the traitors and disloyal people along with their foreign masters are trying to transform it into. The youth of Pakistan is now recognizing, why our enemies fear Pakistan and why they want to destabilize it. They are afraid of the potential of the Muslims of Pakistan, but ultimately they are scared of its destiny.
Very close to his last days, Iqbal wrote his masterpiece “Iblees ki Majlis-e-Shura” (Devil’s advisory council). He said:
“Hai Khatar koi mujh ko to is ummat say hai
Jis ki khaakister mein hai ab tuk Sharaar-e-Aarzoo”
“Asr-e-haazir kai taqazaaon say hai lekin yeh khuaf
Ho na jaye aashkaara Shar’a-e-Paighambar kaheen”
All sorts of efforts are being made and conspiracies have been crafted to curb the potential of Pakistan. But as Iqbal predicted, a wave of self-realization is propagating across the country. Despite all the frustration, problems, evil designs of both internal and external elements, the awakening is happening.
“Millat-e-Bayza ki phir sheeraza bandee hai
Shakh-e-Hashmi karnay ko hai phir barg-e-bar paida”
“Ata momin ko phir dargah-e-haq say honay wala hai
Shikoh-e-Turkamani, zehen-e-Hindi, nutq-e-Araabi”
We, the youth of Pakistan are now geared up with all our passion to realize the unfulfilled part of Iqbal’s dream. We now stand together to serve, build, protect and defend our beloved Pakistan. Our elders brought Pakistan into existence by Allah’s will after countless sacrifices and we are also ready to shed our lives for our country if need be.
On this day, we promise Hakeem-ul-Ummat, our spiritual leader, guide and mentor, Allama Iqbal, that we’ll bring his mission to accomplishment. We will do anything to take Pakistan to its destiny. We will do what we can to put in place the system the ideology on the basis of which Pakistan was created. We’ll put in all efforts to bring justice, peace, harmony and prosperity to our beloved land in accordance with our religious teachings.
We promise that we will prepare Pakistan to take up its fated role in the world and we will Insha’Allah take Pakistan towards its ultimate Takmeel.
“Aflaak say ata hai naaloon ka jawaab aakhir
Kartay hein khitaab aakhir, uthtay hein hijaab aakhir
Mein tujh ko batata hoon taqdeer-e-umam kia hai
Shamsheer-o-sinaa awwal, Taoos-o-rabaab aakhir
Khilwat ki gharhee guzree, jalwat ki gharheee ayee
Chhutnay ko hai bujli say aaghosh-e-sahaab aakhir”
Iqbal’s prayer for the youth of Pakistan:
Jawaanoon ko meri aah-e-sahar dey
Phir in Shaheen bachchoon ko baal-o-par dey
Khudaya! aarzoo meri yehi hai
Mera noor-e-baseerat aam kar dey
Pakistan Hamesha Zinda-o-Paindabaad

The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam

By Abdal Ahmed Chaudhry

Muslims in united India were facing major crisis during the First World War era. The decline of the Ottoman Empire that led to the end of the khilafah movement (1924)1 left the Muslims of India in utter shock and despair. Iqbal at this time was aware of the situation of Muslims in the sub-continent. It was at this time that Iqbal wrote his poem Khizr i Rah followed by the Asrar i Khudi2. Iqbal then recognized the need of re-shaping the structure of Muslim thought. Iqbal strongly felt that the conservative theological thought was not adequate for the emerging challenges faced by the ummah, and thought that Muslims needed a reconstruction of their religious thought. He expressed some of his ideas in his famous poems Asrar i Khudi and Rumuz i Baikhudi. He didn’t express his ideas in the form of prose until 1932 when he got an invitation to deliver six lectures in Madras3. The thoughts behind his six lectures were then compiled in a book, titled The Reconstruction of Religious Though in Islam. There are seven chapters in the book:

(I) Knowledge and Religious Experience

(II) The Philosophical Tests of the Revelations of Religious Experience

(III) The Conception of God and the Meaning of Prayer

(IV) The Human Ego – His Freedom and Immortality

(V) The Spirit of Muslim Culture

(VI) The Principle of Movement in the Structure of Islam

(VII) Is Religion Possible?

Following is the chapter wise summary of his book.



Chapter I

The first chapter of the book is Knowledge and Religious Experience, in which, Iqbal starts by giving us a brief description of the basic structure of the universe and the way we are related to it. Iqbal argues that the traditional method used to interpret religion which he describes as “reading the Qur’an in the light of Greek thought”4 is not the best way to understand religion properly. Although, he recognizes the fact that in the domain of religious knowledge complete independence of thought is not possible still he emphasizes on the use of rationalism. According to him “the spirit of the Qur’an was essentially anti-classical”. Another method described by the author as he calls it is the “mystic experience”. “Mystic experience for the purpose of knowledge is as real as any other region of human experience and cannot be ignored merely because it cannot be traced back to sense-perception. Nor is it possible to undo the spiritual value of the mystic state by specifying the organic conditions which appear to determine it” 5. Thus, the author finalizes his argument by concluding that religious experience is a state of feeling which cannot be explained. It is just a feeling of cognition, the content of which cannot be communicated.



Chapter II

The Philosophical Test of the Revelations of Religious Experience is the second chapter, at the beginning of which Iqbal has quoted three arguments namely the Cosmological, the Teleological, and the Ontological, and has stated the flaws in these arguments. He states that the Cosmological argument tries to reach the infinite by negating the finite, which according to the author is a “wrong infinite”, since it excludes the finite6. The Teleological argument serves to give us a contriver but fails to give us a creator. Finally, the third argument, Ontological argument, assumes that the idea of an ultimate ego in our mind is enough to prove the existence of the infinite (God).

From here, the writer goes on to talk about experience. Experience, he says, has three levels namely matter, life and the level of mind and consciousness. While talking about matter, the author tries to imply that the things we see and hear, for example, sound waves, colours, gravity and other physical phenomenon in nature are not actual happenings but mere illusions. Time, he says, is not a real movement. Events happening in the future are not new but are already located in an unknown space. Hence the fourth dimension is actually a set of events happening in a definite order. By this, Iqbal states a setback in Einstein’s theory of relativity. Iqbal sees life as planned for purposes that lay deep down the intellect of a living being. The conscious experience is the level of experience, in which we are in direct contact with reality, since our perception of our own selves as quoted in Iqbal’s words is “‘internal, intimate and profound”. Thus the element of purpose and desire moulds the present state of consciousness as well as the future. The conclusion that we are brought to at the end of this lecture is that the Ultimate reality is a “rationally directed creative life” 7.



Chapter III

In the third lecture The Conception of God and the Meaning of Prayer, various aspects of God have been explained. These include Creativeness, Knowledge, Eternity and Omnipotence. Eternity is described by Iqbal using the ash‘arite theory of Atomism in Islam and the doctrine of accidents. The knowledge of the ultimate ego makes God aware of the entire history as it constitutes quantized events occurring in a definite sequence, and hence divine knowledge is acquired in eternal present. Therefore divine knowledge includes everything in the past, present and the future. Omnipotence is the blind power without any limits. This power is exercised by God while holding all goodness in his hand. Iqbal then raises the question “How is it then possible to reconcile the goodness and Omnipotence of God with all the evil in his creation?” 8 Here he is talking about man as the creation of God. Iqbal then comes to a conclusion that man possesses this quality of improvement, and is destined to overcome evil. Coming to prayer the author describes the meaning of prayer. The meaning of prayer, he says, is an “expression of mans inner yearning for a response in the awful silence of the universe” 9. Prayer is a way for that searching ego to discover its own worth as a dynamic factor in this universe.



Chapter IV

In the following lecture, The Human Ego-His Freedom and Immortality, Iqbal starts by stating that the Qur’an emphasizes the individuality and uniqueness of man, and has a definite view of his destiny. Then he proceeds to describe the human ego, which, according to him, is the unity of mental states which exist as a whole, called mind. Every ego is unique and is imperfect as a unity of life. The body, he says, is connected to the soul as the body is the medium of action of the soul and is in-detachable from it. The purpose of the soul is depicted by the action of the body. Since acts are connected to the ego by the mode of incentives, therefore, an individual can only be interpreted and understood by his or her judgments and aims. The immortality of the ego is later described by the author. Ego did not exist since eternity, and has a beginning like everything. According to the Qur’an, there will be a day of judgment and there will be a life after death. Ego will then be accountable for its actions.



Chapter V

At the start of the fifth chapter, The Spirit of Muslim Culture, Iqbal talks about the psychological difference between the prophetic and mystic type on consciousness. To judge the value of the Prophets’ religious experience is to examine the cultural world that has been created by them. From here Iqbal proceeds to talk about Muslim culture and the interpretation of Islam against Greek philosophy. No doubt that the ancient philosophy has produced great systems of beliefs, yet the need of modern philosophy and science has become essential in modern times. If an individual believes in divine revelations and prophethood, the divine revelations, according to believers, should come to an end and the traditional system of interpreting Islam should be reconsidered.



Chapter VI

The Principle of Movement in the Structure of Islam seems to be the most important lecture in the book. In fact the idea behind the whole book revolves around it. It is in this lecture where the author urges the need for innovation in Islamic thought. The principle of movement in the structure of Islam according to the author is ijtihad, which means to form an independent judgment on a legal question. The set of legal principles received from Qur’an has great capacity of expansion and development. Ever since the establishment of schools, the law of Islam was “reduced to a state of immobility” 10 by the rejection of ijtihad which had a number of reasons. Firstly there was fear that rationalism would destroy the foundation of Muslim society. Secondly the need of organization felt by the early scholars lead to the exclusions of innovation in the shari‘ah and took away the power of the individual. It is argued by the author that Qur’an is not a legal code; but its purpose is to awaken in man the higher consciousness of his relation with God and his creations. Similarly, the sunnah was meant for the people at that time and place, and therefore, according to the author, is specific to that people. The world of Islam according to Iqbal should proceed to the work of reconstruction before them.



Chapter VII

The seventh lecture, “Is Religion Possible?” provides us with the conclusion posted by the author. Iqbal has categorized religious life into three periods, namely faith, thought and discovery. The first period involves acceptance without rationalism. The second period, he says, is when acceptance is followed by rationalism. In the third period, religious life searches for a logical view of the world with God as a part of that view. He goes on, and tries to explain that religion and science involving different methods aim at reaching the same goal i.e. the ultimate reality. He states that even though religion and science use different methods but reach the same final aim. The method of dealing with reality by means of concepts, he says, is not a serious way to deal with it. Religion, as Iqbal describes it, is the only way to deal with reality since religion is more anxious to reach its final aim.



Conclusion

In the view of the reviewer, the whole purpose of the book revolves around its 6th chapter, The Principle of Movement in the Structure of Islam, where Iqbal has stressed upon the use of ijtihad, which is a lost practice due to reasons which I have already mentioned. He points out that the Muslim thought and theology needed reshaping in order for them to understand and practice their religion as defined by the Qur’an. The style adopted by the author is theoretical, as he uses philosophy with a comprehensive combination of Islam and science to explain his point of view. This combination explains all points of view from different angles, hence is popular with all sorts of readers. If you believe that the Holy Prophet (sws) is the last apostle and that the divine revelations only were sent to him last time, the end of the supernatural ultimately follows. With the end of the supernatural, the traditional ways to understand and interpret religion should be considered obsolete, and new ways of understanding religion should be considered. The application of science in order to get a grip of reality provides today’s reader with a more adequate method to comprehend religion. Even though Iqbal stresses on this point, he still uses Qur’anic verses and sufic words to explain the reality of this universe and God, its creator. This methodology used by Iqbal provides the reader with rationalism as well as religious conservatism. To get a comprehensive overview on religion, established religious dogmas should be given weight.

Even though the blend of science and philosophy seems to be a comprehensive methodology, excessive use of philosophy for reasons to criticize theories of physics is in my point of view a weak aspect of the work. For example, Iqbal, in his second lecture challenges the theory of matter and Einstein’s theory of relativity, as quoted in his own words “The empirical attitude which appeared to necessitate scientific materialism has finally ended in a revolt against matter”.11

If we go deeper through the chapters, we come to know that Iqbal has used the Qur’an at some places to prove various attributes of God. No doubt Qur’an is the ultimate source of knowledge, and we must seek inspiration in it yet it is difficult for a non-Muslim reader to accept these arguments.

MODERN INDIAN MUSLIMS AND IQBAL

By Dr.Javid Iqbal

The book Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam or the ‘Madras Lectures’ of Allama Iqbal, has been translated into Urdu under the title Tashkeel-e-Jadid-e Ilahiyat-e Islamia. In the light of this work I have chosen to speak on the topic: “Iqbal and the Concept of the Islamic State in Modern Times.” But before opening the discussion, it is necessary to throw some light on these lectures of Iqbal.

This book has remained the least noticed work of Iqbal, although it deserves a lot more attention. The main reason for this neglect is that these lectures were addressed to, and later published for, the Muslims of the new generation. Iqbal was aware that the new generation of Muslims could not remain aloof from the values of modern western culture. It was therefore necessary for them to remain Muslim and at the same time to become modern. Since this book discussed modernity in Islam, some of the Ulema were quite annoyed with it. For this very reason publication of Urdu translation was delayed. It was feared that the translation could provoke the wrath of the Ulema and they might consider it a manifesto of a new religion like Akbar’s Din-e Ilahi or a distortion of religion under the pretext of reinterpretation. Many objections were raised. For instance, the late Allama Syed Sulaiman Nadvi was reported to have said that it would have been better if he had published this book. Maulana Syed Abul Hasan Ali Nadvi, who reported these words, commented in these words:

I do not consider Iqbal an innocent and pious person or a religious guide or an Imam Mujtahid, nor do I cross the limits, as his staunch supporters do, while acknowledging and praising his works. I consider that Hakeem Sana’i, ‘Attar and Rumi were far ahead of him in respecting and following the Shari‘ah, uniformity in thought and deed, and harmony between precept and practice. Iqbal presented several interpretations of Islamic faith and philosophy, agreement with which seems very difficult. I am also not convinced, like some enthusiastic young men, that no one had a better understanding of Islam than him and that none could surpass him in the knowledge of Islamic sciences and historical facts. On the contrary, the truth is that all his life he kept on benefiting from his distinguished contemporaries. There are some drawbacks in his unique personality which do not quite match with the sweep of his knowledge and the greatness of his message. Unfortunately he could not find an opportunity to get rid of them. There are many thoughts and views expressed in his Modern Lectures, the interpretation of which conflicts with the collective convictions of the Sunnis.... It would have been better if these Lectures had not been published.

The fact that emerges is that because of their conservatism the Ulema of the subcontinent are not yet ready to accept the change that has taken place in modern life. Even today they believe that the Madras Lectures are a great danger to the future of Islam. If the society which Iqbal dreamt of in these Lectures had come into existence, then the face of Islam, particularly in regard to worldly affairs (Mu‘aamalaat), with which we are familiar, would have not remained unchanged. This is the reason why the Ulema strongly opposed this book of Iqbal. A few years ago a seminar was held in Riyadh (Saudi Arabia) where some one asserted that his book contained nothing except heresies, and that the Muslims must not read it.

However, this is an extremely important book. Some eminent Muslim scholars whom I had the opportunity to meet in Istanbul, Damascus and Cairo feel that a book like this has not been written in the Islamic world for the past three hundred years, and that the importance of this book is increasing in the world of Islam with each passing day.

The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam has been translated into Urdu as Fikr-e Islami ki Tashkeel-e Jadid. This translation, in my opinion, is appropriate because what is meant by ‘Reconstruction’ is the process of ‘correcting’ or ‘reforming’. You may call it either ‘Modern Reconstruction’ or ‘Reformation’. But it is not the reconstruction of Islam or the Islamic faith, as was the movement of Martin Luther in Christianity. Martin Luther’s movement is called the Reformation. What he meant by Reformation was a new interpretation of Christianity, which led to the establishment of a new school of thought or rather a new religion. But here the aim is not reconstruction of Islam but the reconstruction of the religious thought of Islam. Now the question arises as to when is such reconstruction or reformation required? Obviously when decadence takes place, a revival or renaissance becomes essential; otherwise if the process of deterioration is allowed to continue nations and communities cease to exist. This is the era of Muslim cultural and ideological revival, and the book was written during this period, because Iqbal belonged to that period of the history of the subcontinent when the process of reformation had commenced even before his birth. Shah Waliullah, Syed Ahmed Shaheed, Sir Syed Ahmed Khan and Maulana Shibli Nomani were personalities who were senior to Iqbal, and had already started the process of the reconstruction of Islamic thought. Jamaluddin Afghani was also one of them. In 1882, when Afghani took refuge in Hyderabad Deccan, Iqbal was only twelve years old. So one can imagine that the work of reconstruction had started even before Iqbal was born. Thus, following in the footsteps of his predecessors, Iqbal tried to study and apprise the Muslim community, and that too very courageously, as to what were the causes of decay in their society. It is very interesting to note that after one thousand years of the death of Imam Ghazali, Iqbal for the first time in the modern history of Islam disclosed that there were three negative forces against which Jihad should be waged, and that only through the extermination of these forces could the new Muslim Society be brought into being. According to Iqbal, these three negative forces are: Autocratic Monarchy, ignorant Mullaism (Islamic priesthood) and decadent Sufism. In this context he addresses the Muslims of India and says: Ay Kushta-e Sultani-o Mullai-o Piri (You are nothing but a crushed compound of autocratic Monarchy, ignorant Priesthood, and False Spiritual Guidance.

These are the three disintegrating forces which led to the decadence of Muslim society. This means that Iqbal felt the necessity for reforming these forces so that they could yield positive results for the reconstruction. For example, he wanted to bring about changes in the teaching of Islamic theology, and it was his desire to bring a new Ilm-ul Kalaam (Scholastic religious thought) into existence, because at the present time man had made tremendous progress in the empirical sciences, and in the light of this advancement in human knowledge, a new scholastic philosophy was needed. Without a new approach in theology, it was not possible to strengthen the faith of the new generation of Muslims. Similarly, he wished for a revolution in the sphere of Sufism. Consequently, when he wrote the Introduction to the publication of his lectures, he specifically mentioned the need of this revolution. His third important point was to do away with autocratic monarchy in Islam and to proceed towards democracy, which according to him was to return to the original purity of Islam. After providing this background, I would like to bring to your notice that aspect of Iqbal’s Philosophy which is known as Khudi (Self). Whether he talks in terms of the individual self or the collective self, the aim of Iqbal was that, through the development of the individual and the collective ego, a new Muslim society should be brought into being. In this respect his thought is founded on three basic concepts. These are: First, his concept of Muslim nationhood― i.e., the nationality of Muslims is to be based not on community, colour, race, language or territory but on a common spiritual aspiration. Second, Islam cannot be conceived without Shawkah (Power). In other words, according to Iqbal, the new Muslim society cannot be subjugated. It has to be free, and in a dominant position. Third, if ‘Power’ is the ultimate aim, then it is necessary to find a manifestation for it― and this manifestation is the realisation of a state for the new Muslim society. His writing and discourses prior to the famous Allahabad Address reveal that he always had these three things in mind― the concept of Muslim nationality, the concept of Islam with ‘Power’ translation, in my opinion, is appropriate because what is meant by ‘Reconstruction’ is the process of ‘correcting’ or ‘reforming’. You may call it either ‘Modern Reconstruction’ or ‘Reformation’. But it is not the reconstruction of Islam or the Islamic faith, as was the movement of Martin Luther in Christianity. Martin Luther’s movement is called the Reformation. What he meant by Reformation was a new interpretation of Christianity, which led to the establishment of a new school of thought or rather a new religion. But here the aim is not reconstruction of Islam but the reconstruction of the religious thought of Islam. Now the question arises as to when is such reconstruction or reformation required? Obviously when decay takes place, a revival or renaissance becomes essential; otherwise if the process of deterioration is allowed to continue nations and communities cease to exist. This is the era of Muslim cultural and ideological revival, and the book was written during this period, because Iqbal belonged to that period of the history of the subcontinent when the process of reformation had commenced even before his birth. Shah Waliullah, Syed Ahmed Shaheed, Sir Syed Ahmed Khan and Maulana Shibli Nomani were personalities who were senior to Iqbal, and had already started the process of the reconstruction of Islamic thought. Jamaluddin Afghani was also one of them. In 1882, when Afghani took shelter in Hyderabad Deccan, Iqbal was only twelve years old. So one can imagine that the work of reconstruction had started even before Iqbal was born. Thus, following in the footsteps of his predecessors, Iqbal tried to study and apprise the Muslim community, and that too very courageously, as to what were the causes of decay in their society. It is very interesting to note that after one thousand years of the death of Imam Ghazali, Iqbal for the first time in the modern history of Islam disclosed that there were three negative forces against which Jihad should be waged, and that only through the extermination of these forces could the new Muslim Society be brought into being. According to Iqbal, these three negative forces are: Autocratic language or territory but on a common spiritual aspiration. Second, Islam cannot be conceived without Shawkah (Power). In other words, according to Iqbal, the new Muslim society cannot be subjugated. It has to be free, and in a dominant position. Third, if ‘Power’ is the ultimate aim, then it is necessary to find a manifestation for it― and this manifestation is the realisation of a state for the new Muslim society. His writing and discourses prior to the famous Allahabad Address reveal that he always had these three things in mind― the concept of Muslim nationality, the concept of Islam with ‘Power’ and the need for the creation of a Muslim State which he considered as the “territorial specification of Islam”. He lays emphasis on the state because ‘power’ cannot be imagined in the absence of a state. A minority could never wield ‘power’. This was the reason why the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) left his ancestral home, Mecca and founded a state in Medinah.

In this context, let us consider the discussion which took place between Iqbal and Maulana Husain Ahmad Madani. Maulana Madani’s point of view was that of an Indian nationalist. On the other hand, Iqbal’s view was that of a Muslim nationalist. Maulana held that as a nation Muslims were Indians, but as a community (Ummah/ Millah) they were Muslim. Whereas for Iqbal nation and community were one and the same thing. There was no difference between the two. It is surprising to note that most of the Ulema who opposed the Pakistan movement and also rejected Iqbal’s thesis, were prepared to accept the Muslims as part of the Indian nation in the secular set-up of India but were not prepared to accept Iqbal’s concept of the creation of a new Muslim society in a politically free modern Islamic state of Pakistan. In other words, these Ulema were so attached to the conventional approach to Islam that they were willing to live under Indian secularism rather than agree to accept ijtihad or a new approach. In this connection I have always used three terms. What Iqbal called the Mullah’s approach, I call the conventional or traditional approach to Islam. What Iqbal called Piri-muridi, I call populist approach to Islam; and those who were the founding fathers of Pakistan, including Iqbal, their approach to Islam, according to me, was reformist. The social struggle being waged in all Muslim societies today is between these three groups. The masses who represent ‘Populist’ Islam are passive in this struggle, but the conventionalists and reformists are fighting the battle as backward-looking-romantics and forward­ looking realists. Generally speaking, the masses of Islam can neither read the Qur’an nor understand it. It is difficult to say whether they even know their prayer. Therefore, a large majority of them depend on their spiritual guides, pirs and saints who they believe are able to intercede between them and God.

Because of ignorance, this belief holds firm ground in their minds. May be some time in the future, when education spreads enlightenment, the present shape of the common man’s Islam will change. But until then this situation must be considered to prevail to the advantage of the politician and the protagonist of conventional Islam. Moreover, the group of educated and enlightened Muslims who subscribe to reformist Islam is too small, and some time is required for them to develop into a class which could command a position of influence and power.

What are the constituent elements of Muslim society according to Iqbal? A serious consideration would reveal that Muslims are still far away from the reformist approach to Islam. Although a section of the Muslims of the subcontinent have obtained Pakistan, it would take a long time to make it a modern Islamic state. We have talked about the difference between the approaches of Maulana Husain Ahmad Madani and Iqbal, and have also taken note of the views of Maulana Syed Abul Hasan Ali Nadvi about Iqbal. Now I venture to present another interesting extract on Iqbal. This is form Maulana Najmuddin who is one of the disciples of Maulana Husain Ahmad Madani. He states:[1]

We consider it a religious crime to grant the late Dr. Iqbal the status of more than that of a poet and a philosopher, as we have studied his writings carefully. It is no exaggeration to say that although hundreds and thousands of his verses are useful, there are many which openly strike at Islam and Islamic philosophy.

He further adds:

The work of law-making in Pakistan can certainly be undertaken in the light of Iqbal’s thought because the Islam on the basis of which Pakistan has been founded is in fact another name for Iqbal’s philosophy.

It is, therefore, evident that a group of Ulema have always said that Pakistan was created in the name of a specific kind of Islam which they consider as another name for Iqbal’s philosophy.

Now let us examine the other dimension of the problem: What kind of sick society did Iqbal confront? He began formulating his thoughts in 1904. I would like to draw your attention towards his first article namely, “Qaumi Zindagi” (National life). It was written in 1904 and was published in Makhzan. Before presenting a quotation from this article, I would like to re-emphasise that Iqbal was very much influenced by the factor of change. I shall try to establish through this quotation that according to him it was this strange factor of change that distinguished the present from the past. Commenting upon the progress made by the other nations, Iqbal describes Muslim societies thus (and I would urge you to tell me whether or not today any change has been accomplished):

I am sorry to say that, seen from this angle, the condition of the Muslims appears to be most deplorable. This unfortunate community has lost its political power, lost its craftsmanship, lost its commerce and trade, and now, unconcerned with the disease of poverty, it is leaning on the useless staff of vain hope. Let alone other things, until now their religious differences have not been resolved. Every other day a new sect pops up, proclaiming itself as the sole heir of paradise, denouncing the rest of the human species as the fuel for hell. In short, this form of sectarianism has shattered the unity of the best of the communities in such a way that it is impossible to reunite it as a single community... The condition of our Maulvis (Preachers) is such that if two of them happen to be present in the same town, they would exchange messages to meet and hold a discussion on the life of Jesus Christ or the revelation and cancellation of the Quranic verses. And if the discussion commences, as it often does, it leads to the exchange of such abuses that one has to seek refuge in God. The vastness of knowledge, tolerance and understanding which were the characteristics of the old savants of Islam exist not even in name...There is however, a list of Muslim Kafirs (non-believers) which goes on increasing as more names are being added to it with the vicious hand of our preachers. The story of the decadent Muslim affluent class is different. By the Grace of God, he already has four daughters and two sons and yet the gentleman is in search of a third wife, and keeps on secretly sending word here and there, taking every care that the existing two wives should not come to know of it. Sometimes, if he gets a respite from domestic quarrels, he ventures to have a little fun with a prostitute in the street...to say nothing of the Muslim masses― some would spend their life’s earnings on the ritual of a child’s circumcision; another would withdraw his pampered child from school because of the fear of the teacher; yet another one would spend his day’s earnings in one evening and console himself by saying that God will take care of tomorrow. Elsewhere, a fortune is being wasted on litigation over a petty matter, while properties are being destroyed in property-related quarrels... The portrait of Muslim culture briefly is that girls are uneducated, boys are ignorant and unemployed. They are afraid of industry and commerce, and are ashamed of learning crafts. Divorce litigation is on the increase every day, and incidents of crime are going up. This is a very desperate situation and there seems to be no way out except that the entire community should make a endeavour united to set their minds and hearts in the direction of reform. No great task in this world can be completed without great effort. Even God does not change the condition of any community unless that community itself makes an effort for its betterment.

This is a very important quotation. It will give you some idea of the direction in which Iqbal’s thought was moving since 1904. He was realising that the reformation of Muslim culture was necessary and this would be possible only if Islamic laws, were reinterpreted. Iqbal kept writing time and again on these topics. The extracts from his writings that I am reproducing were published during different periods, especially between 1904 and 1938. Let us examine the following quotation; but before I reproduce it I want to submit that an important aspect of Iqbal’s thought is that he genuinely believed that the revival of Islam is not possible merely by the revival of religion unless it is accompanied by the revival of Muslim culture. I will explain what Iqbal meant by ‘culture’. Let us first consider the quotation:

Among the Muslims, the question of reforming their culture is in fact a religious question, because Muslim culture actually is the practical form of the religion of Islam. There is no aspect of our cultural life which can be detached from our religion. It is not my intention to discuss this important matter from the religious standpoint. Nevertheless, I will not hesitate to point out that due to the great change in the condition of our lives, certain new cultural necessities have emerged, that the principles devised by our jurists (Fuqaha) the collection of which is generally known as Islamic Shari‘ah, needs revision. It is not my contention that there is some inherent flaw in the basic principles of our religion due to which it is not possible for us to resolve our contemporary cultural problems. On the contrary, my contention is that most of the interpretations of the Holy Qur’an and Hadith (Traditions of the Prophet) advanced by our jurists from time to time are such as were relevant and suitable for specific periods of time, but do not conform to the modern needs and requirements of the Muslims...Taking into consideration the modern needs and requirements of the Muslim community, we need not only to follow a new theological approach (Ilm-ul Kalaam) in support of the principles of religion, but need also a great jurist who could reinterpret Islamic law, and grant such breadth to the rules, through his logic and implication, that they would fulfil all the possible demands and requirements of the present day Muslims. So far as I know, to date no such eminent jurist has been born in the Muslim world. If we are to consider the importance of this problem, it appears that more than one mind and a period of at least one century is required to complete this task.

In 1905, a revolution took place against the Shah of Iran. Iqbal carefully watched this period of Iranian history generally known as Daur-e Istabdad-e Saghir (The Era of Minor Tyranny). Mohammed Raza, who later became Raza Shah Pehlavi, was the leader of this revolution. In the early stages, he wanted to become the president of Iran following the Turkish example as he tried to convert Iran into a modern democratic state. But the Shi‘a Ulema opposed this conversion and advised him to adopt the title of Shah (King). However, they retained the power of interpreting Islamic law as the successors of the Occult Imam (Imam-e Gha’ib). These moves made Iqbal arrive at the conclusion that gradually Iran was also heading towards elections, although according to the Shi‘a theory of the Islamic state there exists a separation between the temporal power headed by the Shah and the spiritual (juridical) power assumed by the Shi‘a Ulema Council.

The ‘method’ referred to here by Iqbal requires some attention. What he meant is that a Muslim child should be identified as a Muslim and also as a modern individual. The ‘method’ which he mentions repeatedly is that, unlike the old system of education, the Islamic Dar-ul Uloom (study centre) must constitute an integral part of a modern university. There should be the subjects in which our preachers and missionaries should be well-versed. Iqbal insists upon their acquiring command over national literature, economics and sociology. Thus it is evident that he wanted to see the Muslims remaining Muslims and at the same time accepting modernity. Generally speaking, the dreams of Iqbal have not been realised so far. I would add here that when Iqbal went to Madras to deliver these Lectures, his host too subscribed to the same views. Seth Jamal Mohammed used to spend a large amount of money every year on such lectures. Before Iqbal, he had invited Syed Sulaiman Nadvi, who delivered lectures on Islam. Iqbal was the third in the series who was asked to deliver his lectures. Seth Jamal Mohammed wanted to create an environment wherein Muslims could retain a strong faith and at the same time not hesitate to become modern.

The writings of Iqbal indicate that according to him the political order recommended by the Qur’an was based on elections, and the legal order was based on the interpretations of Islamic law advanced by the judges. The third important point is that he uses the expression ‘Muslim Commonwealth’ for the Islamic state.

Now we may turn to the question as to what Iqbal meant by the revival of Islamic culture? Why was it necessary and urgent? Iqbal felt that Muslim society, of which he was a member, was a sick society. He desired to bring about the creation of a new society and that is why he used to claim that his message or address was not meant for the intellectually disabled and the old because such people are incapable of changing. He called himself the ‘poet of tomorrow’. For this reason he was more interested in, and directed his message to, the Muslim youth, who could create the new Muslim society of his dreams. In this context, carrying the discussion further, I would like to present another extract from his writings, particularly because whenever I have tried to express my views respecting Iqbal’s thought, it has met with strong opposition from the conservative Ulema who now claim to own Iqbal and contend that I misrepresent him. This passage has been taken from Iqbal’s lecture entitled ‘Muslim Community’. This is his third important paper on the subject, and was translated into Urdu by Maulana Zafar Ali Khan as “Millat-e Bayza par ek Imrani Nazar”, and read in the Strachey Hall of the Aligarh Muslim University in 1910. He states:[2]

The establishment of a Muslim University in India is essential also for another reason. Who does not know that the task of giving moral education to the masses of our community is being performed by Ulema and preachers who are not competent to perform this task? The reason is that the quantum of their knowledge about Islamic history and Islamic sciences are very limited. For the teaching of the main principles and offshoots of religion and morality the preacher of today, besides having an understanding of history, economics and sociology, should also have a complete acquaintance with the literature and aspiration of his community. Al-Nadwa, Aligarh College, Madrasa Deoband and other similar institutions which are functioning separately cannot fulfil this great need. There should be established one central Dar-ul uloom of all these scattered educational entities where the members of the community should not only Madras Lectures reveal that so long as the Muslim intellectuals remained under the influence of Greek thinkers they paid more attention to speculative sciences. However, when they turned their attention to the Quranic teachings, they discovered that the Qur’an laid emphasis on experimental methods, because in the Qur’an, God repeatedly commands man to apply reason, to think, to use his eyes and ears, etc. This meant that through their sense perception, Muslims should evolve empirical sciences. According to Iqbal, it was against this background that the Muslims developed the experimental method and laid the foundations of empirical sciences. Europe took these empirical sciences from the Muslims and further developed what is today known as modern science and technology. Thus Iqbal believed that Muslims were the original founders of science, and if they were to learn it afresh from the West, it would not amount to adoption of the sciences of an alien culture, but to taking back from the West what they originally gave to it in their times of glory. In this belief, Iqbal desired that the broken link between the Islamic sciences and the modern sciences should be re-forged. He was convinced that this was also a very important aspect of the reconstruction of religious thought in Islam and that the new Muslim society could not be created unless the Islamic sciences were recombined with the modern sciences. It is needless to mention here that a study of the history of science would reveal that in the early stages of the development of empirical sciences, the names of Muslim scientists frequently occur. Even today some of these sciences are still acknowledged and retain their Arabic name. For instance, Algebra, a branch of Mathematics, which was a Muslim invention, still retains the same name. So is the term (alchemy) chemistry which is derived from the Arabic Al-Kimiya. There are numerous other terms, particularly in the science of optics and physics which have been derived from Arabic and which are still in use.

There is another fact that is worth mentioning, and it is that although Iqbal was a critic of the western civilisation, he was never opposed to modernity. He always distinguished between modernity and westernization. To him westernization was imitating an alien culture, for which he criticised the Turks. But modernism to him was accepting the reality of change. According to Iqbal, the Qur’an commanded the acceptance of the reality of change for the progress of Muslims in all spheres and fields; otherwise they would be left behind. The Muslim could achieve Shawkah (Power) in the new Muslim society only when they re-established the link between Islamic and modern sciences; and recommenced the process of research, creativity, innovation and invention. You must have noted that Iqbal, in almost all his writings, particularly his poetry, is obsessed with ‘the absolutely new’. He asks for a new world and a new universe because he is fed up with the old. Even his Satan pleads to God and begs for the creation of a new Adam since he is disgusted with the present one who cannot bear even his single flaw. He pleads that it is insulting for him that he is pitched against a very weak rival. So even Satan demands a new Adam.

Now what he means by a new man or a new Muslim society is that the creative potential of the Muslim community must be reviewed. In the context of creativity, Iqbal uses the expression ‘innovation’. He regarded Hazrat Umar as the first innovator among the Muslims, because of the changes he had introduced, particularly his inclusion of Istihsaan (Equity) into the Islamic law of inheritance. Objections were raised against Hazrat Umar for introducing novelty into Islamic laws. But Hazrat Umar replied that ‘novelty’ is of two kinds― one is Bid‘at-e Hasna (commendable novelty) and the other is Bid‘at -e saiyya (condemnable novelty).[3] Iqbal endorsed the former and considered it positive, or commendable, innovation. Iqbal was of the view that the Muslims of today could progress only if they acquired the mentality of Hazrat Umar. He upheld that they should not become prisoners of the text of Qur’an; their interpretation must also be consistent with the spirit of the Qur’an. Thus according to him Bid‘at-e Hasna or commendable innovation is worthy of consideration and should be adopted as a methodology for modern day Ijtihad or interpretation of Islamic law.

Now I turn to the topic ‘Iqbal and the Concept of the Islamic State in the Modern Age’. I have already explained that Iqbal gives priority to the principle of Muslim nationhood for the establishment of a modern Muslim society. His second principle is that Islam is unthinkable without ‘power’. Without ‘power’ you may repeatedly claim to be Muslim but you would be Muslim only in name. Economic and technological freedom must be realised along with political freedom to constitute ‘power’; otherwise you are nothing but a slave and in the state of slavery no task can be accomplished. Iqbal narrates that once a Turkish freedom-fighter accompanied him to offer prayers in the mosque and was perturbed to notice that the Indian Muslims while offering prayers remained for a long time in the position of prostration (Sajda). He asked Iqbal as to why it was so? Iqbal replied that there was no need to be surprised because the poor slaves have nothing else to do except ‘prostration’ (Sajda).[4]

After interpreting the two major principles of “Muslim nationhood” and ‘Power’ Iqbal has presented his concept of a modern Islamic state in his sixth lecture, ‘The Principle of Movement in the Social Structure of Islam’. This lecture is not only important, but also controversial, as most of the objections raised against the Madras Lectures pertain particularly to this lecture. Its topic is Ijtihad (effort, struggle). I will discuss only that part of the lecture which relates to the construction of a state or rather the question of how Iqbal thinks a modern Islamic state can be created. In this connection, the first thing to be kept in mind is that whenever Iqbal speaks of modern Islamic state, he has before his eyes those traditional models of the Islamic state with which you may also be familiar. They are Khilafat, Imamate, Amirate or Monarchy in different forms. These are the conventional types of states that we come across in the history of Islam. Iqbal does not recommend the revival of any of these models. His concept of modern Islamic state is based on three principles. But before discussing them, I would like to point out that Iqbal associates state with law-making. He wrote several letters to Maulana Syed Sulaiman Nadvi and posed many questions in this regard. An examination of these questions, and the answers given by Maulana Syed Sulaiman Nadvi, provides very interesting and useful information. I have collected and studied these questions thoroughly, in order to find out what was in his mind. In fact, his questions are the same which disturb the mind of the Muslim youth of today, and I suppose no satisfactory and convincing solution to these problems has been presented by our Ulema even today. For example a question asked by Iqbal to Syed Sulaiman Nadvi makes it abundantly clear why Iqbal gave so much importance to Ijma‘-i ummah, (consensus of the community) and what its connection is with the democratic order of a modern Islamic state. He asks Syed Sulaiman Nadvi, “Can Ijma‘-i ummah repeal Nass-e Qur’ani (text of the Qur’an having clear meaning)? For instance a mother can breast feed her child only for two years according to the Nass-e Qur’ani. Can this period be reduced or extended?” Then he asks: “Can consensus change the Quranic rules of inheritance? Some Hanafite and Mu‘tazilite scholars (names of two schools of Islamic thought) believed that it was possible through Ijma‘-i ummah. Does any such reference exist in the literature of Fiqh (Law)?” Such interesting questions could be asked only by Iqbal. He derives the principle of election in an Islamic state from the 38th verse of 42nd Surah of the Holy Qur’an in which it is stated that the Muslims are those who conduct their affairs by mutual consultation. In this verse, the word ‘Shura’ has been used which may either be interpreted as ‘Advisory Assembly’ or as ‘Consultative Assembly’. If we take it as Advisory Body, then there will arise the problem of the absoluteness of the executive authority which would not be bound by the opinion of the Advisory Body. (And this is what had been happening during the history of Islam and led to the establishment of the most perverse form of autocracy). But if it is to be considered and interpreted as ‘Consultative Body’ then it would be identical to an elected Assembly for the purpose of law-making. Iqbal terms this law-interpreting Assembly as the modern form of Ijma‘. In other words, the elected representatives are authorised to make or interpret law and their law-making process becomes a kind of Ijma‘ i Ummah. But this interpretation of Iqbal has not been accepted by the Ulema. You may note that Iqbal wants to take away the right of Ijtihad (Interpretation of law) from the individual jurists (Mujtahidin) and hand it over to the elected Muslim Assembly. This is a kind of revolution which our conservative Ulema are not prepared to accept.

Before talking about the three foundational principles propounded by Iqbal on which a modern Islamic state can be built, I would like to refer to the last paragraph of his sixth lecture in which he defines the Islamic state as “spiritual democracy”. He states:[5]

In view of the basic idea of Islam that there can be no further revelation binding on man, we (Muslims) ought to be spiritually one of the most emancipated peoples on earth. Early Muslims emerging out of the spiritual slavery of pre-Islamic Asia were not in a position to realise the true significance of this basic idea. Let the Muslim of today appreciate his position, reconstruct his social life in the light of ultimate principles and evolve, out of the hither partially revealed purpose of Islam, that spiritual democracy which is the ultimate aim of Islam.

It is evident from this quotation that according to Iqbal the ultimate aim of Islam i.e., the establishment of “spiritual democracy,” has not yet been realised and if at all, only partially.

Now I come to the three fundamental principles of a modern state from the Islamic standpoint propounded by Iqbal. They are: (1) human solidarity; (2) equality; and, (3) freedom. Iqbal is of the view that Muslims must aspire for and realise these great and ideal principles in space― time forces us to do this, as these very principles constitute the essence of Tawhid (unity of God).

The question that invariably follows is as to why Iqbal refers to “human solidarity” and not to “Muslim solidarity”? The answer is that he had a vision of a modem Islamic state as a spiritual democracy. As for religious tolerance in this state, Iqbal points out that the Qur’an commands the Muslims to protect the places of worship of non-Muslims implying that it is a religious obligation of the Muslims. In this background when Iqbal talks about human solidarity, he means Muslim unity based on common spiritual aspiration and solidarity with non-Muslim citizens. On this basis it is possible to realise the ideal of human solidarity. Iqbal cities verse 40, of surah 22 of the Qur’an, which contains the Qur’anic command to protect places of worship of the non-Muslims. It states:

If God had not created a group (of Muslims) to ward off others from aggression, then churches, synagogues, oratories and mosques where God is worshipped most, would have been destroyed.

In this verse, the term masajid (mosques) occurs at the end in a descending order. First the churches of the Christians are mentioned, then the synagogues of the Jews, followed by the monasteries or oratories of the hermits, and lastly the mosques of the Muslims. How did the jurists interpret this Qur’anic verse? The early Fuqaha (jurists) thought that only the people of the Book (Jews and Christians) came under this protective clause. But, when Iran was conquered, Parsis or Zoroastrians were also included under it based on the reasoning that they were Kamithl-e ahl-e Kitab (similar to the people of the Book) and that this also bound the Mughal state to protect the places of worship and culture of their Hindu subjects.

To conclude, when the Muslims had self-confidence and were powerful, their jurists could ‘extend’ a Qur’anic rule of law if the conditions so demanded, and when there was an apprehension that it could lead to some problem they ‘restricted’ its application by temporarily suspending it. These processes of ‘extension’ (Tawsi‘) and ‘restriction’ (Tehdid) are acknowledged principles in Islamic jurisprudence. Iqbal is of the view that in accordance with the needs and requirements of present times the Qur’anic rules of law pertaining to worldly affairs (Mu‘amalaat) can be ‘extended’ or ‘restricted’ although this Power cannot be exercised by an individual or a dictator. He desires that this power be given to the elected representatives of the Muslims in the form of Ijma‘ (Consensus).

While discussing these principles, I do not want to be misunderstood. I am not arguing that a modern Islamic state can be regarded as a secular state. No, this is not my thesis, although I am inclined to put the word ‘ideal’ before it. If according to Iqbal the ultimate aim of Islam is to establish a spiritual democracy and not a theocracy, then how can it be defined, except as an ideal secular state? I do not call it a secular state because there exists no genuine secular state anywhere in the world. The existing so-called secular states are practically based on hypocrisy. Is the U.S. a secular state where there still exists discrimination between blacks and whites? Are Britain, France and Germany truly secular states? Is India, where the Muslims are periodically massacred for one excuse or another, really a secular state? In reality no secular state exits anywhere in the world, but there are several types of hypocritical states. For example, the secular state of the former Soviet Russia was established on the basis of atheism. It was an anti-religious state. Similarly, Western capitalist secular democracies are indifferent to religion, as they are essentially market societies interested in selling their merchandise. But if there exists a state which respects every religion or whose aim is to establish a genuine spiritual democracy, what name could be given to such a state? I once met a Hindu scholar at a conference. He explained to me that a secular state does not mean a state which is indifferent to religion, in the sense in which it is called la deen riyasat or ‘non-religious state’/secular state. He said that India is not such a secular state, but every religion is given full respect in it. I replied that if that was really followed then India would have been an Islamic state as contemplated by Iqbal. There would have been no periodic massacres of the Muslim minority and that in that case there would have been no need to make Pakistan.

Now let us turn to the second principle of Iqbal, i.e., the principle of equality in the modern Islamic state. To grasp it we have to consider Iqbal’s social and economic ideas. For example, he believed that the Qur’an has prescribed the best remedy for all economic ills of mankind in general. He opposed capitalism with the same vigour with which he opposed socialism as economic systems. But he did not approve of the total expulsion of the forces of capital from the economic order, rather he wanted to confine it within certain specific limits. As for the Muslims, he recommended strict implementation of the Islamic Law of Inheritance and the taking of zakat, ‘ushr and sadqa (various taxes) by the state. Furthermore, through ijtihad, he desired the reinterpretation of other Qur’anic laws pertaining to taxation. For example, there is the Qur’anic command of qul al-‘afw, i.e., give away all that you have earned above your needs for the benefit of the community. But no one will be inclined to give away his surplus wealth voluntarily for public benefit unless the state compels him to do so. In his poem on the Russian Revolution, Iqbal therefore insists, that the Muslims must delve deep into the Qur’an in an attempt to discover the Wisdom of Allah regarding qul al-‘afw. On the basis of this Qur’anic command, he expects the modern Islamic state to improve taxation laws in order to make the state essentially a welfare state and thus realise the ideal of equality. In this connection he has also some other suggestions pertaining to the distribution of land. According to him a landlord, under Islamic law, can only hold as much land as he is able to bring under self-cultivation and surrender the surplus to the state for distribution to the landless tenants. Iqbal also recommends the imposition of agricultural tax on land holdings in parity with the proportion of income tax. Moreover, he wants the implementation of other laws to prohibit the practice of hoarding wealth by ignoring collective rights, accumulating wealth through illegal and illegitimate economic sources, taking interest and indulging in gambling. Iqbal’s concept of equality in a modern Islamic state is more or less identical to the economic ideal of a modern mixed economy. It implies that the state should invest in important industries in the public sector and at the same time accept free economy to a certain extent, by encouraging individual investment in the private sector. But the state must not nationalise industries.

Now, we can consider Iqbal’s third principle of the Islamic state, i.e., the principle of ‘freedom’ (Hurriyat). I have already said that he regards ‘elections’ of legislative assemblies in Muslim states as a return to the original purity of Islam. So what does Iqbal mean by the term democracy? By democracy he obviously means representative or elected assemblies, because such assemblies came into existence through electoral contest among different political parties. Iqbal states that political parties emerged during the times of Khulafa’-i- Rashidin (Caliphs in the early period of Islam). One political group consisted of the Ansar whose candidate contested against Abu Bakr. Similarly, another political faction was that of the Muhajirin (immigrants) who, for the first time, advanced the argument that the Arabs should refuse to accept the leadership of any person who did not belong to the tribe of Quraish. This reasoning is said to have silenced the Ansar. The Ansar’s claim to the leadership was that they had constituted the armies of Islam, therefore the Caliph should be elected from among them. The Muhajirin argued that their candidate would not be acceptable to all the tribes of the Arabs because they did not belong to the tribe of Quraish. Hence, the Caliph must be chosen from the Quraish tribe. The third political faction was that of Banu Hashim. They believed that the Caliph must hail only from the descendants of Prophet Muhammad and, therefore, strongly supported Ali. Thus, it is evident that there were three positions existing after the death of the Holy Prophet.

It is interesting to note that during the electoral confrontation (or rather competition) no party sought the support of the Qur’an or the Hadith (Traditions of the Holy Prophet). The appointment of a successor (Caliph) of the Holy Prophet was a political matter, to be resolved in a political manner. Their approach was pragmatic and republican as well as flexible, since it did not rigidly follow any set precedent. It is against this background that Iqbal gives priority to Ijma‘ (consensus), the present form of which is an elected Muslim Assembly. Ijma‘ is one of the fundamental principles of Ijtihad, the others being the Qur’an, Hadith and Qiyas. Iqbal opines that the right to reinterpretation of Islamic laws and giving them the shape of modern legislation must vested in the elected Muslim Assembly. He is also of the view that a body of Ulema could also be nominated to assist the Assembly as the Assembly may face difficulties in understanding the intricate points of Fiqh. However, he does not give the right of veto to the Ulema considering that their mutual differences could lead to a legislative crisis. His solution to the problem is that members of the Assembly should be acquainted with Fiqh and modern jurisprudence. In other words, the candidates for the Assembly in a modern Islamic state must preferably be lawyers and jurists with a command over Fiqh, because only such a person can perform the task of reinterpreting Islamic laws and their legislation.

Iqbal’s concept of legislation is based on his philosophy of “permanence-in-change”. He explains that only Ibadaat (religious obligations) are permanent and cannot be changed. On the other hand, Mu‘amalaat (worldly affairs) are subject to the law of change. For instance, the timings of prayer cannot be changed, nor can the fasting period of Ramadan. But all laws pertaining to Mu‘amalaat (civil and criminal matters) which fall into the category of worldly Mu‘amalaat can be subjected to the law of change and may be reinterpreted in accordance with changed condition and needs, as well as with the requirements of the Muslim community. Iqbal wants to give this right to the popularly elected Assembly, Parliament or Majlis-e Shura. The task of this new Majlis-e Shura is not to advise the ruler, but to rule. It may make laws in three fields:

1. To amend existing laws so that these should conform to the injunctions of Islam.

2. To implement those Islamic laws which have not yet been enforced and

3. To legislate those laws which are not repugnant to the injunctions of Islam.

The third field is the most important because it is most extensive. Iqbal contends that the Muslims of today ought to follow Hazrat Umar in achieving their objectives of comprehending the spirit of the Qur’an and the real message of Islam for humanity.

WITH ALL THY MIND

By Martin Lings (Shaykh Abu Bakr Siraj al-Din)

It could be said that one of the criteria of orthodoxy in a religion is that it should provide adequate means for the fulfilment of the following commandment in all its aspects: ‘Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with thy entire mind, and with all thy strength.[1]

The most essential part of the commandment is clearly its opening. The heart is the organ of faith, whose higher possibilities are certainty, intellection, gnosis. It is called ‘heart’ because it is as central and vital to the soul as the physical heart is to the body. The function of a centre is always that of attraction and radiation, on the one hand to draw towards it the outlying parts and to keep them knitted together as an integral whole, and on the other to transmit to them, according to the measure and the mode of their varying capacities, what it receives from worlds which lie above and beyond it. To ‘love with all thy heart’ means total love. Mind and soul, which depend ultimately on the heart for love of God, needed separate mention in the commandment only because their domination by the centre was reduced at the Fall to being no more than a virtuality, and because on the path of return to the primordial state of loving ‘with all thy heart’, mind love and soul love have a function of cause? or so it seems? in the process of re awakening heart love, though they could never be fully realized except as a result of that re awakening. The give and the take in question correspond to the interaction of human initiative and Divine Grace. However much the manner of expression may vary, religions are in agreement that a minimum of effort from mind or soul in the direction of the heart, that is, the Transcendent, is guaranteed to call down upon itself a vivifying and growth promoting force out of all proportion to the gesture that released it. But that human gesture needs to be continually repeated.

Loss of direct contact with the heart meant loss of that inward attraction which alone could counterbalance the centrifugal tendencies of the other faculties. Left to their own resources, they were bound to move further and further from the centre and therefore from each other. This process of disintegration, although checked and even partially reversed for brief periods by repeated Divine interventions throughout the course of time, is inevitably now near to reaching its extremities, inasmuch as all traditions agree that we are approaching the end of this temporal cycle; and one of the most striking features of the general disintegration characteristic of modern man is an unparalleled mental independence by reason of which many minds are feverishly active and almost ‘acrobatically’ nimble. The same lack of anchorage makes also for an abnormally hurried superficiality of judgement and conclusion.

It is this mental independence which makes so timely and so necessary the chapter on ‘Understanding and Believing’ in Frithjof Schuon’s Logic and Transcendence [2]. The author focuses our attention on the monstrous yet now not uncommon phenomenon of understanding metaphysical truths in the mind without any assent of belief from the soul, let alone the heart. The only remedy is re integration, since only if the different faculties are knit closer together can the soul be brought within near enough reach of the mind to respond to the light of the doctrine, which is addressed to the mind directly. But mental understanding followed by re integration are as a second and third stage in the path of return. In the present context we are concerned with the preliminary stage of removing obstacles which make it difficult or impossible for the mind to understand. Intelligence has its rights, and these have not always been upheld by the representatives of religion. The mental faculties need to be appeased and re assured ; and to this end religion has no option but to sacrifice certain half-truths, not to speak of mere suppositions and conjectures, which in the past were considered as powerful motives for loving God ‘with all thy soul and with all thy strength.’

A religion’s claim to unique efficacy must be allowed the status of half-truth because there is, in fact, in the vast majority of cases, no alternative choice [3]. In the past it would have been as pointless for a religion to dwell on the validity and efficacy of other religions as it would be for an announcement to be made from an all-capacious lifeboat to those struggling in the waters about it that five miles away there was an equally good lifeboat. The lack of any such acknowledgment did not cause minds to falter in their worship, because each traditional civilization lived for the most part in high walled isolation from other sectors of humanity. Moreover, there is nothing questionable in the general notion that certain religions are defunct and have been superseded by Divine intervention. Nor can it be doubted that pseudo religion is a possibility, since the scriptures themselves speak of false prophets. A mediaeval Christian, for example, was therefore not mentally compromised because he classed Judaism as a superseded religion or because he classed Islam as a pseudo religion. Everyone has a right to be ignorant or mistaken about what takes place in worlds other than his own.

But in the present age the isolating walls have for the most part been broken down. Otherwise expressed, the lifeboats are mostly within reach of each other, and life lines even cross; and minds are inevitably troubled by thoughts which would never have assailed them in the past. In a word, it becomes difficult to dedicate the mind to the worship of God when religious authorities make claims which the intelligence sees to be in direct contradiction with what religion teaches about the nature of God.

It may be objected that if the present situation is new, globally speaking, it none the less existed in the past, if only for relatively small minorities who lived at the frontiers which separated one theocratic civilization from another. For the last thirteen hundred years and more, Christians and Muslims have lived side by side in the Near East, with ample opportunities for seeing that ‘the other religion’ is, in fact, just as genuine as their own. But until recent times the vast majority, including intellectuals, were none the less able, in all peace of mind, to live out their lives in the conviction that their religion alone was truly valid. Why should not the same exclusivism still be compatible with mental serenity?

The answer is partly that the frontiers which separate one perspective from another are not merely geographical. In a theocratic civilization, men are perpetually surrounded by reminders of God and the Beyond; and this produces an ‘inwardness’ which is both individual and collective, and which is itself a kind of isolating wall.[4] The destruction of such walls is an evil; but the virtues they helped to maintain are indispensable and must be supported by other means. The following quotation, though it goes far beyond the context of what we are considering here, is none the less extremely relevant to the question of ‘half truths’ as obstacles to mental co operation in piety.[5]

The usual religious arguments, through not probing sufficiently to the depth of things and moreover not having previously had any need to do so, are psychologically somewhat outworn and fail to satisfy certain requirements of causality. If human societies degenerate on the one hand with the passage of time, they accumulate on the other hand experiences in virtue of old age, however intermingled with errors these may be. This paradox is something that any pastoral teaching intended to be effective should take into account, not by drawing new directives from the general error, but on the contrary by using arguments of a higher order, intellectual rather than sentimental.

Mental dilemma is a more or less inevitable consequence of seeking to maintain, in the modern world, all the details of the average religious perspective which characterized one’s pious ancestors. A striking example of this is to be seen in an article on Jesus which a Jewish Rabbi was recently invited to write in one of our leading newspapers, the purpose of the invitation being to have an opinion which was representative of orthodox Jewry as a whole. The Rabbi’s exposition is based on the question: What prompted Jesus to claim that he was the Messiah? A Jew, he maintains, is well qualified to answer this question in virtue of his special knowledge of the history of his own people, from which he knows that expectations of the Messiah had never been so strong as they were at that particular time. There was a kind of collective wishful thinking in the air which made it almost inevitable that someone would persuade himself and others that he was, in fact, the Lord’s Anointed. The Rabbi goes on to speak appreciatively of Jesus as a man, acknowledges his excellent human qualities, emphasizes his good intentions, and excuses him for his messianic claims.

As a purely psychological explanation of how the Christian religion came into existence, this article opens up the way for someone else to demolish Judaism by exactly the same type of argument. Another point to be noticed is that the author, so it seems, does not dare to think beyond early first century Palestine either in time or in space. He speaks almost as if the crucifixion had only just been perpetrated, closing forever, as it must then have seemed to not a few, one of many chapters in the chronicle of false messianic claims. But what of world history in the last two thousand years? What of the fact that this ‘false messiah’ has taken possession, spiritually speaking, of three continents and half possession of a fourth, while making considerable inroads into the fifth? And what of the God who has allowed this wide spread, long lasting, deep rooted deception to take place?

In other words, a would be demonstration of the falsity of another religion proves to be a boomerang which comes back to strike at the very heart of one’s own religion. For God is the heart of every religion; and a god who would allow deception on such a colossal scale would not be worth worshipping, even by the ‘chosen people whom he had protected against that deception.’

On such a basis, belief can only be kept up by not following certain trains of thought which demand to be followed, and by refusing to draw certain obvious conclusions? in fact by no longer being equipped ‘with all thy mind’, let alone loving God. Such belief is exceedingly precarious; and even if the believer in question can live out his own life in orthodoxy to the end, he has little means of fortifying others, and he is in perpetual danger of finding any day that his sons and his daughters have lapsed into agnosticism or atheism. The anti spiritual pressures of the modem world being what they are? and this applies especially to modern education? the scales are heavily weighted against finding the only true solution, namely a more universal spiritual perspective, which means moving nearer to the Spirit and therefore ‘upstream’ and ‘against the current’. On the other hand, the false solution of agnosticism is simply the next easy step down from misgivings about religion that are based on rationalism and pseudo logic.

It seems to the Jew that to admit the Messianic claims of Jesus would amount to admitting that Judaism has been superseded? and Christians are waiting at the door to tell him that this is indeed the case. He wrongly imagines himself to be faced, practically speaking, with a choice between Judaism and Christianity. But it would be possible? and this is certainly a solution which some orthodox Jews have individually[6] found for themselves? at least to reserve judgement about Jesus, or even to accept in his first coming a foretaste of the final and all fulfilling Messianic advent, while continuing to cling to the God given certainties of the Pentateuch and the Psalms. For Jews who were not swept into Christianity on the crest of its initial wave, the fact that the Messianic mission has not yet been altogether fulfilled can be taken as a sign that Judaism has not yet been superseded and as a justification for remaining faithful to the religion of Moses.

It is relatively easy for the Jew to go half way towards the perspective of religio perennis simply by reserving judgement about other religions. Since Judaism is not a world religion he can, with a clear conscience, leave other sectors of humanity to Providence in the certainty that It will take care of them. The Christian on the other hand feels himself to be the chosen instrument of Providence in this respect, as indeed he is, but within limits. The Church’s refusal to see these limits results in a perspective which, in the modem world, runs dangerously close to the precipice of disbelief.

It is nowsome years since the already mentioned book The Call of the Minaret was published, and there is reason to think that the views of its author have moved since that time in a more universal direction. It is none the less a faithful mirror of the dilemma which faces many Christians, in particular clergymen and more especially missionaries, who come into close contact with Islam, and who cannot help being deeply impressed by its strength and its fullness as a religion. It is impossible for them to persist in calling Muhammad a ‘false prophet’. On the other hand they will not, or as the case may be, dare not, give up their claim that the Passion of Jesus is the sole means of man’s redemption. The point of the book’s title is that the muezzin’s call should be for Christians as a summons to duty, ‘the duty of restoring to Muslims the Christ that they have missed.’ The author adds: ‘The Christ Jesus of the historic faith is an unescapable figure. It is He we must present to the world of Islam ... yet how we are to do this remains a problem and a burden!’ These last words are an understatement. It is almost impossible to make adult Muslims accept the Christian doctrine of redemption, for they already have a full doctrine of Divine Grace and Mercy in another form, and the historic Jesus plays no part in it, although he remains a most benevolent and glorious onlooker. The Qur’an calls him the Word of God and a Spirit from God; and Muhammad testified to his second coming. In the days of the Caliphate, one of the traditional ways of wishing long life to a Caliph was to say to him: May you live long enough to give your government into the hands of Jesus, the son of Mary? Peace be on them both! But it would be impossible to introduce Jesus into the inner structure of Islam, for the building is already complete and perfect. Providence has not been waiting nearly fourteen hundred years for some Christian missionary to lay the foundation stone.

The author in question seems to have certain suspicions along these lines, and sparks of exasperation? or something akin to that? fly out from time to time: ‘Islam has proved in history the supreme displacer of the faith of Christ’, and ‘The rise of Islam will always be a painful puzzle to the Christian mind.’ But although he speaks of ‘transcending difficulties’, there is nothing really transcendent in the book from beginning to end, and that is its weakness. On such a basis, there can clearly be no question of ‘loving with all thy mind’.

The same criticisms cannot be made of A New Threshold[7] by the Bishop of Guildford, because there is at least one remarkable outlet onto universality in a timely quotation from St. Justin Martyr’s Apology, where the uniqueness of Christ as Redeemer is expounded at the level of the Logos and not allowed to trespass upon lower domains which are subject to multiplicity. From this point of view, the act of Redemption belongs to the Divine Nature of Jesus, not to his human nature, and since it thus transcends time and space, it cannot be limited to any historical event. ‘We have been taught that Christ is the First begotten of God, and have testified that he is the Intellect (logos) of which every race of man partakes. Those who lived in accordance with intellect are Christians, even though they were called godless, such as, among the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus and others like them . . . Those who lived by Intellect, and those who so live now, are Christians, fearless and unperturbed’.[8]

In recalling St. Justin’s standpoint as a legitimate one for Christians to take with regard to adherents of other religions, the Bishop of Guildford thereby implicitly assents to its unescapable corollary that the act of Redemption operates in other modes as well as in the specifically Christian mode of the Passion. The contrary claim, that in a world subject to multiplicity the Divine Mercy, by definition Infinite, should be limited to one single effective act is in principle something that a metaphysician cannot readily accept, quite apart from the overwhelming factual evidence against it. Admittedly the majority cannot be sacrificed to a minority; but certain claims which may have ‘worked’ in the past are of an increasingly dubious value for the majority while being lethal to the intellectual minority. There are Christians for whom the Bhagavat Gita comes next to the Gospels and the Psalms as their most reverend book; and this Hindu scripture bears a most eloquent and irrefutable witness to a redeeming Divine Incarnation other than Jesus in the person of Krishna and, by extension, of other Hindu Avataras, including the Buddha. As Frithjof Schuon remarks:[9]

Every exoteric doctrine is in fact characterized by a disproportion between its dogmatic demands and its dialectical guarantees; for its demands are absolute as deriving from the Divine Will and therefore also from Divine Knowledge, whereas its guarantees are relative, because they are independent of this Will and based, not on Divine Knowledge, but on a human point of view, that of reason and sentiment. For instance, Brahmins are invited by Christian missionaries to abandon completely a religion that has lasted for several thousand of years, one that has provided the spiritual support of innumerable generations and has produced flowers of wisdom and holiness down to our times. The arguments that are produced to justify this extraordinary demand are in no wise logically conclusive, nor do they bear any proportion to the magnitude of the demand; the reasons that the Brahmins have for remaining faithful to their spiritual patrimony are therefore infinitely stronger than the reasons by which it is sought to persuade them to cease being what they are. The disproportion, from the Hindu point of view, between the immense reality of the Brahmanic tradition and the insufficiency of the religious counter arguments is such as to prove quite sufficiently that had God wished to submit the world to one religion only, the arguments put forward on behalf of this religion would not be so feeble, nor those of certain so called ‘infidels’ so powerful; in other words, if God were on the side of one religious form only, the arguments put forward on behalf of this religion would be such that no man of good faith would be able to resist it’. To this passage, written for Christians in affirmation of the validity of Hinduism, let us add the following in affirmation of Islam: [10] .....that God could have allowed a religion that was merely the invention of a man to conquer a part of humanity and to maintain itself for more than a thousand years in a quarter of the inhabited world, thus betraying the love, faith, and hope of a multitude of sincere and fervent souls? this is contrary to the Laws of the Divine Mercy, or in other words, to those of Universal Possibility ....If Christ had been the only manifestation of the Word, supposing such a uniqueness of manifestation to be possible, the effect of His birth would have been the instantaneous reduction of the universe to ashes.

To consider now the limitations of Muslim exoterism, it must be remembered that from its stronghold of finality as the last religion of this cycle of time, Islam, unlike Judaism and Christianity, can afford to be generous to other religions. Moreover its position in the cycle confers on it something of the function of a summer up, which obliges it to mention with justice what has preceded it, or at the least to leave an open door for what it does not specifically mention.

Verily We have sent messengers before thee[11] About some of them have We told thee, and about some have We not told thee.[12]
We may quote also:
Verily the Faithful[13] and the Jews and the Sabians[14] and the Christians whoso believeth in God and the Last Day and doeth deeds of piety no fear shall come upon them neither shall they grieve.[15]

There is a place for both Judaism and Christianity with in the Islamic civilization, and Muslims are obliged to protect the synagogues and churches and other Jewish and Christian sanctuaries. It was a calamity for Spanish Jews when the Christians re conquered Spain.

It has to be admitted, however, that the authorities of Islam have been no less ready than their counterparts in other religions to risk ‘with all thy mind’ for the sake of ‘With all thy soul and with all thy strength’. Muslims have been encouraged to believe, and the majority have been only too eager to believe, that Islam has superseded all other religions and that it is therefore the sole truly valid religion on earth. But however absolute the claims of Muslim theologians and jurisprudents may be, they are shown in fact to be relative by the tolerance which Islam makes obligatory towards Judaism and Christianity. Taken with that ‘grain of salt’? though few are fully conscious of it? the claims in question are not necessarily unpalatable to the intelligence, and are not bound to prevent an intellectual from loving God with all his mind, provided he remain within the walls of the Islamic civilization, which stop him from seeing the full implications of this exclusivism.

But once outside these walls, the situation is different. The most that a sound intelligence can accept are the claims which naturally result from the fact that Islam represents the most recent Divine intervention upon earth. But these claims, though considerable, are relative, not absolute[16] and a Muslim intellectual in the modern world will not find peace of mind except by assenting to this. It should not however be difficult for him to do so, for a glance at those passages of the Qur’an on which the theologians’ exclusivism is based shows that the verses in question call for a deeper and more universal interpretation than is generally given.

One of these passages is the following:
He it is who hath sent His messenger with guidance and the religion of Truth, that He may make it prevail over all religion, though the idolaters be averse.[17]

This verse can be given a narrower or a wider interpretation. Its more immediate meaning is clearly the narrower one: the messenger is Muhammad, the religion of Truth is the Quranic message and the idolaters are the pagan Arabs, Persians, Berbers, and certain other pagans. But what of the words that He may make it prevail over all religion? It is here that the crux of the matter may be said to lie.

Whatever the disadvantages of modern education, it serves to implant a more global concept of world history and geography than is normally held by members of traditional civilisations which tend, as we have seen, to be ‘aloof’ and ‘introspective’. The wider knowledge is a mixed blessing, but where it exists it must be taken into account. An intelligent Muslim, living in the modern world, is bound to realize sooner or later, suddenly or gradually, not only that the Quranic message has not been made to prevail over all religion[18], but also that Providence itself is directly responsible for the ‘short coming’. The shock of this realization may shatter his belief, unless he be enabled to understand that the verse in question has a wider significance. In the narrower sense, all religion can only be taken to mean ‘all religion in your part of the world’. But if all religion be interpreted in an absolute sense, and if idolaters be made to include such people as the Germans and Celts, many of whom were still pagan at the outset of Islam, then the religion of Truth must also be given its widest application, and the words ‘once again’ must be understood. (i. e. He it is who hath sent once again His messenger . . . ), for the Divinity has sent messengers before, and never with anything other than the religion of Truth. These last four words, like the term Islam itself, can be taken in a universal sense, to include all true religion. The Qur’an makes it clear that the religions of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses and Jesus may be called ‘Islam! in its literal meaning of ‘submission to God’. In this sense Islam may be said to have been made to prevail over all religion. But in its narrower sense Islam has only been allowed to prevail over all religion in a limited part of the world. It is now fourteen hundred years since the revelation of the Qur’an and Providence has allowed non Quranic modes of the religion of Truth to remain as barriers to the Quranic message in more than half the globe.

In the same context, verses affirming that Muhammad has been sent for all people[19] have to be understood in a less monopolizing way than they have been throughout the centuries by Muslims with little or no general knowledge about other religions and their distribution. What the Qur’an tells us here is that Islam, unlike Judaism or Hinduism, is a world religion. But it is not denying that Buddhism and Christianity are also world religions, that is, open to everybody, at least in principle. These last words are important, for God doth what He will[20], and our only means of knowing His Will in this respect are by the results[21]. With regard to the world as it has been in its geographical distribution of peoples for the last two thousand years, it will not escape the notice of an observant Muslim any more than an observant Christian that there is, spatially speaking, a certain sector in which Providence has worked wonders for Buddhism and done relatively little for either Christianity or Islam. The same Muslim will also notice that there is another sector in which Providence has worked wonders for Christianity and done very little for the other world religions; and the fact that between these two sectors there is a third in which Islam has been favoured beyond all other religions will not be enough to exonerate him from changing his perspective. For if, as he had been led to believe, God had truly wished Islam (in the narrower sense) to spread over the whole world, why did He construct such impregnable barriers to it in so vast an area?[22]

To take the nearest example, Providence was putting an end to paganism in England at the very time when the Qur’an was being revealed. The religion of Truth, in its Christian mode, was being made to prevail over all religion, although the idolaters were averse; and since a Divine intervention is never mediocre, Christianity was being established on the firmest foundations, so that not even the Quranic message, at the height of the power of the Islamic civilization, could come near to prevailing against it. And yet it would have been easy for Providence to have waited a few years and converted England to the new religion instead of setting up there such a resistance to it. The answer to the ‘problem’, if anyone considers it to require an answer, lies in the following verse, which many consider to be among the last Revelations received by the Prophet and which in any case belongs to the period which marks the close of his mission. As such it coincides with a cyclic moment of extreme significance? the last ‘opportunity’[23] for a direct message to be sent from Heaven to earth during what remains of this cycle of time. Many of the last Quranic revelations are concerned with completing and perfecting the new religion. But this verse is a final and lasting message for mankind as a whole. The Qur’an expressly addresses the adherents of all the different orthodoxies on earth; and no message could be more relevant to the age in which we live and, in particular, to the mental predicament of man in these later days.

For each of you We have appointed a law and a way. And if God [24] had willed He would have made you one people. But (He hath willed it otherwise) that He may put you to the test in what He has given you.[25] So vie with one another in good works. Unto God will ye be brought back, and He will inform you about that wherein ye differed.[26]

Notes and References

[1]St. Mark, XII, 30. In Deuteronomy VI, 5, to which this is a reference, the element ‘mind’ is not mentioned, which makes no fundamental difference since the mind is strictly speaking a psychic faculty, and is therefore implicit in the word ‘soul’. In St. Matthew, XXII, 37, on the other hand, the element ‘strength’ is absent which again makes no difference inasmuch as physical energy and endurance are dominated by the will, which is also a psychic faculty.

[2] Ch. XII (Harper and Row, 1975).

[3] As Frithjof Schuon has remarked, for those who come face to face with the founder of a new religion, the lack of alternative choice becomes as it were absolute in virtue of the correspondingly absolute greatness of the Divine Messenger himself. It is moreover at its outset, that is, during its brief moment of ‘absoluteness’, that the claims of a religion are for the most part formulated. But with the passage of time there is inevitably a certain levelling out between the new and the less new, the more so in that the less new may have special claims on certain people.

[4]‘Aloof’ and ‘introspective’ are the epithets applied by Kenneth Cragg to the Eastern Churches, whom he severely criticizes in The Call of the Minaret for having done practically nothing throughout the centuries to convert the Islamic East to Christianity. It does not seem to occur to him that the qualities in question, though inconvenient for missionaries, are nearer to virtue than to vice. Moreover, the ‘aloofness’ may well be in part a subconscious unwillingness to ‘rush in where angels fear to tread’.

[5]Frithjof Schuon, Islam and the Perennial Philosophy, World of Islam Festival Publishing Company, London, 1976; repr. Lahore: Suhail Academy, 2000, p. 53.

[6] For the ideal collective attitude of Judaism to Christianity, and for the reasons why it could never be realized, see Frithjof Schuon, Islam and the Perennial Philosophy, p. 58.

[7]This booklet, with the subtitle, ‘Guidelines for the Churches in their relations with Muslim Communities’ has recently been published to coincide with the World of Islam Festival.

[8]First Apology, Section 46. For the word ‘Reason, as translation of logos, we have substituted ‘Intellect’.

[9]The Transcendent Unity of Religion (Harper and Row, 1975), p. 14. The title ‘With All Thy Mind’ makes the many references to Frithjof Schuon inevitable because his writings lead the way in giving the mind its due in respect of religion. Not that they are limited to the mind, any more than the mind, in the context of ‘with all thy mind’, can be limited to itself, since to be fully operative its higher reaches depend directly on the heart. It is to the mind, to the intermediary intellective faculties, and to the heart that Frithjof Schuon’s writings are above all addressed? a domain covered by the words Logic and Transcendence which might serve in a sense as a title for most of his books as they do in fact for one. To avoid giving a false impression, however, it must be added, as regards the soul, that while demolishing certain outworn human arguments which have in the past served the cause of ‘with all thy soul’, he puts other arguments of a higher order in their place. Few writers, if any, have so clearly demonstrated the importance of sacred art in this respect. And who in recent centuries has written so profoundly and unmoralistically about the necessity of virtue?

[10]ibid, p. 20.

[11]Muhammad.

[12]Qur’an, XL, 78.

[13]Muslims.

[14]There is no general consensus of opinion as to what religion is referred to, and certain Muslim rulers, in India and elsewhere, have made the name in question a loophole for tolerance towards their non Muslim, non Christian and non Jewish subjects.

[15]V, 69.

[16]An orthodox Jew, for example, deeply in love with the Hebrew Psalms, would be justified in hesitating to give up his religion for one that was based on a Revelation in a language he did not know; and he could use Quranic argument to justify himself.

[17] IX, 33.

[18]The verse we are considering is parallel to the words of Christ, ‘This Gospel of the Kingdom shall be preached in all the world. Then shall the end come,’ which likewise admit of both a limited and a universal interpretation, according to what is understood by ‘world’. In its wider sense (as well as the narrower one) the first part of this prophecy has now come true inasmuch as every people on earth is now within easy reach of the gospel of the Kingdom, that is, the religion of Truth, in at least one of its modes.

[19] XXXIV, 28.

[20] II, 253.

[21]That is, the great and lasting results which have been put to the test by centuries of time.

[22]The answer of some Muslim theologians to this question has been, in all seriousness, that Almighty God has evidently decided to send the larger part of humanity astray, and that it is not for us to question His Wisdom. But faith on this basis can never be more than fragmentary. By such logic the mind surreptitiously robs itself of love, while turning a blind eye to some of the most essential Attributes of the Object of love. Another ‘explanation’, shared also by Christians, mutatis mutandis, is that the ‘religion of Truth’ (understood in a non universal sense) will in fact finally prevail over the whole world. Veritas omnia vincit. But if only one religion had been valid in the eyes of Heaven for the last thousand years or more, the expectation of a sudden total triumph of that true religion at the end of the cycle could not be enough to appease the mind, that is, it could not convincingly ‘exonerate’ Providence from having allowed false religion to triumph so far and wide for so long.

[23] God doth what He will. But it is clearly in the interests of man that a Divine intervention which founds a new religion should be overwhelmingly recognizable as such. The accompanying guarantees must be too tremendous, and too distinctive, to leave room for doubts in any but the most perverse, which means that certain kinds of things must be kept in reserve as the special prerogative of such a period. The Qur’an refers to this ‘economy’ when it affirms that questions which are put to God during the period of Revelation will be answered (V, 101), the implication being that after the Revelation has been completed, questions will no longer be answered so directly. It is as if a door between Heaven and earth were kept open during the mission of a Divine Messenger, to be closed at all other times.

[24]The change from first to third person with regard to the Divinity is frequent in the Qur’an.

[25] If He had sent only one religion to a world of widely differing affinities and aptitudes, it would not have been a fair test for all. He has therefore sent different religions, specially suited to the needs and characteristics of the different sectors of humanity.

[26]V, 48.