Iqbal on Politics…

And on this grand occasion, I’d like to quote Iqbal’s couplet which everyone tends to forget:

jalaal-e-paadshahi ho ya jamhoori tamasha ho
juda ho deen siyasat se tu reh jati hai changezi”



18 thoughts on “Iqbal on Politics…”

  1. Thanks for giving me a chance… lol!

    “jalaal-e-paadshahi ho ya jamhooree tamasha ho
    judaa ho deen siyaasat se tu reh jaati hai changaizee”

  2. By The Way, Changaiz Khan was a deep religious person. He was follower of “Shamanism”. It is right however that this religion was not so organized. It is not right to call it a “deen”. But Changaiz had a religious soul. When Muslim Caliph of Baghdad mistreated with Ambassedors of Changaiz … and Changaiz came to know about it … he alone climbed up to top of a hill where he sweared before his “heaven god” that he will take revenge.

    His words were … “if sun alone can rule the heaven, then Khan alone can rule the earth!”

  3. So, taking revenge, destroying the amazing libararies and killing people just to take revenge from one person for treating his ambassadors badly?!

    Anyway, the idea here is when deen gets confined only to praying five times or just saying Kalimah and removing it from every sphere of life, people get barabric. They lost “tahmeez” for everything. They don’t know where legal bounds end and illegal ones start. And seeing your own country these days.. I guess you cannot fail to see the barabaric or the “changezi” attitude of “ruling the earth” and power be all mine and trying to be gods on earth not knowing there’s a God above them all and it doesn’t take Him more than a moment to pull their strings.

    So, today, US is trying to be changaiz, mushy is all changaizi… it’s about justice and equality. And when we talk about Iqbal, we talk about his religious inclination. Islam. We have our own system. We cannot talk things out of the religious context. We have better examples than Changaiz Khan and secular system or communism.

  4. Changaiz himself had not conquered or destroyed Baghdad. This task was accomplished by his successor Halaku Khan. Anyways, from time to time Muslims rulers also have been burning and destroying books and libraries. A famous example is buring up of copies 54 booklets of “Al-akhwan-al-safah” i.e. a group of Muslim scientists of Iraq, by the Muslim ruler. Muslim rulers of Spain also destroyed many books and libraries of their own Muslim scholars.

    Muslim downfall had this type of reasons also. And there is no good example of Islamic religion based Political rule in our contemporary world. One example is Saudia. Everyone knows that Saudi rulers only use the name of Islam just in order to legitimize their rule. They had come to power as a result of an agreement with Britain. They had supported Britain against Ottomon Caliph of Turkey. Currently they are under the safe shelter of USA. As per their agreement with USA, Saudia’s security is the responsibility of USA. USA is in need to extend security “services” because major part of oil reserves of Saudia are under the direct control of USA. Saudi rulers are happy with the “royalties” which they use to maintain their lucrative lifestyle.

    Taliban rule in Afghanistan is the second example. Their vision of Islam is confined to just enforcement of Islamic penal laws. Their concept of Islamic penal laws is also questionable. They insist on physical punishments for such things as not keeping beared or not offering prayers. But they forget that Quran doesn’t authorize human authorities to give physical punishments in those matters that relate to Haqooq-Allah. Thus Quranic Punishments like for Murder, Rape, Theft etc. etc. all relate to only Haqooq-ul-Ibad matters.

    To punish humans, in the matters of Haqooq-Allah is actually the sole authority of only God. In this way, those Taliban type people want to take the authority of God also in their hands. And I think, extemists are actually those people who want to take authority of God in their own hands.

    Gen. Zia tried to enforce Islamic rule. But he had to face the biggest issue of “which sect brand” of Islam? His 11 years rule resulted in the social evil of growing secterianism. He made “Majlis-e-Shura”. But practical role of Majlis-e-Shura had been just to verify or endorse the orders of dictator.

    Allama Iqbal was a great scholar. If he is supporter of religion based politics, then he should have proposed a detailed structure of a workable political system. But do you think that extremist type leaders of Muslims would have accepted his proposals … offcourse which had to be based on combination of various Western Ideologies???

    I only want to say that individuals should try to live as per islamic teachings at their own. Government also should be run within the framework of Islamic principles. But government should have no right to “impose” or “enforce” Islam. Because it will not work!

  5. The idea that Allama Iqbal articulated alot of images, philosophy in all his works, he yet had the ideal of Islam seared in his works. He may have been an admirer of Neitchze and Lenin or Shakespeare or Goethe, we see Religious, and I’m talking about Islam here, ideals more porminent in his works. He might have favoured Nietzche in Javid Nama but later in his works he realised Nietchze’s shortcoming as he says:
    “Iqbal usko samjhata maqaam-e-kibriya kia hai”
    And when we talk about religion in affairs of the state, we don’t look at today’s World, we go as back as Hazrat Umar (RAU) ‘s time which is considered to be the role model for all of us. and please don’t give me “that was 1400 years ago and non applicable today”.. this is the most cliched and the most stupid argument that one can put forward. Islam is not about motor bikes and camels. It’s beyond that and unfortunately the we haven’t realised that. We get education in the Western oriented fields. And we pertain to Orientalists’ views of Life, Islam and all resulting in a confused Muslim of today who writes on topics and present views like that of Mohsin Hamid’s or Khaled Hossein and tada…. Islam is soo fanatic and all.
    We have to realise that Islam is not praying five times a day, it goes beyond that!

  6. Period of Hazrat Umer (RA) was relatively simple. There were no four plus fiqas. There were no books of Ahadith. Now situation is that Muslims have been divided into many sects. Different groups follow different fiqas. Every sect is having supporting ahadith references which others may not accept. Ulemas are having opposite positions. Ulemas cannot unite even on worldly matters like on parlimentary politics. They had united on MMA plateform by NOT setting aside their differences on religious creed. They had stayed on their own secterian creeds and had joined a single plateform only for getting success in parlimentary politics.

    Now Muslims all over the world do not live in a single country. There are 40 plus Muslim National states. Greatest concentration of Muslim population lives in India. I happened to read a book written by an Indian Muslim. He had complaint against Pakistan that by naming it “Islamic Republic of Pakistan”, Pakistani leaders have created numerious difficulties for minority muslims of India.

    Anyways, some useless struggles already have been made for a global pan-islamic state. This idea didn’t work. People do prefer Nationalities to even religious brotherhood. I have a well educated sincere Muslim friend. He surprized me by his degrading comments about Bengladeshi people. Even Balochi people do not like Punjabi people.

    We live in an extreme plural world. After all we will have to respect other people’s opinions and views. It is not possible to enforce single opinion on all the others. And in order to make it possible, one (individual, or nation) should be more powerful than USA and allied forces!

    They are having power of technology. They are the inventors of technology. We are just users of technology. They are so proud of their inventions that some of them have theorized that Western mind is superior to Eastern mind.

    We are under the bar of their scientific and technological blessings on us.They have totally changed our lifestyles. Even our Mosques also use their technology. If we cannot pay thanks to them, then at least we should try to return them somethings from our side as well. For it, we will have to look in forward direction. Period of Hazrat Umer (RA) was really a Golden period. But that period has never come again in Muslim history. Muslims themselves have killed their third Caliph (Hazrat Osman ra) and fourth Caliph (Hazrat Ali ra). Then Muslims also killed Holy members of Ahl-e-Bait. Time that goes, never come again. We can derive principles out of that golden time. And that golden past can always guide us. But present world has its own dynamics. We cannot close our eyes for present day challenges!

  7. So, the shortcomings are that of Muslims. Everyone eating the other out and calling others “kafirs” just because they say “Ameen” loudly after the Imam recites Surah Fatiha in the prayer or perhaps because one is not wearing shalwar Kameez to namaz! Or perhaps because one doesn’t have a beard. Or they won’t pray behind an imam because they don’t like his beard! There are four schools of thought not because they want to make it hard for you, they are there to make things easier for us all. In Makkah University, they teach students all four and in the end they tell them either you can confine yourself to one or perhaps you can come up with a better understanding and follow that. And these students they maek their decisions with this strong “ilm” that they recieve. Whereas in our “Islamic” state, every one is a “khalifa”. They pass out judgements without proper knowledge of “deen”.

    It is us that have this lack of knowledge and understanding. The four schools of thought is not to make life hell for you, it’s there to make it easier but our so called “enlightened” rulers and some sect’s leaders fail to understand that. I’m sorry to say but our own political leaders and specially those of MMA put a great show of vandalizing the image of ISlam in the eyes of the masses. People don’t trust them anymore.

    We talk about nationalism. (This is what I hated about Mohsin Hamid’s book). Anyway, nationalism is the posion for us all. Holy PRophet migrated to Madinah, left his “country” and made Madinah the center from where ISlam spread out. The idea was to barr nationalism. But look at us, we have our priorities set wrong. For a Muslim, Kalimah, Allah and Muslims come first. But do they?! In Pakistan we still have thsoe “muhajir, sindhi, punjabi, balochi” clashes. Even in Saudi Arabia, people look down upon non-saudis. The Hadith which says that no one os above another except for Taqwa or the one which says that muslims are like a body if one feels pain the other too feels pain. The kernel is gone. Nationalism has taken first place in our lives!

    The treasure of Knowledge was taken away from Muslims, because in Baghdad then, the most important topic of debate was “how many angels can dance on the tip of a pencil” and the uelma used to fight on it! We have fallen to things which should not be our concern.

    The debate would go on. The answer is simple to evrything. We’ve fallen short of knowledge. We do strive to get educated in all other fields but we dont try to learn arabic just in order to understand what’s in the revealed book!

  8. Javed Ghamidi, on various TV Channels is trying to show that modern decmocracy is not inconsistent with Islamic concept of government.

    He talks in terms of individual life and National life (or collective life). He says that indiduals can seek direct guidance from Quran and Ahadith etc. for those matters which relate with their individual lives.

    But for the matters of collective or national life, individuals must surrender before the collective point of view of whole nation. And that collective opinion comes from democratic vote. According to him, this collective opinion may apparently seem to be inconsistent with any islamic principle. But he says that whatever collective opinion comes up to the islamic concept of “shura”.

    Above were his points in Geo TV’s program “Ghamidi onlinline” dated March 2, 2008 (yesterday).

  9. why do we always end up trying to make Islam come up to the standards of “secular” systems?! upto the standards of the Western Idea of discourses?!

  10. Perhaps Islam has not given any specific “structure” of government. Islam should be there in “soul” or “essence” of any structure. For example First Caliph, Hazrat Abu Bakar RA, was “selected” by the nobels of Quresh. Then all Muslims took bait in his hands. But second Caliph was “Nominated” by the first Caliph. So there is difference in “structure” of both types of rule. First was the structure of “selection” and the second was “nomination”. But both rules had the “soul” or “essence” of Islam. It is useless to criticize any “structure” of Government.

    It can be explained with the help of another example. After first four Caliphs, Banu Ommayad took the charge of Caliphate. They introduced a major change in the “structure” of Caliphate by making it a “family based dynasty”.

    It is true that generally Muslim Scholars do not like Ommayad rule. But it is also a fact that Muslim Scholars, unanimously, consider the rule of an Ommayad Caliph Hazrat Umer bin Abdul-Azeez as a “true” Islamic rule. Now see that here “structure” of government was quite different with the structure of rule of Khulafa-e-Rashideen. But still then rule of Hazrat Umer bin Abdul-Azeer is regarded as true Islamic rule.

    So there is nothing to worry about the structure of government. Structures may come and go. Better structures also can be evolved over time. Islam has apparently allowed changes in the structure.

    Only need is to try to induce Islamic spirit, soul or essence into any government … even if it is modern democracy!

  11. and I repeat:

    “jalaal-e-paadshahi ho ya jamhooree tamasha ho
    judaa ho deen siyaasat se tu reh jaati hai changaizee”

    Here Iqbal is talking about the paradigm of his religion i.e. Islam.
    Today we have defaulters, frauds, and the most ignorant as the leaders of our nation. Reminds me of the Hadeeth which I posted a few days back.

  12. Well, I also could repeat it. But I have objection that Changez was not non-religious person.

    My point of view is that inclusion of ignorant version of any deen in sayasat of any form of government will result in “Changezi”.

    Period of Hazrat Umer RA was the best. Because true religion was included in whatever form of politics.

    But I don’t like Mula Umer’s rule. Because an ignorant form and style of religion is included in whatever form of politics.

    Secondly … ignorant type religious politics se to secularism he behter hai!

    Like … nadan dost se dana dushman behter hota hai!

  13. Anti-argument and anti-rationality … both are same things. Allama Iqbal was an anti-rationalist. He has great influence. So there is nothing to wonder why so many teachers oppose arguments.

    I remember a Quranic verse:

    “Hatu Burhanakum in-kuntum sadiqeen”. (I don’t remember exact referecnce … so sorry)

    Here “Burhan” means “daleel” … means “argument” in English.

    This verse says in English:

    “Bring argument if you are right!”


  14. There’s a difference in “Burhan”,”Daleel” and in “Argument”.
    And that difference cannot be captured in the above translation from Arabic to English. It has cultural connotations. And doing English has made me realised that WORDS can NEVER be TRANSLATED with their full meaning in them.
    Time and again in the Holy Quran, Allah says that they’ll never agree with you, so when you meet people who just care about the “Behes”, Say “PEACE”(Salama). Because they don’t have eyes to see nor ears to listen and certianly not aqal to understand. Because no matter what you’ll say to them, they’ll not be convinced by you, they’ll argue you for the arguments’ sake. Behes barai behes as we say in Urdu. Jaise TV k talk shows mein dikhate hain, behes hoti hai, public confuse hojtai hai aur phir program ka time khatam hojata hai.

    In our religion, we talk about Aql which can never be translated as “rationality”.

    When we talk about Iqbal and his “mention” of DEEN or MAZHAB in his poetry, we know that he’s talking about ISLAM in particular.

  15. A day before yesterday, I was watching Ghamidi’s program with Talat Hussain on “Aaj” tv. Ghamidi said TV (or any other form of) debates cannot result in consensus of opinion. It is not possible, as he said. Only possible thing is to learn the art of living with other people who can have slightly different points of views.

    Then I searched google with keywords “Javed Ahmed Ghamidi”. It was surprising (and in another sense “not surprizing”) to see some websites where he is being referred to as “Fitna-e-Ghamidi” sort of things.

    Anyways, negative use of arguments is possible. But it is possible in front of ordinary or ignorant people. Highly educated or true rational people can’t be supposed to be deceived by false or ill-intended argumernts.

    Argument is a way through which human mind reaches to right decision. Capabilities of mind are the gifts of God. We must pay right honour to God gifts!

  16. In Holy Prophet’s time, different viewpoints were welcomed. In Ghazwa-e-Khandaq, the idea of making the trenches was of Hazrat Suleiman Farsi and some people didnt agree with it. And different viewpoints have always been approved BUT the question then comes of what kind?

    I would not call celebrating the 12th of Rabiul Awwal as a different view point. That’s a Bid’aa. Holy Prophet never did it in his lifetime neither did his companions after his death. So why now?! There are other things where DIfferent View Points are UNACCEPTABLE case of Islam. There has to be a line drawn between different view points and “BID’AAT”.

    Faith, and Imaan on Allah is not just based on rationality. it’s SUPRA- RATIONAL. And we should go beyond the realms of Rationality that Plato has put forward. For Muslims, definations of rationality, emotions, passions etc shouldn’t come from the Greeks, ROme or European discourses. It should come from the religion. again I would give the example of Aql. It’s not what West would translate as Rational. Allah Ta’la has given us Aql and we should use it! I’m not denying the use of it. I’m just against the Western institutionalization of all the human traits and the discourses.

    About Ghamidi, I’d rather go to some other person who’s more informed.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s