[This is the speech of Javed Ahmed Ghamidi, which he delivered on November 9, 2004, at the annual ceremony of the Markaziya Majlis-e-Iqbal at Alhamra Hall, Lahore.]
Iqbal’s voice was the most beautiful voice of this era. He is our unparalleled poet, thinker, and sage. If we called him the Poet of the East, the Interpreter of Reality, and the Sage of the Nation, we would not be wrong. There is no doubt that even today, whenever the caravans of Muslims set out on a journey, it is Iqbal’s voice that serves as their Bang-e-Dara (The Call of the Caravan Bell). Similarly, whenever the youth aspire to soar high, they still strive to acquire wings for their flight from Bal-e-Jibril (The Wing of Gabriel). We acknowledge these truths about Iqbal. We hum his verses, listen to essays and speeches about his life and thoughts, compose odes in his honor, and pay homage to him in gatherings held in his memory. At this Iqbal Day event, if I also dedicate my words to the praise of Iqbal, it will not be an exercise in futility. However, in my view, the topic that deserves the most attention at this moment is: Where do we stand after Iqbal?
The first issue we face after Iqbal is whether the concept of nationalism presented by him corresponds with the ground realities, or whether it is an ideal that can never be achieved.
We know that Iqbal sang the songs of nationalism for a period, but then the time came when he forcefully presented the concept of Muslim nationhood. He made people understand that in Islam, the foundation of nationality is not color, race, or homeland, but Islam itself. In his essays, poetry, and lectures, he articulated this theme, if we borrow the words of Mir Anis, indeed in a hundred hues. You will recall these verses from his poem “Nationalism as a Political Concept.” He has said:
In this age, the wine is new, the cup is new, the brim is new, The idols shaped by culture’s hand wear quite a different hue. Among these newborn gods today, the greatest is the state, The robe it wears, alas, becomes religion’s burial gate.
He went to such an extent in this matter that when a venerable scholar like Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madani once mentioned that nations are formed by homelands, he sternly admonished:
The non-Arab still does not know the subtle secrets of faith, Otherwise, from Deoband’s Hussain Ahmad, this wonder wouldn’t take shape. He chants from the pulpit that the nation is born of land, How unaware he is of the lofty station of Muhammad of Arabia!
Today, our new generations question us: if the universal concept of Muslim nationalism given by Iqbal is correct, then what is the meaning of the borders between Muslim countries? What is the status of the millions of Muslims remaining in India? What is the reason that when refugees from Bangladesh and Afghanistan arrived in the Pakistan envisaged by the visionary of Pakistan, they were refused to be considered citizens of this country? What is the reason that today our nation’s slogan is “Pakistan first”?
Iqbal’s son, Javed Iqbal, in his book Apna Girebaan Chaak, wrote a letter to his father, drawing attention to similar ground realities. Addressing his father, he mentioned that when you went to England and I requested you to bring me an English musical instrument, even this simple wish of mine clashed with your lofty, celestial thoughts.
You replied:
Take not the favors of the glassmakers of the West, From India’s clay, make your own cup and crest. My path is not of kings, but of the poor and free, Sell not your soul — earn fame in poverty!
He wrote that even today, similar ground realities confront this community. What do you have to say about them? Following this, he identified those highly important issues that the muslim community is currently facing. It was necessary for our intellectuals to pay attention to these issues highlighted by the son of Iqbal. However, it is regrettable that no one focused on them, nor did anyone take note of them. And Dr. Sahab too, perhaps thinking that if Iqbal were to respond to his letter now, he would likely say:
Neither am I Afghan, nor Turk, nor Tatar,
We are from the same garden and from the same branch.
In any case, the conflict between theory and practice regarding the universal concept of nationality has taken the form of an unsolvable problem in the minds of our new generation. What is the solution to this problem? This is the first question.
The second issue is that the dream Allama Iqbal envisioned for the revival of the past glory of Muslims, though it was very beautiful and captivating, is the approach we have adopted so far to realize this dream correct, or is there a need to change it?
To restore past glory, the strategy we adopted has always had two aspects: first, we endeavored by all possible means to bring scholars into the corridors of power, and secondly, we encouraged Muslims at every opportunity to engage in jihad and combat, inspiring them to fight to the death. The outcomes of the first effort are evident in various forms: in Saudi Arabia, the movement initiated by Muhammad bin Abdul Wahab transformed into a monarchy, in Iran, this experiment turned into papacy, and in Afghanistan, the struggle for the implementation of Islam manifested in the form of clergy rule. Therefore, in the words of Iqbal, Muslims today are still deserving of the same address: ائے کشتۂ سلطانی و مالئی و پیری.
As far as the second effort is concerned, you can see its results everywhere from Iraq to Afghanistan and from Palestine to Chechnya.
Did Iqbal also propose the same strategy for the recovery of past grandeur, or was it different, and if the strategy he proposed was indeed this, then what guidance do the outcomes derived from it provide us? This is the second question.
The third issue is that Iqbal intensely felt that the current structure of Sharia is neither suitable for the propagation of Islam nor for its implementation. Consequently, he addressed this matter fundamentally in his book “The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam.” He also cataloged the important practical issues for which the existing structure of Sharia offers no solution. This list can still be seen in the Iqbal Museum today. Iqbal’s concern was entirely justified, but the tragedy is that no one considered it worthy of attention.
It was necessary for us to thoroughly examine the Shariah and the principles of its derivation, determine the places for research and investigation, discover the paths of ijtihad, and formulate a jurisprudence for ourselves that, on one hand, aligns precisely with the Qur’an and Sunnah, and on the other hand, addresses the issues of the modern era in a satisfactory manner. However, contrary to this, we adopted a rigid approach of imitation, deciding to cling to those very laws that our ancient jurists had formulated according to the needs of their times. The result of this is that what we have propagated and implemented in the name of Islamic Shariah is so ludicrous that it cannot be convincingly accepted by the intelligent elements of our own nation, nor can it be presented with confidence to the non-Muslim nations of the world. Is our approach correct, or should we adopt a different method in this matter? This is the third question.
These are the questions that we are currently facing at the level of the Ummah. I want to draw the attention of the Majlis-e-Iqbal to engage the intelligent elements of the nation on these issues. The nature of these issues is not merely the mistakes of individuals; in reality, they have become the sins of the nation. Iqbal’s assertion is entirely justified that:
Nature may overlook the errors of individuals
Never does it forgive the sins of the nation.