In
the Name of Allah, the Entirely Merciful, the Especially Merciful
The
poet and philosopher Sir Muhammad Iqbal (1877-1938) is widely
respected throughout the Muslim world for his contribution to Islamic
thought. However, I am of the opinion that Iqbal’s ideas are
extremely harmful for the Muslim world and that he promoted the
cancer of modernism and materialism by deceptively giving them an
Islamic coloring.
Iqbal
once described the founder of the Ahmadiyya movement in Islam, Hadrat
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian (d. 1908) as “probably the profoundest
theologian among modern Indian Muslims.” (Indian Antiquary, vol.
29, September 1900, p. 239)
Regrettably,
Iqbal later changed his view and became an opponent of the Ahmadiyya
movement and its respected founder. The booklet Islam and Ahmadism
was authored by Iqbal where he states his objections and arguments to
the Ahmadiyya in a reply to an inquiry on the subject by Pandit
Jawahar Lal Nehru (1889-1964), India’s first Prime Minister.
In
this entry, I shall analyze this booklet and respond to the
fallacious objections raised by Iqbal against Hadrat Mirza and the
Ahmadiyya movement:
In
the first attack on the Ahmadiyya in this booklet, Iqbal states: “the
Pandit and the Qadianis [Ahmadiyya], perhaps because both inwardly
resent, for different reasons, the prospects of Muslim political and
religious solidarity particularly in India.” (p.9)
Iqbal
explains this further: “It is equally obvious that the Qadianis,
too, feel nervous by the political awakening of the Indian Muslims,
because they feel that the rise of political prestige of the Indian
Muslims is sure to defeat their designs to carve out from the Ummat
of the Arabian Prophet a new Ummat for the Indian prophet.”
(pp.9-10)
In
this latter statement Iqbal has compounded one false allegation
against the Ahmadiyya with an ever more grievous one. He claims that
the Ahmadiyya movement “resent” and is “nervous” about a
political awakening and solidarity among the Indian Muslims.
Secondly, and more seriously, he fabricates a baseless allegation
that the Ahmadiyya seek to “carve out” a new Ummah from the Ummah
of the Prophet Muhammad (Sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam). Iqbal has
absolutely no evidence to substantiate this latter allegation in
particular. The emphatic claim of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and his
followers is that they are part and parcel of the Ummah of the
Prophet Muhammad (Sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam) and that their
Movement is not a distinct Ummah, but rather, a Jama’ah and Firqah
(Sect) that is within the confines of the Muslim Ummah. Hadrat Mirza
himself did not claim to be a Prophet in a real or independent sense,
but rather a prophet by way of reflecting the light and being infused
with the spiritual excellences of the Prophethood of his master
Muhammad (Sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam). Hence, Hadrat Mirza claimed
to be an Ummati Nabi, that is, a prophet who is also an Ummati and
follower of Prophet Muhammad (Sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam).
As
for the objection that the Ahmadiyya Movement is somehow threatened
by the political solidarity of the Indian Muslims, this too is
patently false. It should be borne in mind that the Ahmadiyya
Movement is purely a religious movement and a sect within the circle
of Islam. It is not a political party or movement, but nonetheless
has the same feelings and hopes that the general body of Muslims have
as it relates to their betterment and solidarity. In other words, the
Ahmadiyya is distinct from other Muslims sects with regard to creed
or beliefs, but in political affairs, being a part of the Muslim
Ummah, it has no separate or distinct interests from the general body
of Muslims. The son and second successor of the founder, Mirza Mahmud
Ahmad (1889-1965), made this fact explicitly clear in the book
Political Solidarity of Islam, wherein he states: “We have never
made any distinction between ourselves and the other Muslims while
demanding political rights for them. We have always supported the
general Muslim demand, and for the attainment of this object have
made sacrifices beyond our means.” (p.6)
History
bears testament to this fact. The Ahmadiyya movement, for example,
struggled along with the general body of Muslims for greater
political autonomy and protection of Muslim interests and political
rights in India. The Ahmadiyya was on the side of the Muslim League
and the demand for Pakistan, while many of the narrow-minded
opponents of the Ahmadiyya, such as the Deobandi mullas and the Ahrar
(an obscure political party) opposed the political interests of the
Muslim Ummah and opposed the creation of Pakistan by giving priority
to their Indian nationalism. An eminent member of the Ahmadiyya
community, Sir Zafrullah Khan (1893-1985) was in fact the first
Foreign Minister of Pakistan, and also played a crucial role in
arguing the case of the Arabs before the international community in
opposing the Zionist takeover of Palestine.
Having
failed to specify in what way the Ahmadiyya movement has opposed the
political solidarity of the Muslims, Iqbal cleverly shifts gear by
claiming that the very existence of the Ahmadiyya sect with its
unique beliefs acts as a “disintegrating factor” that threatens
to bring about “dissolution” of the community. Iqbal cites the
excommunication of Spinoza by the Jewish elders of Amsterdam as an
example. Spinoza was a pantheist and held unorthodox views which
angered the Jewish elders who felt it necessary to have him
excommunicated from their small and vulnerable community in order to
protect it from disintegration. Similarly, according to Iqbal, the
Indian Muslims are justified in excommunicating the Ahmadiyya sect
from the fold of Islam.
There
are two essential problems with Iqbal’s contention. Firstly, the
Ahmadiyya sect’s difference with the mainstream Sunni Muslims is in
fact a valid difference of interpretation that is within the confines
of disagreement according to the principles of orthodox Sunni Islam.
The disagreement or difference of interpretation revolve around the
question of the life or death of the Messiah Jesus of Nazareth (peace
be upon him), and the reality of the prophecy of the second coming of
Jesus. In brief, the Ahmadiyya believe that Jesus of Nazareth died a
natural death, and that the Islamic prophecy contained in the Hadith
regarding his second advent signifies the birth of a saintly Muslim
reformer from within the Ummah who, due to spiritual resemblance with
the original Jesus, play the role of a new Messiah for the
rejuvenation of Islam. The Ahmadiyya believe therefore that the
second coming of Jesus was fulfilled in the person of Mirza Ghulam
Ahmad. This position, though rejected by the majority of mainstream
Sunni Muslims, cannot conceivably be understood as a rejection of any
fundamental of Islam.
Iqbal,
who himself diverges quite strongly with the mainstream Muslims,
rejects the idea of the expectation of a coming Messiah. He
characterizes such a doctrine as the penetration of a “Magian”
idea into Islam. Thus, if on this point the Ahmadiyya movement has
deviated beyond the pale, Iqbal himself is an even greater deviant
because he rejects the second coming of the Messiah altogether, while
the Ahmadiyya do not reject the second coming but merely have a
difference of interpretation with the mainstream Sunni Muslims
regarding its reality and details.
The
second problem is evident from a purely Islamic perspective. Islam is
a universal religion in which the values of truth and justice are
paramount. Unlike Judaism, it is not a tribalistic community whose
primary concern is political solidarity. The Holy Qur’an repeatedly
condemns the attitude of the Jewish elders and community leaders who
have a notorious history for opposing Prophets of God, including
their own Messiah, in the name of social cohesion and political
solidarity. It is well known that the Jewish Sanhedrin opposed the
promised Messiah Jesus of Nazareth because they felt he was a threat
to the political solidarity of their community that was occupied by
the iron fist of the Roman empire. The Sanhedrin attempted to
persuade the Roman governor of Judea province to have Jesus of
Nazareth put to death on the cross for this very reason. Iqbal has
defended the actions of the Jewish elders in Amsterdam for
excommunicating Spinoza, but by the same token and using the exact
same rationale, he should have also defended the actions of the
Sanhedrin for doing the same to a Prophet recognized by Islam!
Next,
Iqbal attempts to gloss over the dark chapters in Islamic history
when he states: “Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru seems to think that a
society founded on religious principles necessitates the institution
of Inquisition. This is indeed true of the history of Christianity;
but the history of Islam, contrary to the Pandit’s logic, shows
that during the last thirteen hundred years of the life of Islam, the
institution of Inquisition has been absolutely unknown in Muslim
countries.” (Islam and Ahmadism; p.15)
The
fact of the matter is that Iqbal is simply incorrect in making such a
grandiose claim about the history of Islam. He seems to have
deliberately ignored the first theological inquisition in the history
of Islam known as the Mihnah. This inquisition was instituted by the
Abbasid ruler Al-Ma’mun in 833 C.E and lasting for some eighteen
years. Through this inquisition, the Abbasid government attempted to
enforce the Mu’tazilite creed upon the Muslims, specifically the
doctrine that the Qur’an is created. Any Imam or scholar who
dissented from the official doctrine of the State was severely
punished or imprisoned, among them the eminent Sunni Imam Ahmad b.
Hanbal (may Allah have mercy on him).
A
modern manifestation of the Inquisition which occurred after the
death of Iqbal were the proceedings in the National Assembly of
Pakistan in 1974 as a result of which the Ahmadiyya sect were
officially declared as a non-Muslim minority expelled from Islam by
way of an amendment to the Constitution.
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment