Iqbal's Praise of Atatürk and Secularist Turkey

Continuing my critique of Iqbal’s Islam and Ahmadism, this being the ninth entry of the series, we come to Iqbal’s praise and identification with the modernist movement. This is evident in his mentioning of the major figures of Muslim modernism in the early 20^th century; Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, Jamal-ud-Din al-Afghani and Muhammad Abduh. Iqbal describes Jamal-ud-Din as “One of the most advanced Muslims of our time, both in religious thought and action” [p. 38]. Jamal-ud-Din was a well-known freemason, and much of his history and motives for his various activities are shrouded in mystery. Iqbal goes on to explain the “three main forces” which modernist reformers like al-Afghani, Abduh and others created a “revolt” against: 1. Mullaism, 2. Mysticism and 3. Corrupt dynastic rulers [p. 40–41]. With respect to Mullaism, Iqbal states that the Wahhabi movement was the first real revolt against the conservative rigidity of the Ulama. But Regarding the last of the three forces, Iqbal says that it was Jamal-ud-Din al-Afghani’s “special mission” to prepare the Muslim masses for a “revolt” against. In other words, al-Afghani was laying the intellectual foundation for the later political revolts in various parts of the Muslim world against corrupt and unenlightened dynastic rule. Among the individuals whom Iqbal hails as being under the influence of this thought introduced by the likes of al-Afghani are Zaghlul Pasha in Egypt, Mustafa Kamal in Turkey and Raza Shah in Iran [p. 41]. These were the so-called great political reformers of the Muslim world in the warped mind of Iqbal. Undoubtedly, the worst of these three individuals was Mustafa Kamal, the so-called ‘Atatürk’. Among his ‘reforms’ was the dismantling of Islamic courts and laws and its replacement with a secular, civil code. His reforms encouraged the visual, fine arts like sculpting and statues, Western classical music, opera, ballet, theatre, and also the ‘liberation’ of women from veiling and segregation. Iqbal claims that none of this constitutes apostasy from Islam, quite the contrary, he defends such ‘reforms’. As part of his argument, Iqbal writes: “As long as a person is loyal to the two basic principles of Islam, i.e. the Unity of God and Finality of the Holy Prophet, not even the strictest Mulla can turn him outside the pale of Islam” [p. 43]. Of course, Iqbal has no basis for saying that belief in the ‘Finality’ of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ is the second of the most basic principles of Islam. The Shahadatayn doesn’t mention ‘Finality’ at all, only bearing witness that Prophet Muhammad ﷺ is the Apostle of God. This is not to say that belief in the ‘Finality’ of Prophethood isn’t part of Islamic belief, it certainly is, just not the second of the two most basic principles of Islam as Iqbal falsely claims. Iqbal’s motive is obviously to exclude the ‘Ahmadis’ from the pale of Islam while conveniently repudiating a similar exclusion of Mustafa Kamal ‘Atatürk’. Furthermore, Iqbal’s claim that “loyalty” to the two basic principles of Islam preclude any possibility of Kufr is technically incorrect. A person may claim to believe in the Oneness of God and in the Prophethood of Muhammad ﷺ, but if he denies belief in any other Article of Faith, denial of a Prophet or Apostle of God like Abraham, Moses or Jesus, or denies belief in the Angels, in the Quran or any other divinely-revealed Scripture such as the Torah, or in the Resurrection, he is certainly excluded from the “pale of Islam”. Nevertheless, Iqbal flatly lies by claiming that not even the “strictest Mulla can turn him outside the pale of Islam”. The truth is that many of the Ulama made Takfir of ‘Atatürk’ and others like him who totally abolished the Shari’a and replaced it with a manmade legal system. The essence of ‘Finality of Prophecy’ is that the Shari’a brought by Prophet Muhammad ﷺ is final and authoritative until Judgment Day. Anyone who claims to be a prophet and brings a new law replacing it is not only a liar but an infidel too. Then how much greater is the infidelity of one who abolishes the Shari’a and replaces it with his own law even though he doesn’t claim to be a prophet or have divine sanction for doing so? Iqbal goes on to praise the materialism of secularist Turkey.  Iqbal justifies the “recitation” of the Quran in Turkish by claiming it has some precedent in Muslim history. Perhaps even more serious is his baseless idea that “according to the Law of Islam, the Amir of a Muslim State has the power to revoke the ‘permissions’ of the law if he is convinced that they tend to cause social corruption” [p. 45] implying that it is possible for the Law of Islam to permit something that can cause “social corruption” (God forbid). This is in the context of Iqbal’s justification of secular Turkey revoking the explicit permission and even encouragement of polygyny granted in the Holy Quran and exemplified in the Sunna of the Prophet ﷺ and his illustrious companions. Abolishing the Shari’a is not restricted to declaring Halal what Allah has made Haram, but also making Haram what Allah has declared Halal. Allah Most High says:

اتَّخَذُوا أَحْبَارَهُمْ وَرُهْبَانَهُمْ أَرْبَابًا مِّن دُونِ اللَّـهِ

They took their Rabbis and their Monks as Lords besides Allah

[Sura 9:31]

In explanation of this Ayah, the Prophet ﷺ said:

كانُوا يُحِلُّونَ لَهُمْ ما حَرَّمَ اللَّهُ فَيَسْتَحِلُّونَهُ، ويُحَرِّمُونَ ما أحَلَّ اللَّهُ لَهُمْ فَيُحَرّمُونَهُ

“They would make permissible upon them what Allah had made forbidden, and they would forbid what Allah had made permissible for them.”

فَتِلكَ عِبادَتُهُمْ

“So that was their worship of them”

Hence it is disbelief in Islam to legislate a prohibition of something which Allah Most High has made permissible, such as polygyny.

To be continued ان شاء الله عز وجل