The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam is a compilation of lectures delivered by Muhammad Iqbal on Islamic philosophy and published in 1930. These lectures were delivered by Iqbal in Madras, Hyderabad, and Aligarh. The last chapter, "Is Religion Possible?", was added to the book from the 1934 Oxford Edition onwards.In Reconstruction, Iqbal called for a re-examination of the intellectual foundations of Islamic philosophy. The book is a major work of modern Islamic thought.
Sir Allama Mohammad Iqbal also known as Allama Iqbal was born in 1877 in Sialkot, Punjab, in British Ruled India, now Pakistan, and was educated in the local school and college in Sialkot, before going on the university in Lahore. There he studied Arabic and philosophy as an undergraduate, then in 1899 did an M.A. in philosophy (being ranked first in the Punjab, and awarded a Gold Medal). He was appointed to a Readership in Arabic at the Oriental College in Lahore, and over the next few years became well known as a poet, as well as writing his first book (in Urdu), The Knowledge of Economics (1903).
In 1905 he travelled to Europe to continue his philosophical studies, first at Cambridge, then at Munich, where he obtained his doctorate with a thesis entitled The Development of Metaphysics in Persia. From 1907 to 1908 he was Professor of Arabic at the University of London; during this period he studied for the bar, becoming a barrister in 1908, when he returned to Lahore to practise law. While practising as an advocate at the Lahore High Court he continued to a part-time academic career as professor of philosophy and English Literature, being appointed Professor of Philosophy at the Government College, Lahore in 1911. He was knighted in 1923.
Despite his law practice, his philosophical work, and his gradual entry into politics, first as a member of the Punjab Legislative Council and later as president of the All India Muslim League, Iqbal was probably best known and respected as a poet. Nevertheless, his other activities brought him some measure of fame, especially six lectures that he gave at Madras, Osmania University at Hyderabad, and Aligarh, which were later published as The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam (1930). During the early thirties he travelled extensively in the Middle East and Europe, participating in international political conferences, meeting philosophers and politicians, and writing.
His political view was that in theory a Muslim state wasn't desirable, as he held to the ideal of a world-wide Muslim community; nevertheless, he held that, at least in the short and medium terms, the only way for Indian Muslims to be able to live according to the tenets of Islam was in such a state, and he campaigned accordingly. He died in Lahore in 1938, some nine years before the creation of Pakistan, where his birthday is celebrated as national holiday.
Iqbal's philosophical work involved bringing various philosophical influences, including Leibniz, Hegel, and Nietzsche, to his Islamic scholarship, thus holding out the promise of a revival of genuine Islamic philosophical thought 鈥� a return of Islam to its place in the philosophical world. That promise has yet to be truly fulfilled, though it remains in place.
"To exist in pure duration is to be a self, and to be a self is to be able to say 'I am'." (The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam p.56)
Muhammad Iqbal is one of those subcontinental Islamic intellectuals who is celebrated by all, read by few, and understood by even fewer. This book - a collection of speeches that Iqbal gave on reconstructing the metaphysical worldview of Islam in the light of modernity - is a deeply humbling piece of contemporary Islamic scholarship. Iqbal attempts to synthesize the spiritual outlook of Islam with modern rationality, explaining the worldview of the Quran in comparison and contrast with the philosophies articulated by Nietzsche, Bergson, Einstein and other modern Westerners. He argues for the enduring importance of spiritual gnosis and practice, alongside modern activist knowledge and empiricism.
In addition to being an intellectual conversant in modern Western thought, Iqbal was what many today would refer to as a Sufi. Like much Sufi writing and poetry, much of what he writes is only directly understandable to people who have engaged in Sufi practices, or, somewhat less so, those who are otherwise familiar with the underlying philosophy through study. His reference of the Quranic verse stating that human beings hold the trust of Allah as His viceregents - a trust which the mountains and the earth refused to carry - would make sense to someone familiar with the Sufi tradition, but I imagine it would likely be perplexing otherwise. I was struck by his repeated reference to a theory of biological evolution apparently espoused by Sufis like Mawlana Jalaladin Rumi, including through poetic verse. The fact of evolution was something that Sufis viewed as an affirmation rather than a negation of the divine nature of man (unlike in the West where it has led to a great deal of metaphysical angst), a point which Iqbal makes with eloquence. His point about the Quran supporting empiricism by exhorting humans to reflect on nature and history was also well taken.
Many have commented on how 鈥渄ense鈥� this book is. I was a bit concerned about that before picking it up and was bracing myself for something turgid and unreadable. But in reality, nothing could have been further from the truth. Iqbal鈥檚 thoughts are necessarily complex, but remarkably enough the book was a light and elegant read, despite the weightiness of the subjects discussed. I suspect that it was the sheer energy and enthusiasm of his thought that made it so enjoyable to go through.
While reading I occasionally paused to reflect how strange it was that most Westerners were ignorant of Iqbal, who by any measure belongs in the class with the most able philosophical minds of the past century. Trying to understand why he was only obscurely known outside the Islamic world, I suspect that his references to the Quran were likely off-putting to all except Muslims -- the people who are ultimately in need of making their spiritual tradition comport with the changes wrought by modernity. This book was an extremely admirable and extremely ambitious attempt at articulating why such a synthesis is both possible and necessary for human flourishing. Its clear to me why Iqbal was such an inspiration to Ali Shariati and an entire generation of Islamic thinkers. It鈥檚 no exaggeration to say that his work is as relevant today as it was when it was first put into print nearly a century ago.
Not for the fainthearted, not for the easily bored, not for the shallow beings, not for the easy losers, not for the less ambitious. This work is fascinating, I was blown away the first time I read it, but then I thought did I get it? You don't just "get" this straight away..nope. It requires constant pondering, continuous conscious effort to work through the lines and to really really think things out. Philosophy students might find it less stressful to read. Others, well it will all come down to how much do you really want to read and understand it?
"Buhat level hai iska"
I will read it again (as I have done many times already), and keep reading it over and over, cuz that's how you read Iqbal!
PS: Critique of pure reason by Kant is perhaps one of the toughest philosophy books to read (yes, just to read), refuting Kant is next level stuff right there.
Wish more and more people know about "this" Iqbal. Iqbal has been my teacher ever since I could remember..the only teacher I truly trust.
In the late 1920s the Indian Islamist and poet Mohammed Iqbal delivered six lectures at Madras (to the Madras Muslim Association), Hyderabad and Aligarh, in which he set out his vision of the reconstruction of religious thought in Islam. Apparently Iqbal himself intended to write a second, larger book to be called 鈥淭he Reconstruction of Legal Thought in Islam鈥�, to which these lectures formed a sort of philosophical prelude. That second book was never written, but the lectures were combined with a seventh lecture (鈥渋s religion possible鈥�) that was delivered to the Aristotelian society in England, and published as a book 鈥淭he Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam鈥�. By the time the book was published (first in Lahore in 1930, by Kapur Art Press, then with the seventh lecture included, by Oxford in 1934), Iqbal had been knighted for his services to the crown and was already a famous poet (in both Urdu and Persian) and was being honored by the Islamicate elite of India as their philosopher and thinker par excellence. Since this is the only work of philosophy that he ever composed after his PhD thesis, his status as a philosopher is heavily dependent on this slim volume.
The book is primarily targeted at contemporary Muslims, who were keenly aware of their weakness vis-a-vis Europe, as well as of their historic role as a 鈥渨orthy opponent鈥� that at some point in the past held the upper hand against Western Christian competitors. Iqbal鈥檚 primary mission here is not some open ended search for philosophical truth, it is the revival of Muslim greatness, the basic fact of which is taken for granted and is an element of faith. In his own words:
鈥淚 have tried to meet, even though partially, this urgent demand by attempting to reconstruct Muslim religious philosophy with due regard to the philosophical traditions of Islam and the more recent developments in the various domains of human knowledge.鈥�
Like many other religiously minded thinkers of the day, he was also quite taken with modern physics and believed 鈥渢he present moment is quite favorable for such an undertaking. Classical Physics has learned to criticize its own foundations. As a result of this criticism the kind of materialism, which it originally necessitated, is rapidly disappearing; and the day is not far off when Religion and Science may discover hitherto unsuspected mutual harmonies.鈥�
In terms of his education and training, Iqbal was firmly in the Western philosophical tradition (tending mostly towards its German, orientalist, idealist and romantic currents) and like other Islamist modernizers, he took it for granted that the 鈥淢uslim world鈥� has to come to terms with modern knowledge, but this was to be done from within the Islamic tradition and while maintaining the distinctive character of Muslim society. His grandfather may have been a Kashmiri Hindu (his son claims the conversion happened 400 years earlier) and it has been claimed that there were branches of the family that remained Hindu, but either because of this relatively recent conversion, or because of his mother鈥檚 strong Muslim faith, his commitment to Muslim separatism and supremacism was strong and unbending. He was willing to admire other traditions (including the learning of the Brahmins, about whom he has interesting things to say elsewhere) and learn from them, but they are always 鈥渙ther鈥� traditions, about this there is never any doubt.
The books is interesting, especially if you are philosophically inclined towards the 鈥渟piritual鈥� and the mystical; on the other hand, if you are somewhere on the 鈥渘ew atheist鈥� spectrum then the book can only be of historical interest. Even those who are willing to entertain metaphysical speculation should be aware that this is not a systematic philosophical text. All the central claims of the book are simply asserted (there is rarely any detailed argument showing why they are correct) and the historical views are very early 20th century, with the ghosts of Spengler and countless lesser writers hovering in the background. Entire cultures and historical epochs are summed up in ex-cathedra pronouncements of the sort that were popular in that age but seem to have fallen out of favor since then. For example 鈥渢he cultures of Asia, and in fact, of the whole ancient world failed because they approached reality exclusively from within and moved from within outwards. This procedure gave them theory without power, and on mere theory no durable civilization can be based鈥�.
Always hovering in the background is his (not so original) view that history is progressive and something is gradually unfolding and developing as we move from ancient cultures (India, Greece, never China) to Islam to modern Europe. In this great drama, the 鈥渟pirit of Islam鈥� is essentially anti-classical and empiricist and it is Islam that created the foundations of modern science by introducing this attitude into humanity (鈥淓uropean culture, on its intellectual side, is only a further development of some of the most important phases of the culture of Islam鈥�). This basically Hegelian view of history was all the rage in the circles that Allama Iqbal frequented (its echoes survive to this day), and if this is still your cup of tea, jump right in, Iqbal will not disappoint you.
Among his claims are the assertion that 鈥渢he prophet of Islam was the first critical observer of psychic phenomena鈥�
and 鈥淚n Islam, prophecy reaches its perfection in discovering the need for its own abolition鈥�
A prophet may be defined as a type of mystic consciousness in which 鈥榰nitary experience鈥� tends to overflow its boundaries, and seeks opportunities of redirecting or refashioning the forces of collective life. In his personality the finite centre of life sinks into his own infinite depths only to spring up again, with fresh vigour, to destroy the old, and to disclose the new directions of life鈥�
You get the drift.
Historical references are cherry picked and whatever theory he is proposing is supported by quranic verses that other Muslims may nor may not interpret the way Iqbal does. Sometimes the cherry-picking stretches credulity and even fans may become a bit suspicious; for example, defending the unequal shares of men and women in Quranic inheritance law he says 鈥淔rom the inequality of their legal shares it must not be supposed that the rule assumes the superiority of males over females. Such an assumption would be contrary to the spirit of Islam. The Qur鈥檃n says: And for women are rights over men similar to those for men over women鈥� (2:228). This is rather disingenuous, because the quoted verse in context is not about equality at all, but specifically about the superiority of men over women. Here is Yusuf Ali鈥檚 translation of the entire verse: Divorced women shall wait concerning themselves for three monthly periods. Nor is it lawful for them to hide what Allah Hath created in their wombs, if they have faith in Allah and the Last Day. And their husbands have the better right to take them back in that period, if they wish for reconciliation. And women shall have rights similar to the rights against them, according to what is equitable; but men have a degree (of advantage) over them. And Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise.
Judge for yourself.
The book quotes heavily from contemporary European intellectuals (someone has calculated that 25 of the 34 Western philosophers mentioned in it are contemporaries, some of whom are already fading into obscurity, but were prominent in the day); if the metaphysical speculations of early 20th century Western philosophers (Bergson, Whitehead, Carr, Spengler, etc.) appeal to you, go for it. You will learn that much of this speculation was already present in the Islamicate tradition, or so Iqbal claims. I don鈥檛 doubt that some of what he is saying is perfectly true, but given the way he creatively cherry-picks and interprets the Quran, I have my doubts about some of his interpretations of Muslim philosophers as well. But I don鈥檛 know enough about the subject to know for sure.
Now that almost a century has passed (some of the lectures are revised versions of essays he was working on in the early 1920s) we can also ask, what influence has the book had? It seems to me that it continues to appeal to modern (semi-westernized) Muslims (especially in Pakistan) because it seems to offer the possibility of radical reform of Islamic law and creative (modern) reinterpretation of Islamic theology, the appeal is almost entirely symbolic; most of his fans don鈥檛 actually read the book, they just like the fact that it is there and that they have heard it is modern and all about creativity and freedom and how we had all this before the West ever thought of it. It is my impression that the detailed ideas had more appeal then, when this kind of reinterpretation and the 鈥渃atch up with the West because we were actually there first鈥� theme was commonplace in places like Aligarh, but since then the Islam that has risen to confront the West is good old classical Islam, Magian crust and all.
That said, the books is available online for free. Make up your own mind. Read it. (very few of his fans actually do)
Some random quotes follow:
鈥淭he task before the modern Muslim is, therefore, immense. He has to re-think the whole system of Islam without completely breaking with the past鈥�.
鈥淏elieve me, Europe today (due to its perverted ego) is the greatest hindrance in the way of man鈥檚 ethical advancement. The Muslim, on the other hand, is in possession of these ultimate ideas of the basis of a revelation, (鈥�) which, speaking from the inmost depths of life, internalises its own apparent externality. With him the spiritual basis of life is a matter of conviction for which even the least enlightened man among us can easily lay down his life.鈥�
鈥淚f time is real鈥� then every moment in the life of Reality is original, giving birth to what is absolutely novel and unforeseeable. Everyday doth some new work employ Him, says the Koran. To exist in real time means (鈥�) to create it from moment to moment and to be absolutely free and original in creation. The universe is a free creative movement.鈥�
鈥淚t is in contact with the Most Real that the ego discovers its uniqueness, its metaphysical status, and the possibility of improvement in that status. Strictly speaking, the experience which leads to this discovery is not a conceptually manageable intellectual fact; it is a vital fact, an attitude consequent on an inner biological transformation which cannot be captured in the net of logical categories.鈥�
鈥淢uhammad, we are told, was a psychopath13. Well, if a psychopath has the power to give a fresh direction to the course of human history, it is a point of the highest psychological interest to search his original experience which has turned slaves into leaders of men, and has inspired the conduct and shaped the career of whole races of mankind鈥�
鈥�..religion; for reasons which I have mentioned before, is far more anxious to reach the ultimately real than science鈥�
鈥淭he final act is not an intellectual act, but a vital act which deepens the whole being of the ego, and sharpens his will with the creative assurance that the world is not something to be merely seen or known through concepts, but something to be made and re-made by continuous action. It is a moment of supreme bliss and also a moment of the greatest trial for the ego鈥�
Incidentally, recently a pakhtoon mullah who was said to be 鈥渁nti-extremist鈥� was killed in Kandahar after his work was described as anti-Islam by traditional mullahs.. The application of Iqbalian ideas to the real world will run up against blasphemy and apostasy memes..
PS: a respected professor of Urdu (from Canada) posted this comment, which I cannot help sharing: Iqbal continues to be of paramount interest to Pakistanis(every PhD proposal I ever received from Pakistani students involved Iqbal!), and of no interest to anyone else
Muhammad Iqbal's Reconstruction is an ambitious attempt to articulate what he takes to be the fundamental message and perspective of the revelation of the Prophet in dialog with contemporary European discourse (i.e., early 20th-century) in philosophy and the sciences. I think anyone who engages seriously with a living religious tradition, and who values these forms of discourse, will similarly cobble together an eclectic and idiosyncratic interpretation of their own - I certainly have. But whether or not that mass of material can be persuasively organized to constitute a theory in its own right is another question, and Iqbal's ambitious work is only partly a satisfactory answer.
Its principle weakness is that he spreads himself too thin, leaping breathlessly from mountain peak to mountain peak. On a single page you'll find references to Whitehead, Einstein, Carnap, ibn Khaldun, and even, very occasionally, the Quran. But the more he perceives and attempts to articulate a deep underlying connection unifying all these voices into a common thread, the less persuasive his model appears from the outside.
Of all the many thinkers he considers, I think Whitehead and Bergson are most important. Iqbal articulates a vision of Islam that is turned toward the natural universe and that echoes deep insights into the nature of time, and especially the manifestation of prophetic utterance within the span of time. This far I can go along with him.
Where I have to get off the train, however, is Iqbal's paradoxical embrace of epistemological closure. That is, despite his interest in an unfolding and temporalized interplay of time and eternity, he never brings the subject into critical reflection, and shows a strong tendency to constantly give the sense that his ideas are adequate to the task to which he sets himself.
Now that the book is approaching a century old, the inadequacy of his conceptual toolbox is pretty obvious. I think he would have benefited greatly from systems theory and I'm sorry that he missed it. It would have made a better framework for his reflections on time than Whitehead's dissatisfying process metaphysics, and it would have forced him to consider the framing effects of the subject.
In my view, Islam has benefited far more from the modern voices that emphasize the historicity of its constructions than from those who would argue, in effect, that the Quran anticipates Einstein. The latter approach, combined with an unwillingness to problematize the subject, keeps Islam fixed in a pre-modern idiom, no matter how it's seasoned with theoretical physics. I share his interest in bringing the thought-worlds of Europe and Islam into dialog, but the way he goes about it did not win me over.
A very ambitious book that tries to reconcile mysticism and reason, faith and positivism, & outlines the past and future of Islamic metaphysical, ethical & political thoughts in the context of the scientific & philosophical ideas known by early 20th century, e.g. general relativity, evolution, psychoanalysis & analytic philosophy. Overall the author was advocating reforms in Islamic scholarship by revitalizing the spirit of free inquiry & incorporating elements of modern science & liberal democracy. His warning that giving too much power to the clergy as in the then Persian constitution can be dangerious was unfortunately proved by the historical developments since the 1980s in Iran as well as his own country. He didn't always get the science stuff right, which is understandable as a lot of the results he cited were quite new when this was written. I find many of his ideas quite interesting though sometimes ambiguious which may be why his thoughts have influenced both liberals & religious fanatics. Maybe I would like it more if I had more patience for metaphysics.
Reading this book during class with help of Professor Z was really fascinating. The discussion is very thoughtful and deep, but it is my bad that I cant chew all the discussion in a proper way. Why? Because reading Iqbal is not similar with the other author. You need to have some background with other similar topics before went through Iqbal. Therefore it is hard to me to write a proper review.
In short, Iqbal ask the Muslim to think, to read and to have a deep understanding on Islam. Iqbal ask the Muslim to reconstruct their thinking, attitude and practice so they can be a better Muslim. Sounds familiar with the other author? Maybe yes, but if you read Iqbal, you will know he was different with the other leaders/authors. That's why people called him 'thinker'.
I wish to read the book later, perhaps I can understand better than my current undertaking.
By far one of the most astounding philosophical works that I have ever read by one of our greatest scholars. I can't keep myself from referring back to it.
RELIGIOUS FAITH has to be blind, and mostly inherited; tampering with intellect leads to disaster. History is an evidence.
European philosophers tried to rationalise Christianity, and, as a result, lost faith in Christian dogma. Kant came to Christianity's rescue by declaring human intellect incapable of reaching God.
Muslim scholars met a similar fate, and took refuge in Sufism, which despises intellect. However, Iqbal, a renowned poet, philosopher, and intellectual, could not accept defeat. He was not prepared to choose between his two great loves, his faith, and his intellect. The present book is his effort to keep both.
Iqbal's thesis exhibits a love-hate relationship with intellect and science - and Sufism. Scientific and philosophical discussion of universe, matter, movement, space and time, is illuminating, but fails to justify his conclusions.
The crux of his thesis is his concept of religious experience, finite ego, and infinite or ultimate ego. It is an interesting doctrine but, in view of insufficient evidence, appears no more than a wishful dream, or at best a science fiction.
Iqbal was not only a masterful poet in farsi and urdu but also a brilliant philosopher who was grounded in the western and eastern traditions with a phenomenal grasp over history and Islamic theology. In reconstruction, he discusses Islamic epistemological roots and proposes a revivification of the foundations of Islamic intellectual thought. Muslims engaging in philosophy should definitely read this.
Though a book of the early 20th century, it is still a must-read for any serious reader of contemporary Muslim thought. Some parts of the book, especially those dealing with the scientific facts of the days it was written, are outdated, but the basis arguments are still relevent and insightful.
When I first read this book as a teenager admittedly it flew over my head. I have come across excerpts of it from time and time. Now, having read the book I am of the opinion that it merits consideration as an important book which should be read by all Muslims for the way it presents the esoteric and exoteric parts of Islam into a coherent system of thought.
There however certain caveats. Like many of the Muslim intelligentsia of that time, Iqbal does seem to be burdened by a need to qualify his ideas with Western psychology. This I felt vitiated his arguments.
Iqbal in his opening chapter dwells on mysticism and mystical states. He quotes from Bergson, Whitehead and William James, but he does not seem to pay that much regard to Al-Ghazali, or Ibn Arabi, or even mention any of the scores of Muslim mystics who expounded their experiences. He describes mysticism as an inarticulate feeling and part of an incommunicable experience. Some of the utterances of the Muslim mystics were no doubt cryptic but sages of all ages often communicated in aphorisms. No one could describe the way Rumi communicated his mystical experiences as inarticulate. Certainly there are elements of incoherence of Ibn Arabi鈥檚 writings but no one can say that they were not enlightened by much of what he wrote and explained. Nor could you level that accusation against Christian mystics such as Aquinas. To accuse Al-Ghazali of being inarticulate would beggar belief from anyone who has read his works which made me wonder if Iqbal had spent much time researching the works of Muslim mystics. He quotes the passage of light from the Quran but neglects to mention Al-Ghazali鈥檚 seminal Mishkat-Al-Nur which is a remarkable synthesis of symbolism and logic. He quotes Ibn Arabi鈥檚 illuminating statement that God is percept and the world is a concept but does not seem to have found it necessary to delve deeper into his works.
Iqbal does however correctly identify a scarcely known fact: the impact of Greek philosophers on Islamic Mysticism or Sufism. I don鈥檛 think it would be all that much of a stretch to say that Plato was one of the founding fathers of Sufism. The Greek philosophers were much preoccupied by the soul. Muslim thinkers analysed their works and this led to rich vista of philosophical enquiry in Islam. Iqbal makes the salient observation that Socrates and his disciple Plato viewed sense-perception with disdain. Such a view is antithetical to the teachings of the Quran which frequently exhorts its readers to observe the alternation of night into day, the starry of heavens and the perpetual change of winds.
The ideas of the Greek philosophers were championed by another theological titan, Ibn Rush and opposed with equal vigour by the legendary Al-Ghazali. This led to the formation of two opposing schools of thought, the Mutazilites and the Asharites. Iqbal makes the point that the Mutazilites failed to realise that you cannot separate thought from concrete experience.
Iqbal has problems in qualifying thought and intuition within the spectrum of mystical experience. He avers that mystical experience must be cognitive in nature but that鈥檚 not the conclusion you form once you read the works of mystics. This highlights a flaw of this book. In viewing mysticism solely from a Western perspective he makes reductive and contradictory conclusions. Sometimes it seems he likens mystical states to heightened psychological sensations. Other times he makes a valid point in saying that that in mystic states the distinction between subject and object does not exist. But then contradicts himself later on in the book when he describes the experiences of Sheikh Ahmed of Sirhind.
Iqbal utilises his creativity in a very ingenious way when he contrasts the Christian and Islamic perspectives on time. In Christian theology time is presented as a series of Cartesian points in Islamic theology time is an evolving moment shaped by possibility. Not having a scientific background you can overlook his awkwardness when he tries to use physics to justify his metaphysics. There can be no denying the originality of this thinking when he stipulates that in Islamic metaphysics infinity is calibrated not by extension by intensity. The state of 鈥榝ana鈥� which has attracted so much conjecture is not negation of the Self but enhancement of the Self.
The pivotal feature of Iqbal鈥檚 thought which features in a lot of his poetry is his concept of the Self. He explains with great clarity why the Self is the nexus between the esoteric and exoteric parts of Islam. Why one need not be in conflict with the other. The ultimate aim of the Self he articulates is not to see but to be. A very important point when you consider that Sufism was the dominant form of Islam for over a thousand years.
Iqbal also makes insightful points about the decay of the Muslim world. The reasons he mentions are just as prevalent today as back then. The dogma of the ulema who have stultified Islam. The abundance of untrustworthy hadith which led Muslims astray.
Iqbal was indeed a visionary philosopher. You may need to dig deep to unravel his insight but it was well worth the effort.
Allama Muhammad Iqbal is the national poet of Pakistan and is credited with being the first to suggest a separate homeland for the Muslims of British India.
His poetry was and is very popular (though most of his poetry is in Persian and not Urdu/Hindi)so much so that his status as a poet has overshadowed his true stature as a Muslim Social (and Religious) Philosopher. Ibal belongs to the Modernist section of Muslim Thinkers and in this book he has so eloquently presented his solutions for integrating Islamic ideals and principals in a Modern and democratic society. Main theme of the book is 'Ijma'. Ijma or 'Concensus of the Umma (Muslim Community), is the most important source of Islamic Jurisprudence after Qur'an and Sunnah and Iqbal tries to re-construct the concept in a country that would be Islamic as well as democratic. Interestingly, he proposes that a Legislative Assembly housed by representatives of the citizens is equally competent as the gathering of Ulema (Islamic religious scholars) to serve for practing 'Ijma'. The is supported by the fact that Islam has, unlike most other religions, no Priesthood, Divinely or Otherwise ordained.
This was and is a radical preposition that may overthrow the traditional preception of the central role that religious scholars enjoy in Sunni Islamic Socities.. Perhaps thats the reason that in Pakistan, a country that has yet to form a concrete response to the role of religious scholars in running the state and society, the book has never been as ardently advocated as is the case with the poetry of Iqbal. This book is a solution which is conveniently overlooked.
The book is not an easy read as it was penned by a trained philospher to be presented as PhD dessertaion and hence targeted fellow philosophers and not common readers. Nevertheless, anyone with passing familiarity with social and religious philosophy would enjoy and understand it very well. Readers, especially Muslims, would also appreciate that the book explains some commonly known yet never properly understood religious and historical issues with excellent prowess. The main concept, unusual it may be, would definitely intrigue a midly interested reader and may well force him or her to read more about Modernist Islamic Thought..
Being a naivet茅 to the world of Philosophy, this book was hard to grasp at the start; but after a few lines, I formed the pace, and it was rather an enlightening, informative, introspective and thoughtful experience to read philosophical lectures by the great Allama Muhammad Iqbal, who delivered these lectures when the world was in a speedy transition. Giving due importance to the Islamic philosophical traditions, Allama Iqbal managed to reconstruct the religious thought in Islam, using mathematical, biological, mystical, philosophical and most importantly psychological references, all of which are evident through modern science and philosophy. The most important component of the Fiqh is Quran, which emphasises on deed, rather than an idea. Extracting the teachings hidden in the mystical verses of Quran, Iqbal shed light on the religious experience and its relevant knowledge; the concept of God, its divine presence and the meaning of prayer. From psychological point of view, he described the concept of ego, the freedom of ego, and immortality. Having done my majors in Psychology, I鈥檝e never really rendered it to be that important till I got my hands on this book, and I must say I鈥檓 now proud of my choice. There鈥檚 so much in the universe to be pondered upon, unless we learn to evaluate psychically and spiritually. This book really helped me to set my direction towards further inquiry into the field.