Jinnah was not Iqbal’s first choice to lead the Muslims

[Armstrong]

And I was Jinnah's choice to lead Pakistan but alas were I not stabbed in the back by my munshi @Oscar Podinawala, I would've made Pakistan great again.

 

[SQ8]

Gohar Shahi ............... did he ever claim to be Mahdi, honestly I didn't even know this name I have google searched him after you mentioned him, apparently the search suggests he was an industrialist turned Sufi and then exiled from Pakistan. Renowned Qawals praised him.

The debate of Mahdiship is difficult one, what I understood from whatever little I read about Jamal Afghani ..... he promoted the idea that any Muslim in difficult times can be a Mahdi ............ going by that I can safely say that both Iqbal and Jinnah were Mahdi of their time, guiding Muslims of a region for a just cause. (I will have to refer Blasphemy laws now)

Claiming Mahdi is not much of an issue as various people have proclaimed themselves mahdi throughout times. Many were good righteous men and eere inferring the reformist and guiding principle of the title than anything else.
As I mentioned to the grandson of Mirza Qadiyani, if you say he was only a reformer then you will find me praying next to you and as my brother.
But if you insist he was a messenger or prophet, then you are of a different faith and I cannot allow you to proclaim yourselm Muslim.
That line is that simple.

 

[Armstrong]

@Oscar - Ignore kar diya Bhai ko?

 

[SQ8]

@Oscar - Ignore kar diya Bhai ko?

You are only good for making out with some kohati chick in the Quaid's Mazaar since you cant do it anywhere else.

 

[I.R.A]

Will appreciate if someone can help me with this.

Give it some time the new breed of confused analysts, historians and experts will claim Iqbal wanted that region to be Pakistan and Jinnah wanted this region to be Pakistan, and Kashmir was deliberately ignored because of Mirza Ghulam Ahmed.

 

[xyxmt]

Imran khan was Iqbal's first choice, Imraney will believe it too if he claims it

 

[war&peace]

Does the article provide who that intended first choice was? Not really interested in wasting my time on such things but if there is a strong argument then i will like to read it.

Will appreciate if someone can help me with this.


Regards!

No he didn't... the author belongs to Qadiyani community, a deceitful minority cult. We have already busted his ideas on this thread but I'm worried if there's a proportional rejoinder to BS on other media..

 

[Zarvan]

Jinnah was not Iqbal’s first choice to lead the Muslims
By Yasser Latif Hamdani Published: November 17, 2016

4 CommentsPrintEmail

Apparently their relationship was not free of rancour even in the end.

To say Allama Muhammad Iqbal was an extremely complex individual is an understatement. The poet, philosopher and political thinker that Allama Iqbal was, he constantly evolved, or some might argue, regressed in his approach to the idea of a Muslim political identity and how it translated politically.

Iqbal was, at various times, a Muslim modernist (he endorsed the founding of secular Turkish republic as a seminal event in Islamic history), a Muslim reformer (his lectures compiled as the Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam show the breadth of his reformist vision) and an uncompromising Islamist believing in theological unity and purity of the Muslim community (his views towards the Ahmadis towards the end of his life are an indication of this).

The undercurrent of Islamic identity was always evident in Iqbal’s poetic endeavours. It is important to place him, for after all a person is a product of his social and material conditions. Mirza Ghalib was the poet of Muslim political decline and embodied the despondence of the Delhi’s Ashrafia at the loss of political power. Iqbal was the poet of Muslim resurgence and revival embodying the growing aspirations of a nascent Muslim middle class. His poetic classics Shikwa, the lament, and Jawab-e-Shikwa, the response to the lament, encapsulate his thinking from very early on.

The idea of the loss of Muslim political power had been the preoccupation of many modernists amongst Muslims, most notably Sir Syed Ahmad Khan. A recurring theme in this line of thinking was the idea of ‘theft’ – worldly progress and glory was the inheritance of the Muslims stolen from them by the West. In the lament and its response, Iqbal strongly emphasises this theme. His solution was a subtle departure from Sir Syed Ahmad Khan. Whereas Sir Syed Ahmad Khan only exhorted the Muslims to edify themselves with western education, Iqbal pointedly refers to the failure of Muslims to live by Quran, which he argues the West has already done. He also denounces mindless aping of the west by pointing out that Muslims dress and act like the Christians and Jews, while Christians and Jews have internalised the lessons of the Quran. This idea took a life of its own.

Iqbal’s earlier outlook on Muslim identity was decidedly inclusive rather than exclusive. This explains his close ties to the Ahmadi community and his effusive praise for Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, the founder of that sect (such was his closeness that there is speculation that Iqbal had converted to Ahmadi beliefs at one point in his life).

By the 1930s, however, Iqbal’s views seem to have undergone a sea change. Iqbal argued for a separate status for Ahmadis as a religious community. In his essay, Islam and Ahmadism, a rejoinder to Nehru’s articles on the subject, Iqbal exposes his basic anxiety; solidarity of Islam and the danger impacting it by the ideas propounded by Ahmadism. Arguing that the founder of Ahmadism, who he had praised earlier, may have heard a voice, he puts it down to spiritual impoverishment of the Muslim people. He proceeds to vilify Ahmadis as pre-Islamic Magianism which takes on – or steals – the important externals of Islam.

The idea of theft comes into play. Iqbal argues that the finality of prophethood is the key to establishing Muslim solidarity and that Ahmadis, by denying this tenet, would cause the pre-Islamic Magian condition where societies would be broken down and recast in a new light. As a corollary of this argument Allama Iqbal goes on to argue against religious tolerance or the state’s indifference towards being “harmful” to religious communities. In other words, Iqbal was opposed to absolute religious freedom.

Therefore modern historians of thought in Pakistan must grapple with the fundamental discord between Iqbal’s ideas and Jinnah’s vision both of Muslim solidarity and religious freedom. Jinnah as the leader of the All India Muslim League repeatedly ruled out the idea that Ahmadis could not join it. Contrary to Iqbal’s view of Muslim solidarity emanating out of theological consensus, Jinnah’s test was simple: if a person professed to be a Muslim, he was welcome in the Muslim League.

This became a major point of contention in Punjab, where elements in the Punjab Muslim League wanted to exclude Ahmadis from the Muslim League on the ground that Ahmadis were non-Muslims. Simultaneously Jinnah was attacked by pro-Congress Islamic parties like Majlis-e-Ahrar and Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (JUI-F) for his tolerance of Ahmadis in the Muslim League. However Jinnah did not budge from his principled position on the issue, going so far as to call such theological and sectarian issues as a danger to Muslim unity.

Similarly, Jinnah was a lifelong advocate of the state’s neutrality in matters of religion – an idea which Iqbal considered as problematic. Throughout the Pakistan movement Jinnah promised freedom of religion as a cornerstone of the future state of Pakistan and on August 11, 1947, as the founder of the country, he made his policy plain once again in that memorable address. Jinnah was also wary of theological issues creeping into political discourse. He understood that the question of who is a Muslim would open up a Pandora’s Box where everyone would be fair game, including his own Shia community. He therefore tiptoed carefully around Iqbal’s ideas which he disagreed with, never endorsing them.

The All India Muslim League itself had utilised Allama Iqbal selectively. They had pointed to his address in Allahabad in 1930 as having laid the foundations of Pakistan. On his part, Iqbal had realised the importance of winning over Jinnah and had written a series of letters in 1936 and 1937 asking Jinnah to take up the cause of Muslims in North-West India and to ignore Muslim minorities in the rest of India.

How influential were these letters in Jinnah’s eventual transformation from ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity to an apostle of Muslim separatism, is a matter for a historian to determine. What we do know, however, is that these letters were long forgotten until Muhammad Sharif Toosi chanced upon them in Jinnah’s personal library. When these were published in the 1940s, Jinnah wrote in the preface that he had not saved his replies to these letters and therefore the famed Iqbal-Jinnah correspondence would remain incomplete. As an amateur biographer of Jinnah, I find it very strange because Jinnah usually saved his replies.

Jinnah in any event was not Iqbal’s first choice to lead the Muslims. They had not seen eye-to-eye during the Round Table Conferences in England. Apparently their relationship was not free of rancour even in the end. Iqbal told Nehru in his last days,

“What is common between Jinnah and you? He is a politician and you are a patriot.” (Nehru mentions this in his book Discovery of India).

These differences are very conveniently swept under the rug by our ideologues who want to concoct the false equation “Iqbal+Jinnah=Pakistan”.

In fact Iqbal has long trumped Jinnah in Pakistan. Pakistan of today, a befuddling religious state that has taken upon itself the burden of spiritual wellbeing of its people is precisely the kind of state Iqbal, the theocrat, had in mind and precisely the kind of state Jinnah, the democrat, wanted to avoid. A great part of the blame, however, lies with Jinnah himself for not having disavowed more clearly Iqbal and his ilk who he took on his fellow travellers in his political struggle to his own detriment.



4 CommentsPrintEmail
on Twitter, become a fan on Facebook

Yasser Latif Hamdani
The writer is a lawyer based in Lahore and the author of the book Mr Jinnah: Myth and Reality. He tweets as @theRealYLH (twitter.com/therealylh)

• RSS Feed

The views expressed by the writer and the reader comments do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of The Express Tribune.

This man is known for blatant lies and fabricating history. He is a liar of epic proportions

 

[Arsalan]

No he didn't... the author belongs to Qadiyani community, a deceitful minority cult. We have already busted his ideas on this thread but I'm worried if there's a proportional rejoinder to BS on other media..

Chlo, gal he muk gai!!

Thanks for the summary!! It proves that there isnt much worth reading in this anyway.

 

[airmarshal]

Thats such a rubbish article.

Jinnah was an Indian nationalist and after successive defeats in Indian national Congress, he tried his hand at Indian Muslim League and was not given much of attention. Frustrated, he left for London. It was in 1930 that Iqbal convinced Jinnah to return to India and lead Indian Muslim League again.

So it was not Jinnah who chose Iqbal. It was Iqbal who chose Jinnah.

Read Stanley Walpole book first.

 

[war&peace]

There is currently one operating in Pakistan by the name of Gohar Shahi.
The Sudanese Mahdi was working against the British so they waged war against him, the one in India was working with them so he was their patron saint.

I came to know about this group during a visit to data darbar with some foreign friends when I saw a group of people singing Iqbal's kalam "khudi ka sirr e nehan" and my cousin told me they are Gohar Shahi's followers and acc. to him he claimed false prophethood ...

 

[niaz]

Title of the thread “Jinnah was not Iqbal’s first choice to lead the Muslims implies that it was in Allama Iqbal’s power to decide who would lead the Muslims of the subcontinent!

I would not ‘pooh pooh’ and article simply because it was written by a Qadiani, especially since Sir Zafaraullah Khan was Qadiani as well. Being one of the oldest members (in age) and a student of history; I would like to describe the political scene in Punjab during the 1910-1940 period.

Mian Mohamed Shafi had organised a Muslim association in early 1906 and after All India Muslim League was formed, Sir Mian Mohamed Shafi established the Punjab branch in 1907 of which Shah Din was elected the president with Mian Mohamed Shafi as General Secretary. (Mohamed Ali Jinnah joined Muslim League in 1913).

Most of the Muslim leaders of Punjab belonged to the landed gentry. Prominent Muslim elite during the 1920- 1940 were Sir Sikandar Hayat, Nawab Qizilbash, Nawab Shah Nawaz Mamdot, Malik Khizr Hayat Tiwana, Nawab of Kalabagh, Mian Ahmad Yar Daulatana, Feroze Khan Noon, Sir Fazli Hussain & Sir Mohamed Zafarullah Khan etc.

Mian Fazli Hussein formed the Unionist Party in 1923 and nearly all of the above were its members along with a few Hindus such as Sir Chotu Ram & some Sikh Akali Dal leaders. Mian Fazli Hussein controlled Unionist party until his death around 1937. Punjabi Provincial Muslim League was headed by Sir Mian Mohamad Shafi with Allama Iqbal as one of the leading members. Allama Iqbal later became president of Punjab Mulsim League. Politico-religious parties such as Majlis-e Ahrar, Majlis-e Itehade Millat etc. as well as Khaksar Tehrik were Congress Allies.

Quaid e Azam returned from England in 1934 to lead All India Muslim League which was in a bad shape. Punjab
Muslim League was badly beaten in 1937 election with only 2 candidates winning. On the other hand Unionist Party won 95 seats out of the 175 seats in the Punjab Assembly. Raja Ghazanfar Ali Khan of Pind Dadan Khan seat, joined Unionist party after winning on the Muslim League ticket.

It is said that it was Raja Ghazanfar Ali khan that brought about the famous Jinnah-Sikander pact. Sir Sikandar Hayat was the Chief Minister of Punjab and the pact was a loose agreement between the Unionists and the Muslim League.

At the AIML session in October 1937 at Lucknow, Muslim leaders of the Unionist party agreed to support Muslim League and Mohamad Ali Jinnah, in return all members of the Punjab Unionist party could join Muslim League if they so desired.

It was only after this pact that All Indian Muslim League (AIML) and the Quaid-e Azam Mohamed Ali Jinnah became popular among Muslim population of the Punjab province. By that time Allama Iqbal's health had already deteriorated and Allama passed away 6 months later during April 1938.

From the above it is evident that despite the fact Allama was highly respected, he did not have sufficient political clout that he could decide who would be the leader of the Indian Muslims. Allama was powerful in the Punjab Muslim League not in the UP, Bengal & Behar, hence the influence Allama could exert in the choice of the leaders of AIML was limited.

Besides Allama Iqbal also had many influential critics in Punjab. Mualana Zafar Ali Khan of the influential Zamindar daily newspaper and one of the leaders of the Khilafat movement on the occasion of Allama receiving the Knighthood wrote:

Lo madrassah’i ilm hua qasr-i-hakumat

Afsos kay Allama say Sir ho gai’y Iqbal

Pahley to sir –i-millat-I bayda kay thay wo taj

Ab awr suno taj kay sir ho gaiay Iqbal

Kahta tha yeh kal thandi sarak par koee gustakh,

Sarkar ki dedleez peh sir ho gai’ay Iqbal

(Lo and behold, the seat of learning has become the seat of government.

Alas Iqbal stooped to knighthood from an Allama

Formerly he was the crown of the Muslims

Hark news; Iqbal has become a knight of the crown.

An impertinent fellow said yesterday on the Mall

Iqbal bowed his head at the threshold of the government)

The above was a satirical poem which indicated the deep dislike of some of the Khilafat Movement activists against Muslim league and her leaders.

Whether Mohammed Ali Jinnah was the first choice of Allama Iqbal or not is irrelevant because the position of the leadership of All India Muslim League was not Allama Iqbal’s to give. The leadership was decided by the membership of the AIML which included many other equally influential leaders such as the Agha Khan, Maulvi Fazlul Haq, Ch Khaliquz zaman, Liaqat Ali Khan, Hussein Shaheed Suharwardy and Sardar Adur Rab Nishtar, Khawaja Nazimuddin, Bahadur Yar Jang etc. However, Allama Iqbal did write letters to the Quaid urging him to return when he was in London. I would therefore ignore the article of Yasser Latif Hamdani as worth nothing more than a cursory read.

Finally I would like to restate in my view, true greatness lies by achieving great things in face of over whelming odds. In the process heroes would also make mistakes, but less often than the ordinary folks.

Allama Iqbal was a poet and a thinker par excellence; you won’t find many like him in the history of the subcontinent. Even though Allama was elected to the Punjab Assembly for 4 years (1926-1930), Allama was by nature, a thinker and a philosopher and not a politician.

Mohamed Ali Jinnah, on the other hand, was a first rate lawyer and an extra ordinary politician and statesman. All Pakistanis should be eternally grateful to him for achieving the impossible. Without him there would have been no Pakistan.

Both were great men, and my heroes. “Aye putr hataan tey nai’ wickday”

 

[M. Sarmad]

1) Notorious Blogger
2) Butthurt Qadiyani
3) Bullshit artist
4) Conspiracy against Pakistan
5) Barking Dog
6) etc. etc,

I wonder why hasn't anyone actually tried to bring forward counter arguments/facts

One may disagree with what he says, but there is no one, I repeat, no one, in our entire young generation (let alone PDF posters) who has done more research on Jinnah (and making of Pakistan) than this guy ...

 

[SQ8]

1) Notorious Blogger
2) Butthurt Qadiyani
3) Bullshit artist
4) Conspiracy against Pakistan
5) Barking Dog
6) etc. etc,

I wonder why hasn't anyone actually tried to bring forward counter arguments/facts

One may disagree with what he says, but there is no one, I repeat, no one, in our entire young generation (let alone PDF posters) who has done more research on Jinnah (and making of Pakistan) than this guy ...

They already have, because the gist of the article has NOTHING to do with Jinnah as much as Mirza Ghulam Ahmed.

I certainly doubt that the bold is true or even miles close to being true, clearly you have never had the rounds of places(or have a personal relationship or convergence of views with the author) like QaU, NDU and KU where both young men and women have and still do research on the subject; just because they dont blog at fanatical rates does not make them any less than this person.

His article has nothing to do with Jinnah being Iqbal's first choice and more to do with him lamenting the state of the Qadiyani sect and religious intolerance in subcontinent muslims. Clearly his title should have reflected it as it would seem fair to actually have a title that befits the content. Niaz's post above suits the title much more than any of the unrelated and generally opinionated content of the article.

 

[M. Sarmad]

They already have, because the gist of the article has NOTHING to do with Jinnah as much as Mirza Ghulam Ahmed.

No, they haven't ...

The gist of the article has everything to do with Jinnah (and his views) and it has nothing to do with Mirza Ghulam Ahmed (or the religious views of Ahmediyya community)


The author wants his readers to grapple with the fundamental discord between Iqbal’s ideas and Jinnah’s vision both of Muslim solidarity and religious freedom.


The author points out that Jinnah believed that a person should be considered Muslim if he says he is Muslim. Iqbal, on the other hand, believed that a theological consensus was required to determine the faith of an individual/community. (Example of Ahmadiyya community has been quoted here, Iqbal was not willing to accept them as Muslims, whereas Jinnah believed that they were Muslims because they themselves said so)


The author further argues that Jinnah was a lifelong advocate of the state’s neutrality in matters of religion – an idea which Iqbal considered as problematic.



The author after pointing out the differences in opinion/views (of Jinnah and Iqbal) very rightly says that These differences are very conveniently swept under the rug by our ideologues who want to concoct the false equation “Iqbal+Jinnah=Pakistan”.



And

In fact Iqbal has long trumped Jinnah in Pakistan. Pakistan of today, a befuddling religious state that has taken upon itself the burden of spiritual well being of its people is precisely the kind of state Iqbal, the theocrat, had in mind and precisely the kind of state Jinnah, the democrat, wanted to avoid.

I certainly doubt that the bold is true or even miles close to being true, clearly you have never had the rounds of places(or have a personal relationship or convergence of views with the author) like QaU, NDU and KU where both young men and women have and still do research on the subject; just because they dont blog at fanatical rates does not make them any less than this person.

You are entitled to your opinion. But until and unless you are able quote a few examples ...... Of such young men and women (along with links to the research work they have done) ..... don't expect others to agree with you on this

Regards