Blog Archives

The respected parents of Iqbal must have proposed his name at a very auspicious time

Dr. Iqbal’s statement “Qadianis and Orthodox Muslims” was published in
“The Statesman” on 14th May 1935.

The issue created by the controversy between the Qadianis and the orthodox Muslims is extremely important. The Muslims have only recently begun to realise its importance. I intended to address an open letter to the British people explaining the social and political implications of the issue. But unfortunately my health prevented me from doing so. I am, however, glad to say a few words for the present on the matter, which, to my mind, affects the entire collective life of the Indian Muslims. It must, however, be pointed out at the outset that I have no intention to enter into any theological argument. Nor do I mean to undertake a psychological analysis of the mind of the founder of the Qadiani movement; the former will not interest those for whom this statement is meant and the time for the latter has not yet arrived in India. My point of view is that of a student of general history and comparative religion.

India is a land of many religious communities, and Islam is a religious community in a much deeper sense than those communities whose structure is determined partly by the religious and partly by the race idea. Islam repudiates the race idea altogether and founds itself on the religious idea alone, a basis which is wholly spiritual and consequently far more ethereal than blood relationship, Muslim society is naturally much more sensitive to forces which it considers harmful to its integrity. Any religious society historically arising from the bosom of Islam, which claims a new prophethood for its basis, and declares all Muslims who do not recognise the truth of its alleged revelation as Kafirs, must, therefore, be regarded by every Muslims as a serious danger to the solidarity of Islam. This must necessarily be so; since the integrity of Muslim society is secured by the Idea of the Finality of Prophethood alone.

This idea of Finality is perhaps the most original idea in the cultural history of mankind: its true significance can be understood only by those who carefully study the history of pre-Islamic Magian culture in Western and Middle Asia. The concept of Magian culture, according to modern research, includes cultures associated with Zoroastruanism, Judaism, Jewish Christianity, Chaldean and Sabean religion. To these creed-communities the idea of the continuity of prophethood was essential, and consequently they lived in a state of constant expectation. It is probable that the Magian man psychologically enjoyed this state of expectation. The modern man is spiritually far more emancipated than the Magian man. The result of the Magian attitude was the disintegration of old communities and the constant formation of new ones by all sorts of religious adventurers. In the modern world of Islam, ambitious and ignorant Mullaism, taking advantage of the modern Press, has shamelessly attempted to hurl the old pre-Islamic Magian outlook in the face of the twentieth century. It is obvious that Islam which claims to weld all the various communities of the world into one single community cannot reconcile itself to a movement which threatens its present solidarity and holds the promise of further rifts in human society.

Of the of the two forms which the modern revival of Pre-Islamic Magianism has assumed, Bahaism appears to me to be far more honest than Qadianism; for the former openly departs from Islam, whereas the latter apparently retains some of the more important externals of Islam with an inwardness wholly inimical of the spirit and aspirations of Islam. Its idea of a jealous God with an inexhaustible store of earthquakes and plagues for its opponents; its conception of the prophet as a soothsayer; its idea of the continuity of the spirit of messiah, are so absolutely Jewish that the movement can easily be regarded as a return to early Judaism. Professor Buber who has given an account of the movement initiated by the Polish Messiah Baalshem tells us that “it was thought that the spirit of the Messiah descended upon the earth through the prophets and even though a long line of holy men stretching into the present time – the Zaddiks” (Sadiq). Heretical movements in Muslim Iran under the pressure of Pre-Islamic Magian ideas invented the words buruz, hulul, zill, to cover this idea of a perpetual reincarnation. It was necessary to invent new expressions for a Magian idea in order to make it less shocking to Muslim conscience. Even the phrase “Promised Messiah” is not a product of Muslim religious consciousness. It is a bastard expression and has its origin in the Pre-Islamic Magian outlook.

We do not find it in early Islamic religious and historical literature. This remarkable fact is revealed by Professor Wensinck’s Concordance of the Traditions of the Holy Prophet, which covers no less than eleven collections of the traditions and three of the earliest historical documents of Islam. One can very well understand the reasons why early Muslims never used this expression. The expression did not appeal to them probably because they thought that it implied a false conception of the historical process. The Magian mind regarded time as a circular movement, the glory of elucidation, the true nature of the historical process as a perpetually creative movement was reserved for the great Muslim thinker and historian, Ibn Khaldun.

The intensity of feeling which the Indian Muslims have manifested in opposition to the Quadiani movement is, therefore, perfectly intelligible to the student of modern sociology. The average Muslim who was the other day described as “Mulla-ridden” by a writer in The Civil and Military Gazette is inspired in his opposition to the movement more by his instinct of self-preservation than by a fuller grasp called “enlightened”‘ Muslin has seldom made an attempt to understand the real cultural significance of the idea of Finality in Islam, and a process of slow and imperceptible westernisation has further deprived him even of the instinct of self-preservation. Some so-called enlightened Muslims have gone to the extent of preaching “tolerance’ to their brethren-in-faith. I can easily excuse Sir Herbert Emerson for preaching toleration to Muslims; for a modern European who is born and brought up in an entirely different culture does not, and perhaps cannot, develop the insight which makes it possible for one to understand an issue vital to the very structure of a community with an entirely different cultural outlook.

In India circumstances are much more peculiar. This country of religious communities, where the future of each community rests entirely upon its solidarity, is ruled by a Western people who cannot but adopt a policy of non-interference in religion. This liberal and indispensable policy in a country like India has led to most unfortunate results. In so far as Islam is concerned, it is no exaggeration to say that the solidarity of the Muslim community in India under the British is far less safe than the solidarity of the Jewish community was in the days of Jesus under the Romans. Any religious adventurer in India can set up any claim and carve out a new community for his own exploration. This liberal State of ours does not care a fig for integrity of a parent community, provided the adventurer assures it of his loyalty and his followers are regular in the payment of taxes due to the State. The meaning of this policy for Islam was quite accurately seen by our great poet Akbar who in his usual humorous strain says:

O friend! pray for the glory of the Briton’s name:
Say, “I am God” sans chain, sans cross, sans shame.
I very much appreciate the orthodox Hindus’ demand for protection against religious reformers in the new constitution. Indeed, the demand ought to have been first made by the Muslims who. unlike Hindus, entirely eliminate the race idea from their social structure. The Government must seriously consider the present situation and try, if possible, to understand the mentality of the absolutely vital to the integrity of his community. After all, if the integrity of a community is threatened, the only course open to that community is to defend itself against the forces of disintegration.

And what are the ways of self-defense?

Controversial writings and refutation of the claims of the man who is regarded by the parent community as a religious adventurer. Is it then fair to preach toleration to the parent community whose integrity is threatened and to allow the rebellious group to carry on its propaganda with impunity, even when the propaganda is highly abusive?

If a group, rebellious from the point of view of the parent community, happens to be of some special service to Government, the latter are at liberty to reward their services as best as they can. Other communities will not grudge it. But the forces which tend seriously to affect its collective life is as sensitive to the danger of dissolution as individual life. It is hardly necessary to add in this connection that the mutual theological bickerings of Muslim sects do not affect vital principles on which all these sects agree with all their differences in spite of their mutual accusation of heresy.

There is one further point which demands Government’s special consideration. The encouragement in India of religious adventurers, on the ground of modern liberalism, tends to make people more and more indifferent to religion and will eventually completely eliminate the important factor of religion from the life of Indian communities. The Indian mind is likely to be nothing less than the form of atheistic materialism which has appeared in Russia.

But the religious issue is not the only issue which is at present agitating the minds of the Punjab Muslims. There are other quarrels of a political nature which, according to my reading, Sir Herbert Emerson hinted in his speech at the Anjuman’s anniversary. These are, no doubt, of a purely political nature, but they affect the unity of Punjab Muslims as seriously as the religious issue. While thanking the Government for their anxiety to see the Punjab Muslims united, I venture to suggest a little self-examination to the Government themselves. Who is responsible, I ask, for the distinction of rural and urban Muslims – a distinction which has cut up the Muslim community into two groups and the rural group into several sub-groups constantly at war with one another?

Sir Herbert Emerson deplores the lack of proper leadership among the Punjab Muslims. But I wish Sir Herbert Emerson realised that the rural-urban distinction created by the Government and maintained by them through ambitious political adventurers, whose eyes are fixed on their own personal interests and not on the unity of Islam in the Punjab, had already made the community incapable of producing a real leader. It appears to me that this device probably originated in a desire rather to make it impossible for real leadership to grow. Sir Herbert Emerson deplores the lack of leadership in Muslims; I deplore the continuation by the Government of a system which has crushed out all hope of a real leader appearing in the province.

Postscript. I understand that this statement has caused some misunderstanding in some quarters. It is thought that I have made a subtle suggestion to the Government to suppress the Qadiani movement by force. Nothing of the kind. I have made it clear that the policy of non-interference in religion is the only policy which can be adopted by the rulers of India. No other policy is possible. I confess, however, that to my mind this policy is harmful to the interests of religious communities; but there is no escape from it and those who suffer will have to safeguard their interests by suitable means. The best course for the rulers of India is, in my opinion, to declare the Qadianis a separate community. This will be perfectly consistent with the policy of the Qadianis themselves, and the Indian Muslim will tolerate them just as he tolerates other religions.

The cultural value of the idea of finality in Islam I have fully explained elsewhere, its meaning is simple: No spiritual surrender to any human being after Muhammad (pbuh) who emancipated his followers by giving them a law which is realisable as arising from the very core of human conscience. Theologically, the doctrine is that: the socio-political organisation called “Islam” is perfect and eternal. No revelation the denial of which entails heresy is possible after Muhammad (pbuh). He who claims such a revelation is a traitor to Islam. Since the Qadianis believe the founder of the Ahmadiyyah movement to be the bearer of such a revelation, they declare that the entire world of Islam is Infidel. The founder’s own argument, quite worthy of a medieval theologian, is that the spirituality of the Holy Prophet of Islam must be regarded as imperfect if it is not creative of another prophet. He claims his own prophethood to be an evidence of the prophet-rearing power of the spirituality of the Holy Prophet of Islam. But if you further ask him whether the spirituality of Muhammad (pbuh) is capable of rearing more prophets than one, his answer is “No”. This virtually amounts to saying: “Muhammad (pbuh) is not the last Prophet: I am the last.” Far from understanding the cultural value of the Islamic idea of finality in the history of mankind generally and of Asia especially, he thinks that finality in the sense that no follower of Muhammad (pbuh) can ever reach the status of prophethood is a mark of imperfection in Muhammad’s (pbuh)prophethood. As I read the psychology of his mind he, in the interest of his own claim to prophethood avails himself of what he describes as the creative spirituality of the Holy Prophet of Islam and, at the same time, deprives the Holy Prophet of his “finality” by limiting the creative capacity of his spirituality of the rearing of only one prophet, i.e. the founder of the Ahmadiyyah movement. In this way does the new prophet quietly steal away the “finality” of one whom he claims to be his spiritual progenitor. He claims to be a buruz of the Holy Prophet of Islam insinuating thereby that, being a buruz of him, his “finality” is virtually the “finality” of Muhammad (pbuh); and that this view of the matter, therefore, does not violate the “finality” of the Holy Prophet. In identifying the two finalities, his own and that of the Holy Prophet, he conveniently loses sight of the temporal meaning of the idea of Finality. It is, however, obvious that the word buruz, in the sense even complete likeness, cannot help him at all; for the buruz must always remain the other side of its original. Only in the sense of reincarnation a buruz becomes identical with original. Thus if we take the word buruz to mean “like in spiritual qualities” the argument remains ineffective; if, on the other hand, we take it to mean reincarnation of the original in the Aryan sense of the word, the argument becomes plausible; but its author turns out to be only a magian in disguise. It is further claimed on the authority of the great Muslim mystic, Muhyuddin ibn Arabi of Spain, that it is possible for a Muslim saint to attain, in his spiritual evolution, to the kind of experience characteristic of the prophetic consciousness. I personally believe this view of Shaikh Muhyuddin ibn Arabi to be psychologically unsound: but assuming it to be correct the Qadiani argument is based on a complete misunderstanding of his exact position. The Shaikh regards it as a purely private achievement which does not, and in the nature of things cannot, entitle such a saint to declare that all those who do not believe in him are outside the pale of Islam. Indeed, from the Shaikh’s point of view, there may be more than one saint, living in the same age or country, who may attain to prophet consciousness. The point to be seized is that, while it is psychologically possible for a saint to attain to prophetic experience, his experience will have no socio-political significance making him the centre of a new organisation and entitling him to declare this organisation to be the criterion of the faith or disbelief of the followers of Muhammad (pbuh). Leaving his mystical psychology aside I am convinced from a careful study of the relevant passages of the “Futuhat” that the great Spanish mystic is as a firm a believer in the Finality of Muhammad (pbuh) as any orthodox Muslim. And if he had seen in his mystical vision that one day in the East some Indian amateurs in Sufism would seek to destroy the Holy Prophet’s Finality under cover of his mystical psychology, he would have certainly anticipated the Indian Ulama in warning the Muslims of the world against such traitors to Islam.

Postscript

I understand that this statement has caused some misunderstanding in some quarters. It is thought that I have made a subtle suggestion to the Government to suppress the Qadiani movement by force. Nothing of the kind. I have made it clear that the policy of non-interference in religion is the only policy which can be adopted by the rulers of India. No other policy is possible. I confess, however, that to my mind this policy is harmful to the interests of religious communities; but there is no escape from it and those who suffer will have to safeguard their interests by suitable means. The best course for the rulers of India is, in my opinion, to declare the Qadianis a separate community. This will be perfectly consistent with the policy of the Qadianis themselves, and the Indian Muslim will tolerate them just as he tolerates other religions.

Tawhid, Unity of God, in Iqbalian poetry. Speech by Mohammed Zaheeruddin, (Vice President, Iqbal Academy Hyderabad) given during his visit to Sharjah in May 2006.

Dr. Javid Iqbal
IQBAL REVIEW
Journal of the Iqbal Academy Pakistan
April 2004 – Volume: 45 – Number: 2

Iqbal’s world‑view is based on his deep concern with the future of humanity as well as religion. On the future of humanity his thoughts are scattered in his poetic works and some of his prose writings. But on the future of religion he has elaborated his ideas in the last chapter titled “Is Religion Possible?” of his book The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam.

Broadly speaking, religion is required for the moral uplift of man. If there had been no man, there would have been no need for religion. Therefore humanity and religion complement each other. It is proper to assess Iqbal’s view on the future of humanity before considering his ideas on the future of religion.

I wish to commence the discussion by defining two relevant terms. These are: (a) Development, and (b) Modern Man. “Development”, in the modern context, means “increase in per capita income of a nation‑state”. This purely materialistic concept of development is generally considered a Western innovation. And what do we mean by the expression “Modern Man”? Certain changes took place in the mentality and way of life of the Western man as a result of the dissemination of materialism and the evolution of Western Europe from a developing to a developed society. Modern Man is sometimes called Industrial Man, Technical Man, Mass Man, One‑sided Man, Angry Man, Lonely Man etc. He believes in the supremacy of science and technology of which he himself is a product. He relies on reason and feverish activity. He is secular, proud, selfish and amoral. He seeks happiness only through multiplying material comforts and wealth. According to Iqbal, he is so much overshadowed by the results of his intellectual achievements that he has ceased to live soulfully i.e., from within.

Many liberal thinkers and poets of the West have criticized Modern Man. There is a very interesting passage in Iqbal’s Reconstruction Lectures in which he shows his disillusionment from both Western man as well as Eastern man. About Western man, he comments: “In the domain of thought he is living in open conflict with himself, and in the domain of economic and political life he is living in open conflict with others He finds himself unable to control his ruthless egoism and his infinite gold‑hunger which is gradually killing all higher striving in him and bringing him nothing but life‑weariness. Absorbed in the ‘fact’, that is to say, the optically present source of sensation, he is entirely cut off from the unplumbed depths of his own being”.

About Eastern man, he laments: “The condition of things in the East is no better. The technique of medieval mysticism by which religious life, in its higher manifestations, developed itself both in‑the East and in the West has now practically failed Far from reintegrating the forces of the average man’s inner life, and thus preparing him for participation in the march, of history, it has taught him a false renunciation and made him perfectly contented with his ignorance and spiritual thralldom”. (Reconstruction pp. 148‑149).

Generally speaking, Modern Man is Western man and he is found in materially prosperous countries, technically called I.D.Cs (Industrially Developed Countries) as opposed to U.D.Cs (Under Developed Countries).

What took place in Europe which eventually led to the development of materialism and the emergence of Modern Man?

The European society in the Middle Ages was a feudal society. The average man lived as a serf, totally dominated by cruel feudal lords and a static Church. The hold of the Church was primarily based on Ptolemy’s cosmology, according to which the earth was the centre of the universe and everything including the sun revolved around it. On the basis of this cosmology, the position adopted by the Church was that man was under the direct gaze of God. Thus the Church being the Vicar of God, and with the support of the feudal lords, had acquired enormous power over the ignorant, superstitious and frightened masses who were exploited for centuries.

However certain events or movements in Europe changed the then existing state of affairs. These were: Reformation, which released man’s faith from the clutches of a dominating and static Church. Renaissance, which liberated man’s mind and in his quest for knowledge man gradually learnt to depend on reason, sense perception and scientific thinking. The Ptolemaic cosmology was shattered ‑by the, Copernican astronomy, according to which the earth could no longer be considered the centre of the cosmos, but as one celestial body among many, it revolved around the sun and as for its position in the universe, it was merely an insignificant speak. So man was not under the constant Gaze of God as such. Then followed Darwin’s theory that man had descended from apes or had biologically evolved from animals.

Iqbal feels that this formulation of the view of evolution in Europe (unlike the one advanced in the world of Islam which brought into being Rumi’s tremendous enthusiasm for the biological future of man), had led to the belief that there existed no scientific basis for the idea that the present rich complexity of human endowment would ever be materially exceeded. On this Iqbal comments: “That is how the modern man’s secret despair hides itself behind the screen of scientific terminology”. (Reconstruction. p. 148).

However Iqbal realized that all these events collectively made man conscious that he had to depend solely on himself and this led to the awakening, of man. He gained confidence through his philosophies of criticism and naturalism. He felt that his further lay exclusively in his control over the forces of nature. Thereafter the Industrial Revolution started changing the face of Europe, and with the French Revolution came the concepts of liberty, equality and fraternity. It was in fact this awakening which led to the rise and growth of materialism, and the disappearance of religion from the collective life of the people.

Man learnt to produce energy through coal and steam. Thus cheap energy and labour were used for running factories and mills. Europe manufactured so many goods that in the history of mankind this had never been achieved before.

For the sale of these goods markets were required. The search for markets and more raw material led to colonialism and imperialism. Thus in Europe a market society was created, and the standard of life of an average man improved. Through the emphasis on freedom of trade autocratic powers of monarchs were curtailed, and capitalist democracies were established on the basis of territorial nationalism.

In Europe these events engendered the formation of a new mentality and a new freedom. But the new man who came into being in this process, demanded absolute freedom. Absolute freedom meant ruthless trampling over the rights of others. Therefore, Modern Man with all his dedication to and respect for human rights, maintained double standards. Broadly speaking, human society was divided into exploiters and exploited.

The competition and jealousy among the exploiter― robber nations of Europe eventually led to the First World War on the one hand and the establishment of atheistic socialism or communism in Russia on the other.

However the struggle of Modern Man for supremacy over the others continued and resulted in the Second World War. But Do lesson was learnt by man from these two wars of mass destruction of human life and property.

The race for the manufacture and production of fatal arms did not stop. According to the figures provided by Dr. Hans Blix upto 1985 the member‑states of the Nuclear Club possessed 50,000 nuclear devices with an explosive yield of 1000 Heroshima bombs. In other words, according to him, there was 4 tons TNT explosive available for the destruction of each and every human being in this world, and this was the position in 1985.

How are the I.D.Cs sustaining their prosperous position or what is the secret of their material power? It is the production and use of energy. The position is that the population in the I.D.Cs is 27% of the population of the whole world whereas they consume 80% of the energy produced in the world. The population of the U.S.A is only 6% of the world population but it consumes 36% of energy. As for the U.D.Cs, they constitute 73% of the world population And the energy used by them is only 20%.

The U.D.Cs aspire to become like the I.D.Cs and the model of man before them is the Western Modern Man. But the I.D.Cs maintain their economic and technological hegemony over them by imposing a system of economics based on loans. If the U.D.Cs increase the prices of raw material, the I.D Cs increase the prices of technology or finished products. This results in global inflation which is not as destructive for the I.D.Cs as it is for the poor U.D.Cs. Thus the material prosperity of Modern Man is founded and is being maintained on this discrimination between man and man.

However, despite the oil crisis, global inflation, and population explosion in the U.D.Cs, the movement in those countries for economic freedom and technological emancipation is gaining momentum.

Meanwhile a depressing picture of the future is presented in the annual reports of the Club of Rome. According to these reports by approximately middle of the 21st century the world’s food resources may be completely exhausted. According to their estimate hunger is likely to strike first in certain parts of Africa and thereafter Bangladesh, India, Pakistan etc. if the growth rate of the population remains the same as it is at present, and this situation is likely to arise in the first quarter of the 21st century. The reports also state that the conventional means of obtaining energy or the world’s power resources may be completely exhausted before the end of 21st century.

In the light of these reports, some liberal thinkers of the West are recommending that the political leaders of the I.D.Cs should review their definition of “development”. According to some of them the Utopias of early twentieth century i.e., communism and capitalism, as economic orders, have both failed to get rid of under‑development on global scale, and that at present no one possesses any such economic system which can generate will and courage in man to improve his living conditions in the future.

Eminent Marxist philosophers like Herbert Marcos and Maximilian Robel had been extremely critical of the Soviet policy of only concentrating on breaking the Western industrial and technological supremacy instead of using the Soviet revolution for the economic betterment of man. In a way, these thinkers had forestalled the eventual break‑down of the Soviet economy if such a policy was to be pursued.

World politics at present are not development oriented but are power oriented. If power is dependent on economic stability, then the emergence and continuance of the U.S.A as a unipolar power, would involve the length of time it can remain in the field as such. But the unipolar power cannot live in the ivory tower when 73% population of the world is afflicted with global inflation, population explosion and under‑development. According to the liberal thinkers the world today is standing on the edge of a global economic crisis which can lead to total destruction of mankind. Consequently these thinkers are suggesting the establishment of a new international economic order based on ethics and morality. According to them such artificial discriminations like blacks and whites, capitalists and communists, developed and under‑developed etc. had been harmful for the natural advancement of humanity. Tofler suggests that the U.N. should establish an international body composed of economic experts belonging to both I.D. Cs as well as U.D.Cs, in order to control the threatened global economic crisis or to keep an eye on the negative trends of world economy. Tofler is of the view that in order to save humanity from all future economic crises, it is necessary to think in terms of unity of human beings rather than nations. According to him the world’s population should be planned according to its resources and that these resources should be fully exploited. All men are under‑developed in the sense that for their economic survival they have to depend on one another. Therefore the future survival of man is possible only if he becomes mature by his bitter experiences of the past and learns to respect his fellow men. (The Future Shock/ The Ecco Spasm Report).

It is interesting to note that the views which are being expressed by the liberal thinkers of today about the future of humanity are more or less the same which, had been expressed by Iqbal in his writings more than fifty years ago. Iqbal rejected territorial nationalism as a basis of human unity even when he was a student in Europe. In the Allahabad Address (1930) which contained his suggestion of the formation of a Muslim state in the North‑West of the Indian subcontinent, he had stated: “Luther…. did not realize that in the Peculiar conditions which obtained in Europe, his revolt (against the church organizations would eventually mean the complete displacement of the universal ethics of Jesus by the growth of a plurality of national and hence narrower systems of ethics. Thus the upshot of the intellectual movement initiated by…. Rousseau and Luther was the break up of the one into mutually ill‑adjusted many, (and) the transformation of a human into a national outlook… The result is a set of mutually ill‑adjusted states dominated by interests not human but national, And these mutually ill‑adjusted states after trampling over the morals and convictions of Christianity, are today feeling the need of a federated Europe, i.e., the need of a unity which Christian church‑organization originally gave them but which, instead of reconstructing it in the light of Christ’s mission of human brotherhood, they considered it fit to destroy under the inspiration of Luther.” (Speeches and Statements ed. by A. R. Tariq pp. 4‑6).

In a poem tided “Mecca and Geneva” included in his Zarb‑e Kalim, he points out that in this age nations seem to be mixing freely with one another, although the principle of human unity remains hidden from the discerning eye. This is so because the aim of Western diplomacy is to divide humanity into nations, whereas the mission of Islam is to unify human beings into one fraternity. Respecting this matter Mecca sent a message to the city of Geneva: Are you content to be a scat of the League of Nations or would you prefer to be the centre of United Humanity?

In a statement recorded a couple of months before his death in 1938, Iqbal pointed out: “The modern age prides itself on its progress in knowledge and its matchless scientific developments. No doubt, the pride is justified …. But inspire of all these developments, tyranny of imperialism struts abroad, covering its face in the masks of (capitalist) democracy, (territorial) nationalism, communism, fascism and heaven knows what else besides. Under these masks, in every comer of the earth, the spirit of freedom and the dignity of man are being trampled underfoot in a way of which not even the darkest period of human history presents a parallel. The so called statesmen to whom government had entrusted leadership have proved demons of bloodshed, tyranny and oppression. The rulers whose duty it was to promote higher humanity, to prevent man’s oppression of man and to elevate the moral and intellectual level of mankind, have in their hunger for dominion…., shed the blood of millions and reduced millions to servitude simply in order to pander to the greed and avarice of their own particular groups. After subjugating … weaker peoples… they sowed (the seeds of) divisions among them that the should shed one another’s blood and go to sleep under the opiate of serfdom, so that the leech of imperialism might go on sucking their blood without interruption…. The governments which are not themselves engaged in this drama of fire and blood are sucking the blood of the weaker peoples economically. It is as if the day of doom had come upon the earth, in which no voice of human sympathy or fellowship is audible. The world’s thinkers are stricken dumb. Is this going to be the end of all this progress and evolution of civilization?…. Remember, man can be maintained on this earth only by honoring mankind, and this world will remain a battleground of ferocious beasts of prey unless and until the educational (and moral) forces of the whole world are directed to inculcate in man respect for mankind…. National unity too is not a very durable force. Only one unity is dependable and that unity is the brotherhood of man, which is above race, nationality, colour or language So long as men do not demonstrate by their actions that they believe that the whole world is the family of God, so long as distinctions of race, colour and geographical nationalities are not wiped out completely, they will never be able to lead happy and contented life, and the beautiful ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity will never materialize”. (Speeches and Statements, ed. by A. R. Tariq, pp. 226‑228).

Now we can consider the question: What are Iqbal’s views on the future of religion? It has already been pointed out that, broadly speaking, religion is required for the moral uplift of man. However a counter‑argument may be advanced that morality or ethics being a branch of philosophy, why should it be founded on religion? This line of reasoning would naturally take us to the discussion as to what is the difference between philosophy and religion?

According to Iqbal, philosophy is an independent inquiry based on reason for the comprehension of Reality, and religion, in the broader or higher sense, is also a search for Reality. But its foundations are laid on experience which is other than the normal level of experience. If one claims that the normal level of experience is the only level of knowledge‑yielding experience, then religion need not attract anyone’s attention. But Iqbal argues, if the universe, as it is normally perceived, is only an intellectual construction, and there are other levels of human experience capable of being systematized by other orders of time and space; and in which concept and analysis do not play the same part as they do in the case of our normal experience, then the matter is different. It is precisely for this reason that a person who relies on religious experience, the knowledge gained by him through his experience is essentially personal and incommunicable. However, Iqbal maintains, that the fact that the knowledge gained through religious experience is incommunicable does not imply that the pursuit made by the man of religion has been futile.

Modern man is secular in the sense that he is indifferent towards religion. The reason is that according to his evaluation religion is in conflict with science, and since the findings of science are rationally demonstrable, religion is reduced to mere superstition providing solace to man in his stages of ignorance, but of no authentic relevance in the present and the future. Iqbal does not agree with this conclusion. In his view Reality has outer as well as inner dimensions. Science is concerned with the external behavior of Reality whereas the domain of religion is to discover the meanings of Reality in reference to its inner nature. In this respect both scientific and religious processes run parallel to each other. While commenting on these processes Iqbal states: ‘A careful study of the nature and purpose of these really complementary processes shows that both of them are directed to the purification of experience in their respective spheres” (Reconstruction, p. 155).

Iqbal divides religious life into three periods. In the first period religious life appears as a form of discipline which is voluntarily accepted by an individual or a group of people as unconditional commands without any rational understanding of the ultimate purpose of those commands. It is only in this sense that religion is based on dogma, ritual or some kind of priesthood. In the second period revelation is reconciled with reason and discipline is followed by a rational understanding of the discipline and the ultimate source of its authority. It is at this stage that religion may claim itself to be the sole possessor of the Truth and becomes exclusive or relative and engenders hatred of one religion against the other as well as within a religion itself when one mode of interpretation comes into conflict with another. In the their period religious life develops the ambition to come into direct contact with the Ultimate Reality and it is at this stage that religion becomes a matter of personal assimilation of life and power.

For Iqbal this stage of religious life is what he calls higher religion. He states: “It is, then, in the sense of this last phase in the development of religious life that I use the word religion…. Religion in this sense is known by the unfortunate name of Mysticism, which is supposed to be a life‑denying, fact‑avoiding attitude of mind directly opposed to the radically empirical outlook of our times. Yet higher religion, which is only a search for a larger life, is essentially experience and recognized the necessity of experience as its foundation long before science learnt to do so” (Reconstruction, p. 143‑144).

The question may well be asked that if in the context of higher religion, God is the centre of all religions and the Truth is absolute, then why the diversity or relativity of religions? The answer provided by Martin Lings is that God has sent different religions especially suited to the needs, requirements and characteristics of the different groups of humanity in different temporal cycles. But if these groups of men, in the course of human history, have persecuted one another on account of religious differences, then Providence cannot be held responsible for it. However, despite winning converts through persuasion or slaughter of human beings in the name of religion, many religions which have fought against or competed with one another in the past history, have survived and now dominate different parts of the world. It is therefore necessary that irrespective of the position adopted by the partisan religious authorities we must carefully examine what, according to Iqbal, higher religion teaches about the nature of God.

The modern Western civilization has dealt with the problem of religion through encouraging the development of two types of secularism. One type of secularism is base on indifference towards religion and this is the attitude adopted by Modern Man in the capitalist democracies: The other type is based on the suppression of religion and for a number of years this policy has been followed by the socialist countries. But the experience tells us that indifference towards religion automatically leads to the demand for that variety of “freedom” which Albert Camus calls “tyranny” or “waywardness”. On the other hand, the recent developments in the U.S.S.R and the other socialist countries indicate that atheism cannot be successfully imposed from outside on a people, and whenever such an attempt is made, it is bound to fail. Thus it is evident that the existing types of secularism have not been able to resolve the problem.

It is perhaps in this background that Iqbal rejected the methodologies of territorial nationalism, capitalism, atheistic socialism as well as religious conservatism as drawing upon the psychological forces of hatred, suspicion and resentment which tend to impoverish the soul of man closing up his hidden sources of spiritual energy. He points out: “Surely the present moment is one of great crisis in the history of modern culture. The modern world stands in need of biological renewal. And religion, which in its higher manifestations is neither dogma, nor priesthood, nor ritual, can alone ethically prepare the modern man for the burden of the great responsibility which the advancement of modern science necessarily involves, and restore to him that attitude of faith which makes him capable of winning a personality here and retaining it hereafter. It is only by rising to a fresh vision of his origin and future, his whence and whither, that man will eventually triumph over a society motivated by an inhuman competition, and a civilization which has lost its spiritual unity by its inner conflict of religious and political values”. (Reconstruction, p. 149).

From the above analysis it appears that the solution of the problem lies in the adoption of the policy not of indifference towards or suppression of religion, but of respecting all religions. Every religion in the narrower sense consists of dogma, ritual and some form of priesthood. Ibis aspect of religion is exclusive or relative to the people who adhere to it and it is only in this context that the international community is multi‑religious. Unfortunately some of the religious communities in the world today are passing through a phase of conservatism or fundamentalism which has let loose the forces of hatred and resentment. Whatever be the reasons for this affliction, let us hope that the phase is temporary and shall pass away. However according to Iqbal, each great religion, at the higher level contains the absolute Truth. Therefore it is necessary for every religious community to discover and project the higher level of its religion. It is at this level that religion can restore to humanity its spiritual unity and ethically prepare man to respect his fellow‑men.

Iqbal does not consider Islam as. a religion in the ancient sense of the word. For him, he explains: “It is an attitude‑ an attitude, that is to say, of Freedom, and even of defiance to the Universe. It is really a protest against the entire outlook of the ancient world. Briefly, it is the discovery of Man’. (Stray Reflections, p. 193).

It is interesting to note how Iqbal deduces the principles of higher religion from the verses of the Qur’an and bases his political idealism on them. The citing of a few examples may be useful.

In sura XXH verse 40 it is stated: “If God had not raised a group (i.e., Muslims) to ward off the others from aggression, churches, synagogues, oratories and mosques, where God is worshipped most, would have been destroyed”. Broadening the interpretation of this verse so as to include all the religious minorities (and not only the people of the Book) in a Muslim state, he proclaims in the Allahabad Address: “A community which is inspired by feelings of ill‑will towards other communities, is low and ignoble. I entertain the highest respect for the customs, laws, religious and social institutions of other communities. Nay, it is my duty according to the teaching of the Qur’an, even to defend their places of worship, if need be”. (Speeches and Statements, ed. by A. R. Tariq, p. 10).

For Iqbal “Tawhid” (Unity of God), as a working idea, stands for equality, solidarity and freedom of man. Therefore the state, from the Islamic standpoint, is essentially an effort to transform these ideal principles into space‑time forces. (Reconstruction, pp. 122‑123). According to him the republican form of government is consistent with the spirit of Islam. In fact he is convinced that the ultimate object of Islam is the establishment of a “spiritual democracy”.

On which specific verses of the Qur’an Iqbal could have possibly relied in support of this thesis? Let us examine the relevant verses.

In sura XL verse 78 while addressing the Holy Prophet, God say: “Verily We have sent messengers before thee. About some of them have We told thee, and about some have We not told thee”. The self‑evident meanings of the verse are that God has not only sent those prophets whose names are known to the Semitic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam), but also other messengers had been sent by Him bearing the tidings of numerous other modes of the Religion of Truth.

The second relevant piece in this connection is sura V verse 69 in which it is stated: “Verily the Faithful (Muslims) and the Jews and the Sabians and the Christians, whoso believeth in God and the Last, Day and doeth good deeds, no fear shall come upon them neither shall they grieve”. As for the expression “Sabians” there is no general agreement as to which religion is referred to. However, as is indicated in the verse it is that category of religions which are based on a natural idea of God, of accountability and which emphasize on the doing of good deeds. Thus according to the Qur’an, everyone who believes in God, eventual accountability and who does good deeds need not fear as no grief shall come upon him.

The third is sura V verse 48 in which God addressing human beings declares: “For each of you We have appointed a law and a way. And if God had willed He would have made you one (religious) community. But (He hath willed it otherwise) that He may put you to the test in what He has given you. So vie with one another in good works. Unto God will ye be brought back, and He will inform you about that wherein ye differed”. If God had only sent one religion to a world of widely differing aptitudes, it would not have been a fair test for all. Therefore He has sent many different religions and in this Quranic verse He expects human beings to enter into competition with one another only in doing good deeds and nothing else. It appears that it was in the light of such verses of the Qur’an that Iqbal desired the Muslims of today to evolve and establish a “spiritual democracy”.

He maintains: “Humanity needs three things today― a spiritual interpretation of the universe, spiritual emancipation of the individual and basic principles of a universal import directing the evolution of human society― on a spiritual basis. Modern Europe has, no doubt, built idealistic systems on these lines, but experience shows that truth revealed through pure reason― is incapable of bringing that fire of living conviction which personal revelation alone can bring. This is the reason why pure thought has so little influenced men, while religion has always elevated individuals and transformed whole societies With him (i.e. the Muslim) 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; and in view of the basic idea of Islam that there can be no further revelation binding on man, we ought to be. Spiritually one of the most emancipated peoples on earth. Early Muslims emerging out of the spiritual slavery of pre‑Islamic Asia were not in a position to realize the true significance of this basic idea. Let the Muslim of today appreciate his position, reconstruct his social life in the light of ultimate principles, and evolve, out of the hitherto partially revealed purpose of Islam, that spiritual democracy which is the ultimate aim of Islam”. (Reconstruction, p. 142).

The conclusion is that if for the survival of humanity it is necessary for man to respect his fellow‑men, in the same way it is necessary for him to learn to respect religions other than his own, It is only through the adoption of this moral and spiritual approach that, borrowing Iqbal’s phrase, man may rise to a fresh vision of his future.

Dr. Javid Iqbal
Journal of the Iqbal Academy Pakistan
October 2001 – Volume: 42 – Number: 4

The problem of evil has baffled many thinkers. Evil is not mere darkness that vanishes when light arrives. In other words, evil does not have a negative existence. This darkness has as positive an existence as light. The problem is how to account for evil in a world created by an all‑good God? Rumi’s answer is that the existence of evil is necessary for the fulfilment of the divine plan. Goethe thinks that evil is the reverse of good. Without evil, it would not be possible to identify good. Iqbal is of the view that the running parallel lines of good and evil meet in infinity. He points out in one of his quatrains:

How may I describe good & evil?

The problem is complex, the tongue falters,

Upon the bough you see flowers and thorns,

Inside it there is neither flower nor thorn.

(Payām i Mashriq)

Rumi’s long poem titled “Mu‘awiyah & Iblis”, Goethe’s Faust and Iqbal’s verses dedicated to Satan can be considered as great diabolical apologies in the world literature. The three poets blend the “classical” with the “romantic”, and despite the gaps in the times of their lives, their ideas on the role of evil in the spiritual and material development of man are similar.

In Iqbal’s poetic vision, Rumi and Goethe meet in paradise. Goethe reads out to him the tale of the pact between the Doctor and the Devil, and Rumi pays tribute to him in these words:

O portrayer of the inmost soul

Of poetry, whose efforts goal

Is to trap an angel in his net

And to hunt even God.

You from sharp observations know,

How in their shell pearls form & grow,

All this you know, but there is more.

Not all can learn love’s secret lore,

Not all can enter its high shrine,

One only knows by grace divine,

That reason is from the Devil,

While love is from Adam.

(“Jalal and Goethe”–Payām i Mashriq)

When Goethe became acquainted with Rumi’s Mathnavi through German translations, he found it too complicated and confusing as he initially failed to fathom the depths of Rumi’s thought. Iqbal had an identical experience of lack of comprehension and in his early stage of life mistakenly believed that Rumi was a pantheistic Sufi.

In the revealed scriptures, evil is connected with the story of the creation of Adam or, in Rumi’s words, when man in the process of evolution, had passed through the stages of plant & animal life and arrived at the stage from where he was to develop into superior forms of life.

When God informed the angels that he was about to place Adam on Earth in His stead, and that Adam would be granted freedom of choice, they expressed apprehensions that Adam would do ill therein. But God admonished them that they knew not what he knew. Since disobedience of Adam by partaking the forbidden fruit was his first act in exercise of freedom of choice, he had to choose between good and that which is reverse of it. Therefore it was necessary to introduce evil by deputing a “tempter” to mislead Adam before he was to exercise the freedom. It is probably in this background that Iqbal is prompted in one of his verses to blame God for conspiring with Satan against man. He wonders suspiciously:

How could he (Satan) have the courage to

refuse on the day of creation?

Who knows whether he is your confidant or mine?

(Bāl i Jibrīl)

Goethe’s view of evil is Pelagian when he claims that evil is merely the reverse of good. The forces, good and evil, apparently working in opposite directions, in fact work in cooperation in order to carry out the divine plan. The action and reaction of good and evil or the succumbing before temptation and the resulting remorse in the course of conflict between the Devil and man, according to Goethe, brings out the best in man.

Iqbal supplements Goethe when he affirms “evil has an educative value of its own. Virtuous people are usually very stupid”. (Stray Reflections)

He says:

I asked a sage: “What is life”?

He replied: “It is wine whose bitterness is the best.”

I said: “They have put evil in its raw nature.”

He answered: “Its good is in this very evil.”

(Payām i Mashriq)

While the positive existence of evil is acknowledged by Rumi, Goethe and Iqbal, the nature of evil can only be poetically illustrated through a reference to the Devil. Therefore, Iblis in Rumi, Mephisto in Goethe and Shayṭān in Iqbal represent different aspects of the same “cobweb” personality.

Rumi’s Iblis wakes up Mu‘āwiyah at dawn reminding him to offer the morning prayers before the time runs out. A dialogue ensues, in the course of which Iblis tries to convince Mu‘āwiyah that he adores God. It was the hand of God’s bounty that sowed his seed and brought him into being from nothingness. God procured milk during his infancy. God rocked his cradle. Therefore God’s wrath is only temporary like a mother’s anger. The doors of His grace are not permanently shut on anyone.

“My refusal to bow before Adam”, Iblis argues, “did not amount to disobedience of God’s command. On the contrary, it resulted from my extreme love of God. Has he not himself commanded ‘do not bow before any other except Me?’ This forehead which has always bowed only before God cannot bow before anyone else even at His bidding.”

Iblis contends, “This was a game between lover and beloved. He commanded me to play and I played the predetermined hand of lover. Thus I did what I was destined to do and was made to accept His wrath. But I still remain His companion, friend and comrade.”

Iblis advances the argument that although virtue and vice are opposed to each other, their operation is complementary. He asks: “How can I be held responsible for transforming good into evil. I am not the Creator. The Creator makes man good or bad. I am only expected to hold a mirror through which virtuous and vicious can see their faces and identify themselves.” According to Iblis’s reasoning evil circulates in every drop of human blood and yet man blames. Iblis for his own frailties.

Rumi’s Iblis is equipped only with reason, like a snake who attacks with his head. None can controvert his arguments, and no one can get out of his snare except through divine grace. However Mu‘āwiyah is not persuaded by Iblis’ articulate apology. He finds it deceitful and consisting of a pack of lies. When Iblis sarcastically claims that man is incapable of distinguishing between truth & falsehood, Rumi steps in and points out that falsehood always agitates the heart whereas truth provides solace and satisfaction.

Eventually Mu‘āwiyah overpowers Iblis who confesses that he woke up Mu‘āwiyah because had he missed the morning prayers his remorse would have earned him more grace. Iblis remains a liar until the end when he defends his act as based on envy, i.e. as a lover of God he is envious of man.

Rumi’s portrayal of Iblis depicts him as a lover of God. But a heartless being is incapable of loving, and here lies his deceit. Therefore when Iblis claims that all envy arises from love, for fear lest another becomes the chosen of the beloved, he is lying. In fact Rumi’s Iblis is nothing but reason (‘aql), the reverse of love (‘ishq). According to him Adam lapsed because of his stomach and sexual passion whereas Iblis was accursed because of pride and ambition engendered in him by reason. Rumi also shows to us that Iblis not only instigates man to commit sin, he sometimes persuades man to perform a virtuous act in order to deprive him from earning a higher reward.

In Goethe’s Faust the role of Mephisto is not that which is usually attributed to the Devil. He represents a spirit of nihilism, negation and contradictions, which is inimical to all life and higher forms of existence. Goethe first takes up the conflict of good and evil on a subjective plane and thereafter at the cosmic level. It is only when Faust rejects all pretensions of knowledge that Mephisto appears at Faust’s own craving. The events that follow take the reader through the problems of human innocence, suffering, love, hate, desire, appetite and ‑sin. It is the unique quality of Goethe’s genius that he picked up an ordinary legend and filled it with the experiences of the entire human race. According to Goethe, evil is a stepping-stone to virtue in a mysterious way, and this is conveyed through the words of Mephisto in Faust:

Part of that power, not understood,

Which always wills the Bad,

And always promotes the Good.

The pact that Mephisto made with Faust was to dissuade him from striving in life. He offered Faust all forbidden worldly pleasures that Faust readily accepted but his nature did, not change. He was only temporarily lulled to sleep. According to Goethe it is in the nature of man to move from lower to ever higher plane and from there to still higher planes, and it is only by constant striving that man can carve out his destiny. Faust went on striving Without regard to good and evil as, in the eyes of Goethe, to strive is an act of willing and an act of willing does not fall in the realm of freedom, but to that of nature. Mephisto used all his devices to lure Faust into accepting conditions which were not conducive to the fulfilment of the divine plan. It was not only striving for a virtuous life that ultimately won Faust the divine grace. But it were fear and hope which elevated him to forgiveness. He was delivered in the end and God’s faith in man was vindicated. Mephisto did not succeed in dragging Faust down to nihilistic depths of hell.

Thus restless activity in the nature of Faust did not hinder him in any manner even to wager his soul to the Devil:

To hear the woe of earth & all its joys,

To tussle, struggle, scuffle with its storms,

And not fearful in the crash of shipwreck.

In Goethe’s words, God himself has provided an explanation for the creation of the Devil. In the “Prologue in Heaven” He declares:

Of all the spirits that deny,

The Rogue (Devil) is to me least burdensome,

Man’s activity too easily run slack,

He loves to sink into unlimited repose

And so I am glad to give him,

A companion like the Devil, who excites,

And works and goads him on to create.

On the other hand, when the Devil confronts God in the “Prologue in Heaven”, he complains that Adam is not his match, but is only a “long‑legged grasshopper.” Mephisto sarcastically affirms:

My Lord! I find things there (on earth),

Still bad as they can be,

Man’s misery even to pity moves my nature,

I’ve scarce the heart to plague the wretched creature.

…………….

When a corpse approaches, close my house,

It goes with me as with the cat the mouse.

It is interesting to note that Goethe refrained from describing the nature of God. Faust only explains that He is All‑embracing and All‑preserving and therefore cannot be named. Faust says:

Call it Bliss! Heart! Love! God!,

I have no name thereof, feeling is everything,

The name is sound & smoke, only to obscure celestial fire
When Eckermann asked Goethe about the nature of relationship of the Divine with the Daemonic and the incompatibly of one with the other, he answered:

“Dear boy! What do we know of the idea of the Divine, and what can our narrow conceptions presume to tell of the Supreme Being? If I call him by a hundred names, like a Turk (Muslim), I should yet fall short & have said nothing in comparison to the boundlessness of his attributes.”

Iqbal was profoundly influenced by Rumi who is his spiritual guide. On the other hand he was also a great admirer of Goethe. Yet Goethe’s spirit, like the Urdu poet Ghalib’s, is that of a poet, whereas Iqbal’s spirit, following in the footsteps of Rumi, is more of a prophetic nature.

Iqbal is acknowledged as the poet of “Khudi” (Self/Ego). “Khudi” has many dimensions and forms. Therefore, Iqbal’s Satan is one of the forms of “Khudi”. Since Iqbal believed in the greatness of human ego and was a poet of action, he could not resist being attracted by the dynamic personality of the Devil.

Iqbalian Satan is a gigantic five dimensional figure. His first dimension is that no one can surpass his deceit, cunning, remarkable planning and constant striving for the realization of his objective. He is not evil incarnate. His self‑confidence, determination, pride and ambition are the qualities that make him a model of self‑hood (Khudi).

Like Rumi and Goethe, Iqbal believes in restless & feverish activity for attaining the goal. The goal itself has no significance to Iqbal. It is the striving for the goal, the energy for tireless effort, and the strength to always continue to remain a wayfarer that matters. Life is a chase after a goal, which must go on changing. Iqbal says:

In a spark 1 crave a star,

And in a star a sun.

My journey has no bourn,

No place of halting, it is death for me to linger.

In the same strain there is another verse:

‘When my eye comes to rest on the loveliness of a beauty,

My heart at that moment yearns for a beauty lovelier still.

Iqbal, like Rumi and Goethe, believes that evil is necessary for the development of man. Had there been no evil, there would have been no conflict, no struggle and no striving. Therefore, Iqbal emphasizes:

Waste not your life in a world devoid of taste,

Which contains God but not the Devil.

(Payām i Mashriq)

Iqbal does not want man to get involved in the controversy of virtue & vice or good and evil, but must only concentrate on striving for better destinations. Life which leads to paradise is a life of passivity, inactivity and of eternal death.

The second dimension of Iqbal’s Devil is his cheeky confrontation with God. Addressing God, he claims that he is no less than Him:

You bring stars into being,

I make them revolve,

The motion in your immobile

Universe is as I breathe my spirit into it.

You only put soul in the body

But the warmth of tumultuous activity

In life is from me.

You show the way to eternal rest,

I direct towards feverish activity and constant striving.

Man who is short‑sighted, clueless and ignorant,

Takes birth in your lap
Attains maturity only in my care.

The third dimension of Iqbal’s Devil is that he is the first lover (of God’s Unity). He unhesitatingly accepted God’s wrath and separation by his disobedience. But even in the state of negation he fulfilled the inner will of God. While introducing Iqbal to Satan in Javīd Nāmah, the crucified Sufi Manṣūr Ḥallāj says:

Since Satan is the first lover,

Preceding all others,

Adam is not familiar with his secrets.

Tear off the garb of imitation,

So that you may learn the lesson

Of “Tawīd ” (God’s Unity) from him.

The fourth dimension of Satan that fascinated Iqbal is his pride and rivalry with his adversary, man. Here Iqbal follows Rumi by affirming that satanic reason is the basis of the Devil’s entire activity. Therefore, Iqbal says:

If reason remains under the command of heart, it is Godly.

If it releases itself, it is Satanic.

Iqbal’s Satan mocks at Gabriel’s cloistered piety and declares proudly:

In man’s pinch of dust my daring spirit

Has breathed ambition,

The Warp and Woof of mind and reason,

Are woven of my sedition.

The deeps of good & evil you only see from land’s verge,

Which of us it is, you or 1, that dares tempest’s scourge?

Ask this of God, when next you stand alone within his sight,

Whose blood is it has painted Man’s long history so bright?

In the heart of Almighty like a pricking thorn I live

You only cry forever God, Oh God, Oh God, most high!

Iqbal’s Devil like Goethe’s, shows his disgust for the weakness of his rival. His Satan’s complaint to God in Javīd Nāmah sounds very much like that of Mephisto:

O Lord of good & bad! Man’s company

And commerce has degraded me. Not once

My bidding dares he to deny; his “self’

He realizes not. And never feels

His dust the thrill of disobedience,

His nature is effeminate

And feeble his resolve, he lacks the strength

To stand a single stroke of mine.

A riper rival I deserve. Reclaim

From me this game of chaff and dust,

For pranks and impish play

Suit not an aged one.

Confront me with a single real man

May I perchance gain bliss in my defeat!

The fifth dimension of Iqbalian Devil is political i.e., how he, on national and international planes, carves out earthly devils in the form of political leaders who through their strategies lead to war, decease, misery and destruction of mankind. In his poem, “Satan’s Parliament” (Armaghan i Hijaz) Iqbal’s Devil prophesises that since he himself is the founder and protector of capitalism, he is not afraid of the communist revolution of tomorrow.

But Iqbal’s Devil is as miserable as man in this world full of complexities. In one of his quatrains Iqbal says:

From me convey the message to Iblis,

How long he intends to flutter,

Twist and scuffle under its net?

I have never been happy with this world,

Its morning is nothing but a prelude of the evening.

On another occasion Iqbal entreats the Devil for cooperation. If divine help is not forth coming, why not ask the Devil:

Come! Let us cooperate and lead the life of harmony.

Our mutual skills can transform

This wretched planet into a paradise

Under the skies, if we together

Disseminate love and healing,

And banish jealousy, hatred, disease & misery.

To sum up, good without evil amounts to the passivity of paradisal rest. Therefore it is disapproved by the three poets as against the divine plan. Man’s destiny lies in constant creative activity. Iqbal is categorical when he asserts:

When act performed is creative,

It’s virtuous, even if sinful.

The crux of the message of the three poets is that the creation of Adam is not a “‘wasteful effort. It must be clearly understood that under the divine plan man is still in the state of becoming. Rumi says man has taken millions and millions of centuries to evolve, from insect to plant, from plant to animal, and from animal to man. The evolution continues and through man’s ceaseless efforts he is bound to cross higher stages of life and presumably go beyond angels. Goethe also lays emphasis on the achievement of higher forms of life by man. Iqbal through the constant strengthening of “ego” expects man to become a co‑worker or rather a counsellor of the Divine Being in creating a more perfect universe. He hints that man would perhaps eventually democratize the arbitrary divine system, so much so that if a destiny is to be changed, action would be taken by God in consultation with and according to the will of man.

However, this indeed would be the man of distant tomorrow, the aspiration of the triangular poets, who, with the assistance of the Devil, could go beyond good and evil. But he justifiably cannot be found today, as Rumi in his famous quatrain asserts:

An old man carrying a lamp,

Was seen wandering in the streets.

When asked: “What are you looking for?”

Replied: “I am sick and tired of the beasts,

And look for a real man.”

I said: “You can’t find him

Our search was in vain.”

“This is what I look for” he said,

“That which can’t be found.