Allama Iqbal’s Approach towards the issue of Rationality:

Posted by Magellanic Cloud on August 27, 2006

Iqbal, basically was not a Rational Philosopher. He was a Scholastic (Mutakkalim — Mahir-e-Ilm-ul-Kalam). Scholasticism basically is such an attempt whereby Scholastic scholars try to interpret their religion in such a way as to show that religious doctrines are in perfect harmony with the established rational philosophies.

As I pointed out in another post on the topic of “Scientific Revolution and Muslim World” that roots of early Muslim philosophers could be found in Mutazillah faith. Mutazilities were the first ever Scholastics (Mutakalims) in Islam. Thus Yaqub Alkindi, Al-Farabi and Ibn-e-Sina etc. were also basically Scholastic scholars. All of them had tried to resolve the apparent differences between the doctrines of Islam and the work of such rational Philosophers as Aristotle and Plato.

All of these Muslim scholars however committed a common mistake. They mistakenly took the work of Platinus, a first century B.C mystic type philosopher as an original work of Aristotle. Both Plato and Aristotle were pro-rational philosophers but Platinus was inspired by mysticism of Pythagoras. In this way elements of Greek mysticism entered in the work of above-mentioned Muslim scholars. Platinus was not pro-rational in the strict sense but under the influence of Plato, he did assign due importance to rationality in his otherwise pure mystic type doctrines. This point basically deceived Muslim philosophers and they considered those doctrines as the original work of Aristotle, who was a complete Rationalist Philosopher. So the work of Muslim Philosophers was aimed at bringing harmony between the religious doctrines of Islam with such Greek rational doctrines, which had been contaminated by the elements of mysticism. Muslim Philosophers had tried to get understanding of religious doctrines based on strong rational footings. Their intention was admirable and it might had got ultimate success also just if they had successfully segregated the mystic elements from the rational elements of Greek thought.

Just like early Muslim philosophers had tried to bring harmony between Islamic religious doctrines and rational doctrines of Aristotle and Plato, Allama Iqbal also had tried to bring ‘harmony’ between Islamic doctrines and the doctrines of Western philosophers, who were popular in his time. Thus Iqbal had tried to bring harmony between Islamic doctrines and the works of such Western philosophers as Rousseau, Fichte, Neitzsche, Bergson, Loyed Margon, Alexander Ward etc. etc. In addition, Iqbal also incorporated various elements of Muslim Sufism in his work. Iqbal also had taken the negative meanings of the emergence of Quantum Physics in his time. He had viewed it as a defeat to classical physics. He also equalized this ‘defeat’ of classical physics as a ‘victory’ of religion.

Iqbal, in his work, had adopted many anti-rational elements out of the work of Rousseau, Neitzsche and Bergson. Rousseau, in his work, had preferred ‘passions’ (jazbat) to ‘rationality’ (aqal). The same thing reflected in the work of Iqbal where he gave preference to ‘Ishq’ (obviously a kind of passion) over ‘rationality’.

Bergson was another anti-rationalist. According to him, human rationality particularly was incapable to understand the true nature of time or ‘duration’. For him, ultimate reality could be found in the true meaning of his ‘duration’. But this purpose could not be achieved by using intellect or rationality. Only ‘intuition’, according to him, could find that ultimate reality. According to Bergson, Rationality can understand ‘time’ only in terms of ‘minutes’ and ‘seconds’ etc. whereas reality is that each and every moment of time continuously keeps on creating new and new features to the universe. He calls this phenomenon as ‘creative evolution’ and considers it as the ultimate reality of universe. Since rationality sees time just in mechanical terms of minutes and seconds, so it cannot get the true knowledge of ‘creative evolutionary’ aspect of duration. Only intuition, according to Bergson, can find out this reality. Bergson has conceived ‘intuition’ as equivalent to such ‘instincts’, which acquire the quality of ‘self cognition’. So according to Bergson, only the ‘intuition’ (i.e. self-aware instinct) can find out the ultimate reality of ‘creative evolutionary’ duration. This reality, which intuition finds in this way cannot be communicated to others with the help of written or spoken words. So reality can be found only through personal intuitive experience. Bergson also discusses the role of ‘rationality’, which just serves the purpose of converting that non-communicate-able pure reality into the shape of less pure but communicate-able form of written or spoken words of language. In this way, ‘intuition’ produces the knowledge of reality. This original knowledge is pure but cannot be communicated to others in this pure form. Role of rationality is secondary. Rationality converts this pure knowledge into impure form that can be communicated to others in the form of written or spoken words.

What Iqbal has done? He has picked the same concept of Bergson’s ‘intuition’ with the same meaning and has given preference to this concept of intuition over rationality. He also says that only intuition gives pure knowledge but this pure knowledge cannot be communicated. By just following the Bergson’s course, he says that rationality can be used to convert this pure knowledge into impure form and so knowledge can be communicated but only in impure form. Just like Bergson, Iqbal also says that pure knowledge can be acquired only through personal ‘intuitive’ experience. Rationality cannot produce any knowledge. Rationality only converts pure knowledge into impure but communicate-able form. See that for the purpose of getting new knowledge, there is no need of rational inquiry according to Bergson and Iqbal.

Bergson’s views deserve heavy criticism. Despite the traditional criticism, these views are not acceptable to me because of my own views about how new ideas are generated by mind. I myself have worked on the issues of how new ideas come to mind. I am having the opinion that only rationality produces new ideas. At first new ideas (in the form of compound ideas etc.) are formed inside mind in such way that gives the vague feelings that something new has been known. This thing has been considered to be ‘intuitive product’ by Bergson. I consider it the product of rationality. Bergson considers it as pure knowledge. I consider it as vogue and less transparent knowledge. According to Bergson, his intuitive and ‘pure’ knowledge could be made into ‘impure’ but ‘communicate-able’ through the application of rationality. In my opinion, that ‘vogue’ and ‘less transparent’ knowledge can be made into solid, more transparent and more explanatory by purposeful thinking and deep rational inquiry, which are more advanced features of human rationality. In another post, where I have presented some aspects of my views about ideas, I have shown that in producing any form of new knowledge, mind only arranges and re-arranges the already available pieces of information. I, in my work, have defined ‘intellect’ as the ability of mind that it can arrange and re-arrange various sets of information. So the process of creation of ‘new’ knowledge takes place under the control of ‘intellect’ or ‘rationality’. At first instance, rationality can produce only vague and less transparent ideas. Those vague and less transparent ideas can be made into more transparent and more explanatory through the processes of deep purposeful thinking and analysis, which are advanced features of same rationality.

What cannot be communicated cannot be regarded as ‘pure’ just because it cannot be communicated. Actually it could not be communicated just because it was not sufficiently elaborated or it had not acquired sufficient transparency and explanatory power so as to be successfully communicated. What cannot be communicated can be better termed as ‘vogue’ or ‘less transparent’ etc. One who knows something new in ‘vogue’ and ‘less transparent’ form finds oneself unable to successfully communicate it to others. If that person makes his mind more clear about that vogue or less transparent idea after thinking and analysis, then he can bring sufficient elaboration in that idea that now it becomes communicate-able. A more elaborated idea would be better than a vogue idea. Bergson and Iqbal are having the view that more elaborated idea would be ‘impure’ whereas that vogue idea would be ‘pure’.

Actually this ‘intuition’ has deceived many Sufi-type philosophers. It is another interesting fact that only Bergson has tried to define the term ‘intuition’. Otherwise, it always has been regarded as something very mysterious, which at once can convey the knowledge of reality to Sufi etc. Bergson is actually a Sufi by heart. According to Bertrend Russell, Bergson has just presented old Sufism using modern terminology of biology such as ‘instincts’ etc. Iqbal is also a Sufi, though explicitly he has reacted against Wahdat-ul-Wajood. Actually there are many other things in Iqbalian thought where he has assumed clear contradictory positions. Iqbal has presented his views in the form of poetry but his detailed views about philosophical matters are found in his lectures on ‘Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam’. His poetry is full of exaggerations and cannot serve the purpose of any systematic philosophy. ‘Reconstruction of Religious Thought’ is actually an attempt to ‘modernize’ the Islamic Theology. He has taken many of the views from above mentioned western philosophers as well as even from Wahdat-ul-Wajoody Sufism and has presented them in the name of new Islamic Theology.

There is clear difference between the approach of ancient Muslim philosophers and that of Iqbal. Ancient Muslim Philosophers like Al-Farabi and Ibn-e-Sina also had tried to present Islamic Theology on strong rational footings. But, for doing it, they openly had admitted that their works were the attempt to bring harmony between the doctrines of religion and those of Plato and Aristotle. Allama Iqbal however never has admitted that he has taken such and such ideas from the works of such and such western or Muslim Sufi Scholar. Instead, he has presented these ideas and has given supporting proofs by manipulating the meanings of various teachings of Islamic Sacred books in a way which was suitable to his context. Original meanings of those teachings do not come up to the meanings, which Iqbal takes for his purpose. For example, he has taken the same meaning of ‘time’ as had been taken by Bergson. But Iqbal uselessly has tried to show that he had taken that meaning of time from the work of ancient Muslim scholars.

FICHTE belonged to post Napoleon-war Germany. He had tried to re-build the morale of German nation after their defeat in the hands of Napoleon, with the help of his philosophy of ‘Egoism’. According to him ‘Absolute Ego’, an impersonal entity – i.e. instead of religion’s God who possesses ‘personality’, was the ‘ultimate reality’. All humans also possess ‘personal egos’ which have been originated (emanated) from the same ‘Absolute Ego’. This Absolute Ego, according to Fichte, was in the state of transition towards stronger positions. (Remember that aim before Fichte was to give strength to the ego of German nation after their defeat … with the view to restore the morale of nation.) Fichte also asserted that those individuals who successfully strengthen their personal egos, not only contribute to the purpose of Universe as a whole, but also they could ensure the survival of their individual personalities even after death.

What Iqbal has done? In his new Theology, Iqbal has adopted the same concept of Ego by the name of ‘Khudi’ and Fichte’s ‘Absolute Ego’ has become ‘Ana-e-Mutliq’ for Iqbal. There is one important difference however. Fichte had conceived Absolute Ego as the ultimate reality. That ultimate reality was of a non-religious type. Iqbal only has given this non-religious type ultimate reality a religious touch. He also conceives ‘Ana-e-Mutlaq’ as the ultimate reality but in addition, he has equalized this ‘ultimate reality’ to God. Individuals, on the other hand possess personal ‘khudies’, which have been emanated (originated … In a manner in which light originates from sun) from Ana-e-Mutlaq. See that in this scheme, individuals have not been ‘created’ by God but individual khudies (individuals) have been ‘emanated’ from Ana-e-Mutlaq (God). Just like Fichte’s views, Iqbal’s Ana-e-Mutlaq is also in the state of transition towards stronger positions. Individuals who try to give strength to their khudies (through ‘ishq’, ‘riazat’ etc. etc. i.e. not through using rationality) contribute to the purpose of Ana-e-Mutlaq. Again just like Fichte, In Iqbalian system also, individuals who possess strong khudies can survive death also. It’s meaning is that persons who did not possess strong khudies shall not be given any life after their death. According to Iqbal, a person who wants to die forever can do it provided he must not try to give any strength to his khudy. So there are no such things as paradise and hell in Iqbalian new Theology. Just like SATAN is hero of Milton (Remember a famous quotation by Milton: “Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heaven” – Milton’s work relates to Romantic movement in literature) , Iblees is the hero of Iqbal. Iqbal also was influenced by Romantic writers/ scholars like Milton etc.

At this point, it seems necessary to give a mention of two main forms of Theology. Theology is any systematic theory about God and about the relationship of God with the Universe. In Theology, there always have been two different types of views about God. First one is the ‘Transcendental View of God’ (Mawarayi) and the second is ‘Imminentalist View of God’ (Suryani). Semitic religions like Judaism, Christianity and Islam etc. possess the ‘Transcendental View of God’ (Mawarayi Khuda). Its meaning is that these religions conceive God as a ‘personality’ whose existence is separate from and is independent of the existence of material universe. God existed in those times also when there was no existence of material world. The relationship between God and Universe is that of a Creator and creature.

Second view, which is mainly held by Arian nations, is known as ‘Imminentalist’ (Suryan) view of God. According to this view, God is not viewed as any personality. There is no separate existence of God and Universe. God actually pervades (Taari-o-Saari Hona) in the whole Universe. The relationship between God and Universe is not that of Creator and creature but is that of soul and body. If God is viewed as a ‘soul’ of Universe then it means that God did not exist before the existence of material world. Actually, according to Imminatalism, God and Universe neither had any origin and nor would have any end.

It is clear that Islamic concept of God is that of Transcendental. First of all Fichte’s ‘Absolute Ego’ is an impersonal entity. Iqbal has equalized this impersonal entity with God. So Iqbalian Theology talks of an ‘Imminantalist’ God and this view has to be contradictory with the Islamic doctrines.

Secondly, Iqbal was also influenced by an Evolutionary School of Thought, which is known as “Emergent Evolution”. Alexander Ward and Loyed Margon were the main proponents of this school of thought. According to Prof. Alexander, (In Europe, name of one of Iqbal’s teacher was Alexander … I am not confirmed however whether he was same Prof. Alexander) the whole Universe is in the process of evolution. Non-living matter first evolved into the form of plant life. Then plant life evolved into animal life. This life ultimately has been evolved into the shape of human mind. According to him, it seems wrong to assume that human mind was the last stage in the evolution of universe. He says that universe is moving towards another stage of evolution. He calls this stage to be Divinity. He says that relationship of human mind to Divinity is similar to the relationship of animal life to human mind. According to him, just like human mind has been evolved from animal life, in the same way, Divinity shall evolve from human mind. Thus universe is not complete at the moment because it is still in the process of evolution.

Under the influence of these views, Iqbal has conceived reality to be in the process of continuous evolution. According to him, God pervades (taari-o-saari hai) in this evolutionary reality. Here Iqbal explicitly adopts the imminentalist view of God. According to him, since reality is ‘evolutionary’, so Transcendental God will have to be considered indifferent and having no linkage with the affairs of material world. By saying that God pervades in such an evolutionary reality, Iqbal is saying that God is also in the process of evolution. To be in the process of evolution means to be still incomplete etc.

So there is variety in Iqbalian thought but neither Iqbal has given this variety any systematic shape, nor anything can be regarded as pro-rationality in this confused bundle (Iqbalian thought) of a handsome variety of ideas.


17 Responses to “Allama Iqbal’s Approach towards the issue of Rationality:”

  1. tayyabah said

    in my opinion and view according to the knowledge i have been given from the almighty, i accept iqbal as a pure hearted muslim who has woken up the minds of the muslims through his hard work and through his meaningful poetry. His poetry is of a very high standard that makes him different and of a better person to other poets. He had worked his life through very accordingly which makes him one of the best of men.

  2. tayyabah said

    i have studied and will further study of this special poet cuz i find he has something which others dont have

  3. Asma said

    I agree with you on the fact that Iqbal was influenced by all these Western Writers and philosophers.The concept of “self” is most contrvertially seen in Iqbal. But seeing things in context, we see that as Iqbal wanted the Muslims of India to get out of that deep slumber, he might as well use this method to shake them up a bit. That’s my perception. Plus, the concept of “mard-e-momin” is soo perfect in Iqbal k “qari nazar ata hai haqeeqat mein hai Quran”. His poetry might not be perfect, his philosphy flawed, I guess this one line clears all those records!

  4. khuram said

    @ Asma,

    Yes you are right. According to an Indian Muslim writer, “Iqbal ne qaum ko bohut ziada jhanjhorr k jagaya. Qaum ko rational banane ki bajaye emotional bana diya”…

    Lakin … in his period … even this was really a great achievement!

    Aik murda nation ko nai zindagi de dena … it was a great achievement in fact. And it was possible only through such wonderful, passionate and emotional poetry.

    But now it is new time. Now we need to become more rational.


  5. asmakhalil said

    Here I wont agree with you. The most difficult thing in this world is to attain a balance between rationality and emotions. And this is where philosophers, thinkers and writers fail.

  6. khuram said

    Yes … it is difficult. But emotions have to do with personal life. Rationality is necessary for National life.


  7. asmakhalil said

    And individuals make up a nation. You dont have balanced indivduals, you wont have a balanced nation!

  8. khuram said

    That’s good “emotional-cum-mathematical” reply.

    I got your point and it’s all ok … But … your maths is emotional.

    I had said that an individual should be emotional in only personal life. In National issues, the same individual should become rational.

    So the emotion-free math will be like following:

    “Individuals make up a nation. And the whole Nation applies rationality in National issues.”

  9. asmakhalil said

    If I were that Philosophical… hmmm…

    The idea of “ishq” is entirely emotional. If only we add that to ourlives, I guess we’ll have better individuals and swooosh a better nation!

  10. muhammad umer toori said

    A comprehension of my apprehension and Khuram’s critique of Iqbalian Thought:

    Khuram sahib has rightly said that Iqbal “carried out the task which centuries ago our great scholastics like Nazzam & Ashari set to themselves in the face of Greek science and philosophy”, in order to, as our man rightly asserts, reconcile religion and philosophy in Islam. And that, his work of reconstruction of The Cube of Kaba’, the symbol of Islamic civilisation (which some miscomprehend and replace it with that of flowing river),does not get its inspiration from Greek thought, is equally true. But one should ask where Iqbal stands in relation to Greek thought which ancient muslim thinkers as al-Farabi adopted, which is purely speculative? Iqbal was the man who “subjected Greek thought to trenchant criticism”, because to him, “mere speculation can neither afford to grasp the concrete world nor is it serviceable to grasp us any definite knowledge of the ultimate reality.” Firstly, allow me to be cruel so that I can communicate my raw “feelings” about Iqbal, that I hope shall render no service to human thought. I consider him that Islamist modernist who praises modern liberal thought, rationalism (quote Reconstruction pg 1 “a living experience of the kind of biological unity requires today a method physiology less violent and psychology more suitable… A demand for a scientific form of religious knowledge is only natural”). Thus the spirit of his work of reconstruction of Islamic thought resides on scientific and logical approach, as reflected in the introduction of the book. But let us not deceived by introductions and it is better to be analytical then to be clever, on any plane.

  11. muhammad umer toori said

    It may take a time to continue…

  12. khuram said

    your points are welcomed … any time!

  13. muhammad umer toori said

    Thank you a lot Sire.
    I am, very humbly, ready to deliver in stuttering words now. (Aaj hum apni pareeshani-e-khatir un say— Kehnay jatay tu hain par dekhiay kia kehtay hain. GHALIB)
    Firstly, all of us should borne in mind that the greatness of Iqbal’s revolutionising poetry (compare it with ‘Saroosh e Sukhan’ or 19th cent poetry) lies not in its service to stern philosophy, nor does it seeks to accomplish such a task. No student of philosophy should ever percept that mastering his poetry would make him a wholesome philosopher, as comments Ahmed Javed of HamzaNama. Nay, it is beacuse of its appeal to our aesthetic senses and to our intellectual palate that we admire him and regard him as one of the greatest poets of his time.

    Secondly, Iqbal himself justifies that seemingly a contradiction or logical fallacy, his poetry produces. I quote one passage from his Stray Reflection, it goes to say:
    “It is idle to seek logical truth in poetry. The ideal of imagination is beauty, not truth. Do not then try to show a poet’s greatness by quoting passages from his works which, in your opinion, embody scientific truth.”

    Coming to philosophical discussion where I dare not present my immature thoughts in feeble words because I have not been a student of logic and philosphy becasue no school or college teaches that upto 12th class. But future is not dull, though few centuries are required to induce any love for a system of philosophy in this worn-out and clumsy heart. Because not all people were dull as I am, so I seek their help and should not forget to do my duty, I.e. As a critic provide evidence from Iqbal’s work which you seemingly had forgotten out of mistake, while being a critic. Or may be you just thought you had drunk the crux of Iqbal’s philosophies, I hope this was the case.
    (The joke Continues— )

  14. Without going into any further inquiry I consider it a job of the student of philosphy to understand the relation b/w intellect and intuition and if someone encounters a Muslim Sufi or philosopher, he must understand it from Islamic perspective. Iqbal’s notion of intuition of self “give us a departure from the rationalistic and the empirical methods of enquiry (that shall be explained later). It makes for us the intuition of God (intuition of self does so), not a mere hypothetical conjecture but a real possibility.”
    He writes, taking inspiration from Qur’an:
    “In the intersts of securing a complete vision of reality, therefore, sense-perception must be ‘supplemented’ by the perception of what the Qur’an describes as Fuad or Qalb. I.e heart: ‘God hath made everything which He hath created most good; and began the creation of man with clay; then ordained his progeny from germs of life, from sorry water; then shaped him, and breathed of His spirit unto him and gave you hearing and seeing and HEART what little thanks do ye return?’ (32:7-9).
    He further rights, “The HEART is a kind of inner intuition or insight which, in the beautiful words of Rumi, feeds on the rays of the sun and brings us into contact with aspects of Reality other than those open to sense-perception.”
    This is the true spirit of Islamic mysticism. This is a reality that cannot be denied, and Iqbal only, through his psychoanalysis, furtherly gives it logic. (For further elaboration see S.H. Nasr’s brilliant essay on intellect and intuition from Islamic perspective in “Islam and Contemporary society”.) Nowhere he rejects either empiricism or rationalism rather praises of them. His condemnation Greek speculation is actually because of these views. But it is necessary to ask as why sense-perception goes incomplete in yielding Ultimate reality to us? Iqbal answers it in above quoted passageas by quoting a verse of Qur’an. Yet it can be further elaborated. All of us know, as Hamid Algar points out, that, I quote Algar’s words:
    “The divine meaning and truths are infinite and their expression in the revealed form of the Qur’an (or, for that matter, in the preceding scriptures in so far as they are still extant) is necessarily limited.” That’s why we get varied interpretations of divine intent, due to incompleteness of our ability to decode meanings with symbols.
    Let us find out why empiricists and rationlists fail to realize Ultimate Reality, if they stick to either of the method and forget that this world is but an organic whole (though I have got a logical proof for the Oneness and Absoluteness of God which comes out of the womb this universe, the signs). “The empiricists,” says Dr. Ishrat Hassan, “regard the self as a mere come-and-go of psychical states. But by placing these states apart from each other they lose sight of the unity which binds them together in one whole.” “The rationalists too,” he continues to say, “are incapable of grasping of the true nature of the Self. They merely postulate a conceptual unity which they call ego and in which lie as if within a void. They do not get to the bottom of the thing, to the actual nature and the existence of the self.” The true science of nature is to know what’s in Divine mind. And without sacred knowledge who succeeds?

    Concept of God and Henry Bergson:

    The way you have, with due respect, judged iqbal seemed to be as if he had plagiarized the philosophies of Bergson and Fitche. Contrary to it, he only made them a part of his world-view, to yield harmony and consistency in his thought system.
    His saying that God is an impersnal being shows the brute part of him. Such a pantheistic view is abhorrent to all of us. Upon reading that Iqbal favoured such a view startled me and mocked me for the following passage from his Lectures defy such a statement:
    He quotes the following verse of Surah-Noor and comments on it, “God is light of the Heavens and of the earth. His light is like a niche in which is a lamp- the lamp encased in a glass, – the glass, as it were, as a star.” He comments, “No doubt, the opening sentence of the verse gives the impression of an escape from the individualistic conception of God. But when we follow the metaphor of light in the rest of the verse; it gives just the opposite impression. The development of the metaphor is meant to exclude the suggestion of a formless cosmic element ny centralizing the light in a flame which is further individualized by itd encasement in a glass likened unto a well-defined star.”

    Both Iqbal and Bergson consider God to be a creative force of free will. Whether it is a blind force or it is purposive, “determining its creation with a view to end it.” That is the question.

    (Continues… )

  15. muhammad umer toori said

    The world we know as it not “a chaotic and contradictory” jumble. The universe must be conceived to be in essence as “a rationally directed creative life.” (Lectures (L) p. 58). Therefore to consider it a blind force is untenale. Iqbal also holds that the universe as whole should be regarded as a whole, which by no means defy the individualistic conception of Allah. The universe possesses a ‘will’; and the will being purposive, the universe too must be supposed to be purposive. This is possible only if the universe is taken to be an ego. Now the essence of egohood lies in its private circuit of individuality, (L p94) and the essential nature of individuality in its directive function. (Ibid p97). Iqbal takes egohood as a point to refernce.

    Distinction b/w Iqbal and Bergson:

    “To Mr. Bergson the creative force is blind will. He calls it Elan Vital Impetus or the will-to-live. Iqbal on the contrary, regards the creative will as essentially of thought and intelligence, and not a blind and whimsical force, as Bergson would have it. And for Bergson human personalities are mere shadows of elan. They are acc. To him not at all real and existent by themselves. Iqbal, however, has a unflinching faith in the existent reality of egos. The egos may be manifestation of elan but not unreal and mere shadows (L. Pg 58). Life is not a mere sweeping wave. Its essential nature lies in egohood. Bergson emphasied its activity and moving aspect only. This he called pur duration. But to Iqbal there can be no concept of duration without a self. Self or ego is prior to time and space (L. P53). Iqbal places the elan under the higher category of Selfhoof, which in accordance with his terminology may here be called as the Ultimate Ego. Bergson’s positon regarding the ulitmate reality for ever remains absolutely pantheistic. Iqbal’s however is not so.” (Metaphysics of Iqbal.) At the end I wish if you could support with evidence your assertion that Iqbal upholds ‘Imminantalist’ view of God, which Iqbal doesn’t holds I.E, God is impersonal.
    I wish to elaborate more on the aspects of God in Iqbalian philosophy including creative evolution, but my stomach is out of feul, and since burning fire waits for none I need to put it out in time. Sir, please liberally judge these criticisms and if you have any complaints then send a letter to either Dr. Ishrat Hasan or Iqbal, but it shouldn’t come in my way, I have only wrote words not created them. I will await for your replies. Thanks a lot. And rue me for all frequent imperfect writing and thinking habits. Humble Regards.

  16. Vardah Khan said

    What bloody mess MR. Umer deems creating here, with wide off mark comments that reason out no better his criticisms of Mr. Khurram, is quite amusing.

  17. muhammad umer toor said


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: