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

Published: November 17, 2016
SHARES
Email

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yasser Latif Hamdani

Yasser Latif Hamdani

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

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

  • Muhammad

    A cheap attempt to downplay and create controversy in the personality of Allama Iqbal. The author is biased against Allama Iqbal because of the view which Allama held towards a self-proclaimed “prophet”who rose from Qadian.
    Recommend

  • vinsin

    Ahmadis were one of the biggest supporter and financier of Muslim League and partition. Jinnah joined Muslim league on insistence of Ahmadis. Jinnah didnt allow her freedom of religion to her wife and his only daughter. I have never read anywhere Jinnah opposing Noakhali riots and Mappila riots. Freedom of religion requires : secularism (women rights, child rights, animal rights, religious building and clothing laws), freedom of speech, expression and hate speech. Jinnah Fourteen points contradicts secularism. You are right that Jinnah created Pakistan for Subcontinent Muslims, but those who created never moved; they stayed in India. Muslims those who were opposing creation of Pakistan also voted for it in 1946, only close to 1.5% of Muslims voted for united India to Congress Leader Maulana Azad. Jinnah would have never signed Liaquat Nehru Pact, left Pakistani supporter in Bangladesh and would have given one-third political seats to non-Muslims in parliament.Recommend

  • Yasser Latif Hamdani

    Not everything is a conspiracy. Everything that I have written is based in fact. Recommend

  • Miyagi Jr.

    @yasserlatifhamdani:disqus Some people are going to be very angry at you after this but truth is, this jihad ideology has ruined everything and everyone and Iqbal was no different as long as the concept of Jihad is concerned.Recommend

  • Hameed

    What good did Iqbal ever do? He even left Jinnah league at one point to join Jinnah’s opponent’s party. In his lifetime Muslim League never won more than two seats in whole of Punjab. Muslim League gained momentum after Iqbal was dead and long gone and had no bearing on the situation. Try to read up history instead of just demonstrating ignorance and prejudice.Recommend

  • Muhammad

    Mr Hamdani don’t try to become another Salman Rushdie by creating controversies!! Yes a cheap attempt to trivialize Allama Muhammad Iqbal by the Qadian!Recommend

  • Alizeh Imtiaz

    Don’t know how true your facts are, but this article is very well written!Recommend

  • https://www.facebook.com/ ather khan

    jinnah had a perfect picture of pakistan in his mind, similar to turkey. but he had no chance to implement it. the selfish jaminders like liaqat ali khan then ruined it. after that ayub khan did make some gain in the right direction, but his vehicle of change was wrong and undemocratic. as a result all the achievements made during ayub era were reversed with fall of dhaka and the rule of bhutto. bhutto and zia practically ended the pakistan as jinnah wanted to be.Recommend

  • Sultan Ahmad

    Excellent article and brave effort to disseminate correct history of Pakistan in the brainwashed youth of Pakistan by ideologues. Recommend

  • Rizwan Nasar

    This is a concoction from the scribe… If Jinnah was not Iqbal’s choice than who was? So now Iqbal is the one who was to decide who will be the leader of the movement that will create Pakistan! Iqbal was dead long before the Pakistan Movement became real! He may have been an inspiration for the movement but Jinnah was the one who realized that Hindu majority will never let Muslims live in peace so he led the movement that created Pakistan. I really do not see a reason for this article but cheap publicity for himself! Yup we are taking about you… are we not?Recommend

  • abhi

    I don’t know if this will be published but I will write it anyway. Iqbal got redicalised while living in Germany and this slowly changed is thinking.Recommend

  • Izhae

    Mr Hamdani ! Do you know about Nehru’s visit to Iqbal’s residence during last days of Iqbal and the vonversation that took place ?Recommend

  • Critical

    Is it just me or does young Jinnah look like Misbah Ul HaqRecommend

  • http://peddarowdy.wordpress.com/ Anoop

    “Similarly, Jinnah was a lifelong advocate of the state’s neutrality in
    matters of religion – an idea which Iqbal considered as problematic.”

    Not true.

    Jinnah from a speech on January 25, 1948, at Karachi Bar Association saying:
    “I could not understand a section of people who deliberately wanted to
    create mischief and made a propaganda that the constitution of Pakistan
    would not be made on the basis of Shariat.”Recommend

  • Fruck Off

    In Qadian today, a Sikh gets elected to office and I guess it isn’t very different in Rabwah where a mainstream Muslim gets elected; does that mean both parts of Punjab should cease to exist?

    The criteria defined by the gentleman to denounce one individual over another who, pragmatically chose Zafarullah Khan, but also chose, Agha Khan, and a Dalit from Bengal, makes no sense whatsoever. Allama Iqbal wrote an ode for Shakespeare (who most likely stole from his works), as a beacon of English literature and explained how Mullahiyat and Peeri/Mureedi has destroyed the community. Simplifying Iqbal and his works in one article, and judging it on his acceptance (or the lack thereof), of one group makes zero sense. Its as if Iqbal was the one who concocted the brawl between the Jamaatis and Ahmadis/Qadianis in the train at Rabwah, and then led the Jamaati campaign to convince Bhutto to declare them non-Muslim. They weren’t chanting Iqbal’s sayings or poems when any of this happened. Sure, Iqbal might’ve believed that the Brits might’ve created a new sect using a dubious definition of “Khatam an-Nabiyeen” like they did for the Baha’is so he might have reacted to the colonizers for playing with the illiterate and vulnerable people of the third world, as I’m sure many others did including in Iran. He might’ve expressed his discomfort for Ghulam Mirza for coming off as a ‘sellout’ and praising the Brits at every opportunity, whether it was saying that the Brits gave Muslims more freedom than the Sikhs before them or even their campaign against the Boers that had nothing to do with anyone there. However, to say the culture and circumstances of that time can be extrapolated and superimposed on modern day events goes to show, as he has rightly said, that he’s not a historian because if he was, he would take into account the scenario from the perspective of the people at the time.

    Consequently, this is the real question folks like the author need to ask themselves: would Jinnah, the politician or Democrat as he calls him, would have done anything different than Bhutto? The answer will help people understand how history and the figures therein, cannot be placed in eras different than their own, and vilified or even praised. Iqbal and Jinnah are praised for giving us Pakistan. Whatever happened after, they’re not responsible for and can’t possibly be answerable for since they’re not here. Recommend

  • Fahim

    Facts can easily be manipulated by just using selection methodology. For example by taking one or two events to define an entire complete different personality of a person.Recommend

  • Bharat Indian

    hmmm… Iqbal was a religiously conservative hardliner but nationalist, while Jinah was religiously liberal but opportunist….. Both had a contradictory personalities, always at war within themseleves. And similar state of affairs are inside the country they created.Recommend

  • Rex Major

    Spend as much or more effort in solving today’s problems. Allama Iqbal, QeA Jinnah are all a part of history.Recommend

  • T Khan

    Q.E.D: Trump is the christian version of what Iqbal wanted in a Muslim…an intolerant and self-serving being professing ‘I am right’.
    Religious freedom is something we as Muslims believe to be a basic human right set by Allah in Quran and the Holy Prophet (PBUH) as a champion of the ideology.
    Iqbal never looked anything other than a poet before, IMHO, and neither is he today. Jinnah was a leader, and leaders lead the way he did, not implant rot like the others did.Recommend

  • Cyrus the Lesser

    Iqbal was captured by and influenced early by Ahmad of Qadian and Ahmad’s first Successor Hafiz Nurrudeen who had lived 5 years in Mecca .. anyways I feel / suspect that he drifted away due to not bein able to accept and submit to leadership of the very young second Caliph Bashirudeen Ahmad .. whereas Iqbal’s junior contemporary and friend ((Zafrulla Khan) also from Sialkot , who did , went on to be Pres. world court Justice at The Hague Recommend

  • AA_Southpaw

    Praising the Mirza and accepting him as a Prophet and Reformer are two separate things.

    Never was Iqbal anything close to being an Ahmadi.

    Your article does not prove that Jinnah wasn’t his first choice.The title is wrong.

    Who was his first choice?

    Freedom of religion is an essential part of an Islamic republic.

    No need to bring in secularism in for it.Recommend

  • AA_Southpaw

    How are they facts?

    It’s your opinion of different historical events.

    Like Jinnah’s 11 Aug speech.Recommend

  • Syed Abbas Ali

    Let’s say you are presenting the facts. But then even Jinnah never disavowed Allama Iqbal for greater interest of Pakistan. and here you are doing the opposite.Recommend

  • Yasser Latif Hamdani

    Just a correction. It is Jamiat e Ulema Hind and not JUI-F…. though what is not JUI-F is essentially Mufti Mahmood faction which was originally JUH. In my draft I wrote JUH but it was mistakenly changed to JUI-F. Small difference but for the sake of consistency here it is. Recommend

  • The writer has quoted a single line on Nehru’s authority on which to base his assertion about Iqbal’s relationship with Jinnah; a relationship that was foundational to the establishment of Pakistan. The writer has then gone on to use unmerited language like “rancor” to characterize this relationship, saying Iqbal and Jinnah didn’t see eye to eye at one of the Round Table conferences in London.

    Based just on this, I won’t trust this author to be able to “research” India’s location on a map much less describe the problem of that country’s Muslims and the formulations advanced by their leaders in the days before the partition in 1947. Fact is, Jinnah did not even participate in the Round Table conferences as he had sworn off Indian politics by then. Fact is, Iqbal wrote and wrote to Jinnah and went and met him in London to exhort him to come back to India and lead the AIML. Fact is, Jinnah openly and candidly acknowledged receiving inspiration from Iqbal all through the rest of his days. Fact is, Iqbal’s associates are on record saying Iqbal spurned Nehru quite harshly when the latter came to Iqbal’s house in Lahore and tried to get him to take Jinnah’s place in AIML leadership (read Iqbal’s biography by his son). And fact is, Nehru was a dedicated partisan and not someone whose words can be taken at face value about Iqbal and Jinnah from a book with a highly romanticized (and apocryphal) idea of India that was published years after Iqbal’s death.

    If the writer aspires to any kind of credibility as a historian, he’ll learn to base his conclusions on adequate and representative evidence, organize his writing around an actually cogent idea, and learn to be economical with words. I can’t pretend I have hope he’ll learn any of these things though; after all, why bother in Pakistan.Recommend

  • Akram Muhammad

    Very well written. These facts need to be discussed now in order to unearth the truth that lies in the foundation of this country and that ideologues never wanted us to know.Recommend

  • Shakir Lakhani

    Iqbal’s son (late Javed Iqbal) admitted to Dr. Israr Ahmed that Iqbal had been an Ahmedi for some time.Recommend

  • Shakir Lakhani

    I once heard of a letter by Iqbal saying “I have nothing to do with this Pakistan nonsense” or words to that effect. Is there such a letter?Recommend

  • jay

    Allam died a bitter man since Tagore got the Nobel and was invite by the Shah of Iran ! Iqbal was very ordinary poet as well! Many like him, better than him came and passed !Recommend

  • Yasser Latif Hamdani

    Dear Anoop
    The rest of the same speech you quote says that Islam stands for equality for all people and that democracy is part of the creed. Jinnah was making the case a modern democratic state was not an anathema to Islam and Sharia.

    This is precisely why I didn’t use the word secular. Jinnah the politician did try to use the idiom of the people in explaining his position and that idiom was at times religious. However Jinnah’s lifelong commitment to religious freedom cannot be swept under the rug nor the fact that Jinnah’s decision to keep a Hindu as Pakistan’s first law minister was of huge symbolic importance. Jinnah stood for equality and religious freedom for all citizens of Pakistan without distinction. It was not just 11 August speech but entire body of his speeches contains references to absolute religious freedom.

    I suppose however that your antipathy to all things Pakistani makes you incapable of accepting this basic fact. This is why you are always amongst the first people to comment on my articles with the same exploded arguments.

    Stay blessed. Recommend

  • Yasser Latif Hamdani

    Would like to respond to a few comments here

    1. Those resorting to personal attacks, thanks.

    2. The question of who was the first choice if not Jinnah himself. There were several. Iqbal himself. His party leader Sir Muhammad Shafi whose faction he associated with (as opposed to Jinnah’s faction) … and perhaps Sir Mian Fazli Hussain.

    3. A lot of people are upset that I have denigrated Iqbal. Iqbal is a historical figure and discussing him does not lessen him. I haven’t said a cruel word about him. That he believed in a metasystem of theocratic government is to my mind a fact of history. Read his essay that I have quoted. He says so very clearly that the state should have a religious mission. That is theocracy.

    4. Suggesting that Jinnah and iqbal didn’t see eye to eye during the roundtable conferences is also clear to me. But I am willing to be corrected if you can present evidence. There were other differences as well. Iqbal was a known critic of the Lucknow Pact for example and forwarded Punjab thesis. We all know who the architect of Lucknow Pact was. Jinnah represented the Muslims in minority provinces. Iqbal wanted to disregard them altogether.

    5. To the gentleman who suggested I should not write about this stuff because iqbal and Jinnah are dead – sir no one asked you to click on this article. History is something I am interested in. Do you write random emails to historians around the world telling them to quit their field of work. I also enjoy watching cricket… should I stop that as well?

    Recommend

  • Yasser Latif Hamdani

    Actually you are wrong. Jinnah attended the first and second roundtable conferences. He was not invited to the third. So now perhaps you should try and find India on the map because based on just this I don’t trust you to find it even if it jumped off the paper and bit you.Recommend

  • http://nabtron.com/ Nabtron

    then why does iqbal’s nephew wrote in his book “meray chacha” that iqbal was Ahmadi? Recommend

  • MR.X

    yes that jihad ideology is there but not properly following it ruined Muslims. Jihad is part of islam Recommend

  • ab

    Yes, not everything is conspiracy. So Let the people decide about it. Why imposing?Recommend

  • MR.X

    He brought Jinnah back.. Or you reject that? Have u read their letters?.
    Iqbal also left Mirza, have you read his poetry?.. Thats life that first choice is not the last or best choice. no sense of logic..What are you trying to tell us??Recommend

  • Hameed

    “He brought Jinnah back.. Or you reject that?”

    Totally! When did he do that? Provide evidence.Recommend

  • Hameed

    Not properly following it? All your senior Mullahs have been leading it how could it have gone wrong?Recommend

  • ab

    Wow , how these people linked everything.

    Pakistan is long created, Both our greatest heroes are long gone. I pray for both of them to grant highest place in jannah for what they have done. So why not move forward and create a great Pakistan. Or for ever we will be indulged in this debate Pakistan is created in the name of religion or not. Was Jinnah was a non muslim etc.Recommend

  • MR.X

    All right what about the time of caliphs ,They practised most jihad and were most successful…what about them??Do you believe in jihad or reject it which is in Quran??,In caliphs time the state also indulged in jihad.. Did they lose??mullah do not have enough firepower..Recommend

  • MR.X

    Written in books ive read “called history of something”..
    I actually read it many times ,not only in that book…Now get proper information before writing blogs. He was the one who called Iqbal back.Also see this lecture https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQkIaF3lHQA.. But off course this scholar is a liar in your views..Only thing matching your thinking are correct desi liberalRecommend

  • farhan

    Of course they are killing innocent childrenRecommend

  • farhan

    where do you live mars..??Written in many books and narrated by the scholars also.Get a life.Also answer mr.x’s other question..He beat you to it so you tried to shift your focus on something else(diversion tactics)Recommend

  • farhan

    desi liberal,acting sickRecommend

  • farhan

    Also proper Mullahs dont harm innocent people.Get a lifeRecommend

  • MR.X

    nailed it broRecommend

  • ab

    To your number 5. How can we enjoy reading if every other articles in main newspapers in Pakistan resembles the same thing?. At least in my personal point of view. it’s about 5 years trend There are other authors off course writing apart from you.

    We can’t follow our beloved neighbors news paper because they are ridiculous and their own readers liked our newspapers a great deal as they are often found here.Recommend

  • Azam Gill

    So then who was Iqbal’s first choice to lead Muslims?Recommend

  • Yasser Latif Hamdani

    Nothing in the 14 points contradicts secularism. Shows you haven’t read them. As for the rest of your claims, you need to read more about Jinnah. To suggest that he denied freedom of religion to his wife and daughter is bunkum. His wife was a theosophist. Her conversion was purely technical because in order for two people of different religion, either both had to renounce or one had to convert. As for his daughter contrary to the claim you make his daughter lived her own life and Jinnah even sent flowers for her wedding. Of course as the leader of Muslims he could not endorse it publicly. He was after all a politician. Finally your claim about Moplah uprising is also wrong. It is well known that Jinnah opposed the Khilafat movement which had led to the riots in the first place. Recommend

  • Yasser Latif Hamdani

    As HV Hodson said not even Jinnah’s worst enemies accused him of being an opportunist or self serving. Recommend

  • Yasser Latif Hamdani

    Iqbal had nothing to do with Jinnah’s return. Read Jinnah of Pakistan by Stanley Wolpert. Jinnah returned in 1934 and the Iqbal letters are from 1936 and 1937.Recommend

  • Yasser Latif Hamdani

    You obviously only read the title but did not read the article. What I am saying is precisely that Iqbal was is and should be immaterial to Pakistan. Recommend

  • Yasser Latif Hamdani

    Please point out which of the things I have written are untrue.Recommend

  • Saucy. Seems like I touched a nerve.Recommend

  • Yasser Latif Hamdani

    Jinnah answered the Ahmadi question on 23 May 1944 when he said that anyone who professed to be a Muslim is a Muslim and is welcome in the League. So yes Jinnah would have acted differently than Bhutto. Recommend

  • Hameed

    Who are proper Mullahs? Because most leading Mullahs support violence or don’t do much to stop it; Deobandis, Brelivis you name it.Recommend

  • Hameed

    Nailed what? As the sun shining during the day is fact just like support of Mullahs for terrorism and violation of human rights is. Khatm e Nabuwat violence and sectarian killings are one example and Jihads all across the world is another.Recommend

  • Hameed

    Nonsense. All lies copying one from the other. If 100 liars repeat something quoting each other that doesn’t make it not lie. Where is real original evidence?

    You obviously are a typical Mutalia e Pakistani person who has no sense of authenticity of information. You whole history is a lie pretty much, proven numerous times. This is your understanding so you have difficulty separating truth from propaganda.Recommend

  • Hameed

    “He beat you to it”

    Mtalia e Pakistanis can’t beat anyone on facts, as they have never studied anything authentic ever.Recommend

  • Hameed

    What nonsense is this? Just because it’s in a book it is true? Most of the books and media in Pakistan are based on lies. Only such Pakistanis believe such nonsense without authentic original references.

    Dr Israr is a person with no character who supported terrorisms particularly against Ahmadis. How can he even be considered a human let alone a person of repute?
    This shows the quality of authenticity you posse as well as the fact that most Mullahs support terrorism against innocent people.Recommend

  • Hameed

    “mullah do not have enough firepower..”

    Mullahs killing people in Pakistan every day and all over the work and they don’t have enough firepower? How much fire power is enough?Recommend

  • Muhammad

    Mr Hamdani you are obsessed by Ahmadis! Your choice of right and wrong are driven by your Ahmadi faith. Here you are unfortunately trying to downplay the importance of Allama Iqbal in comparison with Jinnah ONLY because Allama Iqbal did not acknowledge Mirza Ghulam Ahmed and his poetry is full of praise of Prophet Muhammad (saw). All your articles, blogs and writings are coloured by your Ahmadi/Qadiani faith. It’s time you stop doing that.Recommend

  • Rex Minor

    As for his daughter contrary to the claim you make his daughter lived
    her own life and Jinnah even sent flowers for her wedding. Of course as
    the leader of Muslims he could not endorse it publicly. He was after all
    a politician.

    He was indeed a politician and what a politician advocate, a typical machiavellian kind, who successfully exploited and used the religion of Islam to create a separate State for muslim majority communities and proposing State neutrality in matters of religions. Let us not compare him with the great thinker and philosopher Iqbal who during his studies was deeply exposed to the influence of the western philosophers on the European civilisation.

    Rex MinorRecommend

  • Rex Minor

    Nothing in the 14 points contradicts secularism.

    And what may one ask Sir is secularism, in your view or was in the mind of late Mr Jinnah the politician?

    Rex MinorRecommend

  • AA_Southpaw

    There are videos on youtube in which both were sitting and the question presented was.
    “Kya Allama Iqbal Ahmadi thai (Was Iqbal an Ahmadi).

    Dr. Israr Ahmed (ra) replied “Katan nai (Absolutely not)”

    I can show you the video. But before that ask yourself.

    “Whats the point?”

    Will you change your views?Recommend

  • MR.X

    He simply pays no attention to facts..Recommend

  • MR.X

    alright leave all my other sources..And then read your specific book..Brother a man below also told you the same thing..No point in arguying with you..Everyone knows that iqbal persuaded Jinnah whether you like it or not..Agree to disagreeRecommend

  • Umer Khalid

    Writer stated “he endorsed the founding of secular Turkish republic as a seminal event in Islamic history”
    Are you serious?? Iqbal praise restoration of democracy in Turkey. Yes restoration of democracy in Muslim world which turned into hereditary monarch. Abul Ala Maudoodi in his book “khilafat aur malookiat” explain Democratic caliphate turned into hereditary monarch. He never wrote” I admire Ata-Turk efforts to ban veil”. But yes He admired Turkish language as medium of learning Quran so people better understanding of Quran.
    Jinnah never said secular state of Pakistan. Other than a single speech often quoted by leftist in Pakistan he never said anything like secular country. While inaugurating state bank of Pakistan he used words” Islamic model of financing” and “Western model failed”. Both Jinnah and Iqbal were supporter of Islamic state. Ppl often talk about Zafarullah khan, yes as citizen of Pakistan any non-Muslim can hold any post other then head of state. Islamic state doesn’t mean he’ll for minorities. Recommend

  • iconoclast

    Brilliant. Crisp, direct and to the point. Another well-written one YLH !Recommend

  • iconoclast

    This guy is making up stories that no one can verify. Like Jinnah had a dream and then he changed his ideology! Hypocrite lying Mullahs!Recommend

  • Bharat Indian

    Please don’t quote firangis, they can prove a demon as saint and vice-versa, if it serve their interests. Please read Jinah’s personality objectively without any favour or hatred: (1) He was genuine liberal and secular just like Nehru but, quickly re-packaged himself as Islamic hardliner, when he smelt the leadership position of muslim league. (2) He knew very well he is going to die soon due to TB. Still he insisted for separate country and it’s top position. What else will you call it other than self-serving? You must know that just before the independence, whole congress elected Patel as first PM of India. But, Gandhi told Patel that you are too old, hence won’t be able to give the leadership for too long and he adviced him to allow Nehru to be PM. Patel accepted Gandhi’s suggestion without any malice. This is called selflessness. And this later proved crucial turn as Patel died just in few years while Nehru gave stable leadership for next 16 years. (3) In spite of knowing fully well about his nearing death, he didn’t give any concrete written vision about the newly borned country nor did he nurtured any second rung leadership (as Gandhi and also Nehru did during his lifetime). It created cheos and confusion after his death. Nobody knew what to do of this newly created country.
    What else will you call opportunism and self-serving? Jinah snatched whole Aligarh educated liberal muslim leadership from India and we were left with hardcore Islamists, who knew nothing except few Quranic verses. It is a different matter that later you converted those liberal into hardcore Islamists and we converted or still trying to convert our side of Islamists into liberals… hahahaha…Recommend

  • BJK

    Jinnah was a smart cookie, but I wish he had not been a smoker! :)
    Then he would have had a longer life and could have been of immensely greater benefit to his new country.Recommend

  • Salim Alvi

    Why talk about these folks who were agents of foreign power? Did these men fight for freedom of Indians and sacrifice anything? Did they go to jail? Did they love native soil, language, ancient cultural roots and ancestral history? Did they teach native language to their kids? One retired London and would not have come back if British had not given promise of bigger political role. Other gentleman who considered himself a poet, never wrote a word in native Punjabi or Kashmiri. These were elitist parasites. Indians needed https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baba_Ram_Chandra who worked with and for native poor.Recommend

  • ali.xaidi

    when u post pointless comments, rejecting a research with the help of false arguments, what do you expect if not touching a nerve?Recommend

  • ali.xaidi

    Jinnah was the person who actually proposed the conference and, in fact, lobbied for it all alone in the beginning. Go and read Wolpert when you’re done with Javed Iqbal.Recommend

  • ali.xaidi

    We are not supposed to agree on everything with Jinnah. Jinnah didn’t disavow him while the blogger can.
    Besides, contemporary greats generally avoid picking up fights within the party. For example, Nawaz might have differences with Nisar but the two wouldn’t disavow each other, because it’d bring a bad name to the party. But that does NOT mean they agree on everything.Recommend

  • Yasser Latif Hamdani

    Not about raw nerves. Just find it a little amusing that you would make ahistorical claims like Jinnah didnt attend the roundtable conferences. Indeed Jinnah was one of the people who worked hard to get the roundtable conferences convened. Read Jinnah’s correspondence with Irvin. Jinnah was one of the most active participants at the first two conferences. It is not a small mistake on your part. You cannot understand how or why Jinnah came to oppose GOIA 1935 without knowing his positions at the Roundtable conferences.

    So forgive me if your condescending tone is infuriating to me since you have no basis to be condescending given that you are unaware of this important fact.Recommend

  • Salim Alvi

    https://youtube.com/watch?v=mvIz2-x3LUo&t=3m23s why should natives worry about alien books be they of Anglo’s or Bedouin’s? We are sick up of meaningless secularism, liberalism etc.Recommend

  • Fruck Off

    Erdogan endorses that message. You should’ve added the hashtag #TheWorldIsBiggerThan5 like Lohan and something about FETO; but then, that would’ve given it away so you did the right thing.Recommend

  • AA_Southpaw

    This way whatever happened 70 years ago is immaterial to Pakistan.

    Whatever Jinnah wanted Pakistan to be. It needs to be an Islamic Republic.Recommend

  • SD

    Iqbal remained an Ahamdi for 40 years of his adult life and had very close rapport with the founder of the Ahamdi community. Check fact !!!Recommend

  • SD

    The author has provided no proof only his opinion. The first choice was always Jinnah. There was no body more capable of working for a Pakistani homeland. It was also the Ahmadis who influenced Jinnah to return from England to take up the Pakistani cause. They met him continuously in London to convince him to return back to India and take up the Pakistan cause.Recommend

  • SD

    Jinnah always advocated Pakistan for all Muslims of India including those who lived in minority province. This is why millions of Muslims from minority province migrated to Pakistan. Punjab was basically illiterate at the time of partition. If it was not for the well educated Muslims from the minority provinces , Pakistan would not have been able to progress as quickly as it did in the early days. Of course Jinnah also could relate more to the non Punjabi Muslims as the Punjabi Muslims were always arrogant , corrupt and disorderly. History has proven this today. They have literally destroyed Pakistan slowly but surely by their attitude, behavior, bradari mindset and religious bigotory fanaticism.Recommend

  • SD

    Iqbal broke away from the Ahamdis because he could not submit to their leadership. He had not only accepted Ahmadiyat but also maintained very close ties with their leadership for several years.Recommend

  • SD

    Yes you are right and he had solved the problem based on the Quran. This is why he chose to appoint Zafrullah Khan as Pakistan’s first Foreign Minister even though some of the Mullahs of the time had opposed it.Recommend

  • MR.X

    Why dont you see the video(of a scholar) and read my books ??Believe what you want to believeRecommend

  • farhan

    i can say the same about you, you also told him a book name..”if its in a book that dosent mean its true”.#hypocrysyRecommend

  • farhan

    O great historian. I am third class Pakistani person.Can sense some westeren in your tone(English complex)
    You are great with your wisdom and your facts are always right . Hell with other books and scholarRecommend

  • Yasser Latif Hamdani

    You assume too much. I am not an Ahmadi. However as a Pakistani I am concerned about the denial of fundamental rights to Ahmadis. Recommend

  • Yasser Latif Hamdani

    The onus is on you to show which part of the 14 points was against the idea of a secular federated India. Recommend

  • Yasser Latif Hamdani

    Ambedkar said that Jinnah was unpurchaseable and incorruptible. He was not a firangi.
    If he had been self serving he would have accepted Gandhi’s offer of becoming the PM. Whether you agree with his pov or not no one can deny that he was not motivated by self interest. Even Nehru a critic admits this when he says that Jinnah was not looking for a job and that set him apart from the rest of muslim leadership.Recommend

  • Miyagi Jr.

    “That jihad ideology” wow. MR.X will tell me what a Jihad ideology is!!

    Do you think of anything else other than warfare, I am sure there are many things in Islam which should appeal to you other than waging violent jihad on innocents all the time while getting your own men women and children killed at the ratio of 1000:1. Something is not right here. And this has been going on since your so called Mullahs are waging jihad everywhere, it has never changed ever since 1000:1. This is not Jihad. this is not even Qitaal. This is hell. wake up and smell the coffee.Recommend

  • MR.X

    when did i ever say that killing innocent is jihad. That is why i said proper jihad, smelling the cofee you judgemental manRecommend

  • Salim Alvi

    Wikipedia link is on RamChandra Baba, anti feudalism crusader.Recommend

  • MR.X

    Foreign funded terrorists are no proper Mullah who are killing innocent..Enough with youe judgemental arguments..Do you as a muslim reject Quran verses about jihad??Recommend

  • MR.X

    he showed you the video of the scholar.You just want to believe what suits your feelings.Your the hypocriteRecommend

  • MR.X

    Let him be content with dishonorable behavior and look he also has english superiority complex mocking “Mutalia-e-Pakistan”Recommend

  • http://nabtron.com/ Nabtron

    can you please provide references? thanks.Recommend

  • Rajiv

    No , they are too old to do that.
    they incite others for it.Recommend

  • farhan

    even those who incite young are not proper. any knowledge of islam?i doubt thatRecommend