By Tarek Fatah
Excerpted with gratitude from his book Chasing a Mirage: The Tragic lllusion of an Islamic State’. Available for download at Let Us Build Pakistan
The movement to restore the Ottoman caliphate was strong in India,
under the leadership of none other than Indian nationalist Mahatma Gandhi. As in Egypt, Muslims in India were taken aback by the abolition of the centuries-old institution. While many among the seventy-million-strong Indian Muslim community saw the end of the caliphate as a grave setback, intellectuals such as thinker-poet Iqbal supported Ataturk’s abolition of the caliphate, suggesting that the Turks had made effective use of the Islamic tradition of Ijtehad. The Ottoman caliphate, Iqbal said, had long become a symbol of Muslim statehood in name only, as not even the next-door Iranians accepted the sovereignty of the Ottomans.
Iqbal wrote dismissively of the clerics:
“The religious doctors of Islam in Egypt and India, as far as I know, have not yet expressed themselves on this point. Personally, I find the Turkish view is perfectly sound.”
He went on to defend the separation of religion and state, writing, “The republican form of government is not only thoroughly consistent with the spirit of Islam, but has also become a necessity in view of the new forces that were set free in the world of Islam.”
Iqbal further cited two examples of how in early Islam the caliphate had adapted to political realities. First was the abolition of a condition thatthe caliph had to descend from the Meccan Arab tribe of Quraysh. Iqbal cited the ruling of an 11th-century jurist that, since the Quraysh tribe had experienced a political debacle, ruling the world of Islam no longer required belonging to the Quraysh tribe. The second example involved the historian and philosopher Ibn Khaldun, who in the 15th century declared that since the power of the Quraysh had vanished, the only alternative was to accept the country’s most powerful man as the country’s imam or caliph. Iqbal concluded from all this that there was no difference between the position of Khaldun, who had realized the hard logic of facts, and the attitude of modern Turks, who were also inspired by the realities of their time rather than by medieval laws written under different conditions of life.
Both Iqbal and Razik wrote in the 1920s, but in the early 21st century their words seem to come from the future, not the past. Today, Islamic political thought is moribund and has become more fossilized than it was at the end of
the Ottoman caliphate. Today’s movement for an Islamic theocracy is structured around the creation of an Islamic State based on the works of Abul Ala Maudoodi and Hassan al-Banna of the Jamaat-e-Islami and the Muslim Brotherhood. Their views remain in sharp contrast to their more urbane and secular contemporaries, as they strove for an Islamic State that rejected the ideas of universalism, instead embracing the self-righteous supremacy of Islam at the expense of the other. Iqbal was an early convert to Ataturk’s republican secularism. In his seminal work The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, Iqbal wrote:
“Such is the attitude of the modern Turk, inspired as he is by the realities of experience, and not by the scholastic reasoning of jurists who lived and thought under different conditions of life. To my mind these arguments, if rightly appreciated, indicate the birth of an International ideal, which forming the very essence of Islam, has been hitherto overshadowed or rather displaced
by Arabian Imperialism of the earlier centuries in Islam.”
Iqbal considered the end of the caliphate as the trigger for a Muslim
renaissance. He felt the jolt was necessary for the revival of Islam as an
instrument of moral awakening, what he referred to as “the spiritualisation of
the heart.” When using the term “Arabian Imperialism,” Iqbal was probably
referring not just to early Umayyad Arab rule over non-Arab Muslim lands, but also to the way non-Arab Muslims had been conditioned to see themselves, their language, cuisine, and culture as inferior to their Arab cousins. He supported the adoption of the Turkish language as a medium of prayer and the Quran by the Young Turks. He wrote:
If the aim of religion is the spiritualisation of the heart, then it must penetrate the soul of man, and it can best penetrate the inner man . . . We find that when Muhammad Ibn Tumart—the Mahdi of Muslim Spain—who was Berber by nationality, came to power and established the pontifi cal rule of the Muwahhidun, he ordered for the sake of the illiterate Berbers that the Quran should be translated and read in the Berber language and that the call to prayer should be given in Berber.
The tenuous bond between the Arab and the non-Arab Muslim has, over the
centuries, created a love-hate relationship, often one-sided and rarely discussed. While non-Arab Muslims have embraced many facets of Arabian culture and custom, the gesture has rarely been reciprocated. Whether it has been the feeble relationship between the Berbers and Arabs, or the never-ending mutual mistrust between Persians and the Arabs, this chasm has gone largely unnoticed in the Arab world. Iqbal’s reference to “Arabian Imperialism” would elicit shock and denunciation from even the most liberal Arab; such is the state of denial.
Secular Pakistan 
Zainab Ali
May 4, 2010
Iqbal was the biggest visionary that lived in subcontinent; he had a thorough insight into the lives of his fellow Muslims, so he supported the secular views of Kamal Ataturk.
عبداللہ نور
March 14, 2013
میرے خیال میں طارق صاحب اقبال کو مس کوٹ کر رہے ہیں۔ ہاں شروع شروع میں تو اقبال جیسے امید پرست نے اتاترک کی کامیابی پر طلوع اسلام جیسی لازوال نظم بھی لکھ دی تھی۔ لیکن جوں جوں اس دہریے ترک کی دہریت رنگ لاتی گئی اقبال اس کی کڑی خبر لیتے رہے۔ چند مثالیں پیش خد مت ہیں۔
نہ مصطفیٰ نہ رضا شاہ میں نمود اِس کی
کہ روحِ شرق بدن کی تلاش میں ہے ابھی
۔۔۔۔
لاطینی و لادینی، کس پیچ میں الجھا تُو
دارو ہے زندہ قوموں کا لا غالب الا ہُو
۔۔
تُرکِ از خود رفتہ و مستِ فرنگ
زہرِ نوشین خوردہ از دستِ فرنگ
زانکہ تریاقِ عراق از دست داد
من چہ گویم جُز خدایت یار باد
۔۔۔۔
از ما بگُو سلامے آں ترکِ تند خُو را
کآتش زد از نگاہے یک شہرِ آرزو را
S Imam
May 4, 2010
With all due respect, we can’t rely on Iqbal’s thoughts taken from stages of life when his thought were being formed. He had said many thing at earlier stage, but later changed them. So it would have been far better if the author of this article had taken the views of Iqbal which he expounded at later stages.
For instance, Iqbal spoke more clearly about Wahhabism as a movement of reform in Islam. He also shared several points of criticism of traditional Islam with them. Moreover, the leaders of Deoband movement were also under the influence of both Wali Ullah and Wahhab and accordingly they resisted against the British and were critical of Aligarh movement because of its leader Sir Sayed Ahmad being loyal to it. But Iqbal later went along with Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, and NOT with the Deobandis or Wahabis!
At another point, Iqbal, who was once a great admirer of the Ahmadiyyah Movement, issued in 1936 a long statement against the Qadianis. It was motivated mainly by political reasons and the views of the extremist Qadiani section were made the basis of this statement. So here again Iqbal appears to be changing his heart!
Yes, Iqbal also called to separate religion from state in his thesis at his earlier or formative stage, but later it was the same Iqbal who said :
jalale padshahi ho ke jamhoori tamasha ho
Juda ho Deen Siyasat say to reh jatee hai Changayzi
(whether it is the majestic king’s rule or a circus of democracy; If religion is separated from politics, then it is left with the governance of Gangis Khan—meanigby, the barbarism!)
In these lines, Iqbal not only condemns the separation of religion from state, but he also depicts democracy as a “Tamash”. I don’t know whether I should have ventured to render this word into English language as ‘circus of democracy’! The only word I could find closer to it in English language is “jugglery”.
The point which must be understood is that if you refer to Iqbal or scholars like him then you are bound to land in different types of pitfalls. Because these people of the Islamic stream actually wanted to restore the political power for Muslims by re-interpretating Islam.
However, the most unfortunate this is that they never discovered why the Muslim lost political power! The only reason they all could find was the impurities that entered Islam. And for them the impurities had entered into Islam because of its interaction with other cultures, religions and people.
So they all were of one opinion, albeit with varying level degrees, the Islam must be purged! And that’s the problem, which we are now facing in the form of all terrorist organisations, which also want to purge Islam! So the foundational reason of the decline of Islam is based on a wrongly conceived idea: impurities! If impurities are the foundational reason of the decline then this religion should come to an end, it should die a logical death because every movement, religion or ideology is bound to meet other’s influences, otherwise it would turn into a stagnant pool of water!
But there is another angle: Can Muslim scholars dare to point out some other reasons of their decline, such as something wrong in the whole concept of the religion which they constructed during the earlier periods of Islam! Instead of blaming the others can Muslim scholars carry out s soul searching to find out what went wrong right at the first stage!
Nauman Mohiuddin
July 20, 2016
Study Allama Ghulam Ahmed Parwez.. You will find all the answers.
Nauman Mohiuddin
July 20, 2016
Especially his works named “Asbab e Zawal E Ummat – Reasons of Muslims Decline” and the last chapter of “Shahkaar e Risaalat” – Biography of Hazrat Umar (the second caliph).
Tilsim
May 4, 2010
@ S Imam
Thank you an informative, honest and great post. I agree with what you say. Clearly Iqbal was a great poet philosopher but one with a complex and evolving message. It’s clear that his main interest was empowerment of muslims and that he thought of various ways of achieving this as the political circumstances evolved. Pakistanis and Muslims in general should stop idolising/ lionising these figures from the past blindly and critically focus on the relevance of their ideas to today’s situation. If he was alive today, Iqbal may well have changed his message to reflect today’s needs.
Rashid Saleem
May 5, 2010
It is sad that after 63 plus years of independence we are still stuck in the same debate. Both the prominent figures of Pakistan movement, Quiad-e-Azam and Allama Iqbal always favored a secular country. It was the Mullah who sabotaged their efforts by injecting the Islamic element in Pakistan.
Nauman Mohiuddin
July 20, 2016
My dear brother, your post suggests that you are – with due respect – unaware of the meaning of Secularism and also the values of this “islamic element” which was being injected .
Ali from Karachi
May 27, 2010
Though I am very much in favour of a secular-Pakistan, having studied Allama Iqbal, his views are anything but secular. Intellectual honesty dictates that our critique must be unbiased and certainly if one was to label Iqbal’s political leanings, I would hazard to label it as pan-Islamists.
I personally feel that Jinnah’s and Iqbal’s political leanings should not be conflated, as they both had very different personalities and had different vision and ideologies.
burak
April 30, 2014
Why u want secularism
Do u think that u know more than Allah and his prophet (saw)
Go to wikipidea and read the kemel,s ideology than u will learn
Who was mustafa kemel
Only a dog
And an agent of America and UK
Shame on Pakistanis who want secular Pakistan
Junaid
September 11, 2010
There are many errors in interpreting Iqbal’s speeches… he supported Attaturk’s form of government and not the Philosophy of government.
Kindly read Iqbal’s address in Cambridge in the Second Round Table Conference in 1931… and i quote
“the biggest blunder made by Europe was the separation of Church and State. This deprived their culture of moral soul and diverted it to the atheistic materialism.”
As a student of Philosophy of Logic, I myself agree with the critique that secularism is a self-refuting ideology. The ‘belief’ that the church and state should be separate is itself a religion and its application at the country level is itself totalitarian. Those who try to wiggle out from this loop attempt to redefine belief as being divine.. unfortunately they themselves fall into the trap of selectively defining and applying their definition to save their own belief about secularism.
Secondly secularism is intolerant of religious totalitarianism and amusingly discrimates those who believe that religion should rule their lives completely. Hence by castigating intolerants the secularists themselves become intolerant. If secularists dont want to be ruled by religion then some people might not want to be ruled by secular laws. Secularism is itself a joke on itself.
Next they take refuge in democracy. Another abstract and self contradictory concept. Plato’s critique of democracy is very clear that democracy creates much more inequality and destruction rather than the purported peace and harmony. What would happen in pure democracy if the majority votes against the removal of democracy itself. The axe falls on democracy’s own feet.
Its just like the quandry of a skeptic… a skeptic believes that nothing can be proved or disproved… however even this belief can be succeptible to this rule…so much so for Bertrand Russel’s apologetic agnosticism!
The rationality of rationality even has its limits… no rational human being can claim to govern another rational human being’s life… every rational human being has a right to debunk and refute every other rational person and remain free…the freedom of will cannot be exercised within the constraints of rationality…
but alas this is another philosophical argument!
Thank you for bearing with me!
umair
November 10, 2010
this is a long debate that whether Iqbal was against or in favor of capitalism. actual thing is that what we have to do now…… iqbal is not source for us and we have to follow quran not Iqbal. and quran says that secularism is kufur….
Awais
November 10, 2010
Umair,
Have you actually read Quran to assert that secularism is kufr. Something which is not possible since Secularism as an idea did not exist at the time of Quran.
Nauman Mohiuddin
July 20, 2016
Humanism, capitalism, nihilism and all other isms were there at the time of Quran, let alone Secularism.
Muhammed Amad
January 2, 2011
Mustapha Kemal explains in his speech to the nation in 1927 why he abolished the Caliphate.
The misery, poverty , backwardness, darkness and primitivism of the most Mohemmedan nations for 11 centuries only partially be reversed in Turkey after Mustafa Kemal’s revolutions.
Here I let the great man speak, and let us know of his thought about the Caliphet.
Mustafa Kemal…
[……………..
I must call attention to the fact that Hodja Shukri Effendi, as well as the politicians who pushed forward his person and signature, had intended to substitute the sovereign bearing the title of Sultan or Padishah by a monarch with the title of Caliph.
The only difference was that, instead of speaking of a monarch of this or that country or nation, they now spoke of a monarch whose authority extended over a population of three hundred million souls belonging to manifold nations and dwelling in different continents of the world. Into the hands of this great monarch, whose authority was to extend over the whole of Islam, they placed as the only power that of the Turkish people, that is to say, only from 10 to 15 millions of these three hundred million subjects.
The monarch designated under the title of Caliph was to guide the affairs of these Mohamedan peoples and to secure the execution of the religious prescriptions which would best correspond to their worldly interests. He was to defend the rights of all Mohamedans and concentrate all the affairs of the Mohamedan world in his hands with effective authority.
The sovereign entitled Caliph was to maintain justice among the three hundred million Mohamedans on the terrestrial globe, to safe guard the rights of these peoples, to prevent any event that could encroach upon order and security, and confront every attack which the Mohamedans would be called upon to encounter from the side of other nations. It was to be part of his attributes to preserve by all means the welfare and spiritual development of Islam.
The absurd ideas which ignorant people like Shukri Hodja and his companions were disseminating about the actual condition prevailing in the world under the power of “religious prescriptions” with the intention of abusing our nation, are not worthy of being repeated here. In the course of centuries there have been people and there are still people to-day in the interior as well as in foreign countries who profited by the ignorance and fanaticism of the nations and try to make use of religion as a tool to help them in their political plans and personal interests. The fact that there are such individuals unfortunately compels us again to go into this question.
So long as the sentiments and knowledge of mankind with regard to religious questions are not yet freed from myths and purified in the light of true science, we shall find historians everywhere who play a religious comedy. We must actually belong to those “beings who live wholly in God,” like Shukri Hodja, not to be enlightened about the absurdities of the illogical ideas and impracticable prescriptions which they sow broadcast in all directions.
If the Caliph and Caliphate, as they maintained, were to be in vested with a dignity embracing the whole of Islam, ought they not to have realised in all justice that a crushing burden would be imposed on Turkey, on her existence; her entire resources and all her forces would be placed at the disposal of the Caliph?
According to their declarations, the Caliph-Monarch would have the right of jurisdiction over all Mohamedans and all Mohamedan countries, that is to say, over China, India, Afganisthan, Persia, Irak, Syria, Palestine, Hedjas, Yemen, Assyr, Egypt, Tripolis, Tunis, Al geria, Morocco, the Sudan.
It is well known that this Utopia has never been realised. The pamphlet itself signed by Hodja Shukri emphasises that the Mohamedan communities have always separated from one another under the influence of aims that were diametrically opposite to one another; that the Omayades of Andalusia, the Alides of Morocco, the Fatimides of Egypt and the Abbassides of Bagdad have each created a Caliphate, that is to say, a monarchy of their own.
In Andalusia there were even communities embracing a thousand souls, each of which was “a Commander of the Faithful and a Torch of Faith.” Would it have been logical or reasonable to pretend to be ignorant of this historic truth and to designate under the title of Caliph a ruler destined to govern all the Mohamedan States and nations, some of which were independent, while most of them were under a foreign protectorate?
Particularly the fact that a mere hand full of men consisting of the population of Turkey, burdened with the anxiety of supporting such a sovereign, would it not have been the surest means for strangling this people?
Those who say: The attributes of the Caliph are not of a spiritual kind,” and the basis of the Caliphate is material strength, the temporal power of the Government,” proved thereby that for them the Caliphate was the State.
And thereby it could easily be perceived that they pursued the aim of putting at the head of the Turkish Government some personality bearing the title of Caliph.
The attempts of Hodja Shukri Effendi and his political colleagues to conceal their political designs and to represent them under the form of a religious question which concerned the entire Mohamedan world had the only result that this puppet representing the Caliphate was still more speedily swept off the stage.
I made statements everywhere that were necessary to dispel the uncertainty and anxiety of the people concerning this question of the Caliphate.
I formerly declared: “We cannot allow any person, what ever his title may be, to interfere in questions relating to the destiny, activity and independence of the new State which our nation has now erected. The nation itself watches over the preservation and in dependence of the State which they have created, and will continue to do so for all time.”
I gave the people to understand that neither Turkey nor the handful of men she possesses could be placed at the disposal of the Caliph so that he might fulfill the mission attributed to him, namely, to found a State comprising the whole of Islam. The Turkish nation is incapable of undertaking such an irrational mission.
For centuries our nation was guided under the influence of these erroneous ideas. But what has been the result of it? Everywhere they have lost millions of men.
“Do you know,” I asked, “how many sons of Anatolia have perished in the scorching deserts of the Yemen? Do you know the losses we have suffered in holding Syria and the Irak and Egypt and in maintaining our position in Africa? And do you see what has come out of it? Do you know?”
Those who favor the idea of placing the means at the disposal of the Caliph to brave the whole world and the power to administer the affairs of the whole of Islam must not appeal to the population of Anatolia alone but to the great Mohamedan agglomerations which are eight or ten times as rich in men.
New Turkey, the people of New Turkey, have no reason to think of anything else but their own existence and their own welfare. She has nothing more to give away to others.
To enlighten the people on still another point, I employed these expressions:
Let us accept for a moment that Turkey would take this mission upon herself and would devote herself to the aim of uniting and leading the whole Islamic world and that she would succeed in achieving this aim.
Very good, but suppose these nations whom we want to subject and administer would say to us: You have rendered great services and assistance to us for which we are thankful to you, but we want to remain independent. We do not suffer any body else to interfere in our independence and sovereignty. We are capable of leading and administering ourselves.
In such a case will the efforts and sacrifices made by the people of Turkey result in anything more than earning thanks and a benediction?
It is evident they intended that the people of Turkey should be sacrificed to a mere caprice, to a fancy, to a phantom. To this effect the idea of attributing functions and authority to a Caliph and a
Caliphate can be comprehended.
I asked the people: Will Persia or Afganistan, which are Mohamedan States, recognize the authority of the Caliph in a single matter?
Can they do so?
No, and this is quite justifiable, because it would be in contradiction to the independence of the State, to the sovereignty of the people.
I also warned the people by saying that “the error of looking upon ourselves as masters of the world must cease.”
Let us put an end to the catastrophes into which the people had been dragged by following those who deceive themselves and misjudge our real rank and position in the world. We cannot conscientiously permit this tragedy to continue.
The English author Wells has written an historical work which was published two years ago. The last pages of this work contain some contemplations under the heading of “History of Mankind in the Future”.
These contemplations relate to the question of the establishment by the Governments of a World League.
In this chapter Wells develops his ideas as to the form the Government of a World League would take, and speaks about the essential fundamental lines of such a State. He depicts what might become of our earth under the Government of justice and a uniform law.
Wells says: “Unless all the sovereignties amalgamate into one single sovereignty, unless a higher power than nationalities appears, the world will perish,” and he continues as follows:
The real State could not be anything but the Government of the United States of the World, which are necessarily brought together by the conditions of modern life,” and “it is certain that sooner or later, men will be compelled to unite if they do not want to succumb under the weight of their own inventions.”
He also says that, “We do not know yet exactly what must be done and what must be prevented finally to attain the realization of the great thought of human solidarity,” and that a world federation of States will only succeed with difficulty in letting those powers join whose external policy has traditionally an aggressive character.
Let me also quote the following observations made by Wells: “The joint sufferings and needs of Europe and Asia will, perhaps, to a certain degree, contribute to bring the peoples of these two continents nearer to one another,” and “it is possible that a number of individual federations will precede the World Federation.”
I will by no means deny the beauty of the idea of the “United States of the World” the establishment of which would produce the result that the experience, knowledge and conceptions of mankind at large would be developed and uplifted, that mankind would abandon Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and that a pure, spotless, simplified religion, understood by all and of a universal character, will be established, and that men will understand that they have lived hither to in a place of misery amidst disputes and ignominy, their desires and gross appetites, and that they will decide to eradicate all infectious germs which have hitherto empoisoned both body and soul.
In our midst also a conception partly equaling this plan has been formed for the purpose of satisfying the adherents of the Caliphate and a Panislam, on the condition, however, that it would not become
a source of difficulties for Turkey.
The theory put forward was this: “Mohamedan communities dwelling in Europe, Asia, Africa and in other regions, sooner or later in future will attain the liberty and faculty of acting according to their will and carry out their wishes.
And then, if they think it expedient and advantageous, they will find certain points of union and concord in accordance with the exigencies of the century.
Every State, every community undoubtedly has needs that could be satisfied and protected by other States and communities; the
States have reciprocal interests.
If the delegates of these hypothetical independent Mohamedan States would unite in a congress and declare that this or that relation ship has been established between certain States, that a committee had been formed for the purpose of maintaining such mutual relations and securing joint action under the conditions established by these relations that the Mohamedan States united in this manner would be represented by the president of this committee, then they will, if so desired, give to these United States of Islam the title of Caliphate and to the person elected to be president of this united assembly the title of Caliph.
But neither common sense nor reason will ever admit that any individual Mohamedan State will confer on any man the authority of guiding and administering the affairs of the whole of the Mohamedan world.
Mustafa Kemal analyses his views on the thoughts of involving religion and the Caliphate in the state administration.
Constitution Act, during the course of long meetings and consultations with journalists from Ismidt and Constantinople, one of my inter wiewers at Ismidt put the following question: “Will the new State have a religion?”
I must confess that it was most undesirable that I should have to answer this question, because, in the circumstances then prevailing,
I did not wish to be compelled to give an answer which was evident incidentally, a very short one.
If a State having amongst its subjects elements professing different religions and being compelled to act justly and impartially towards all of them and allowing justice to prevail in its tribunals equally towards foreigners as well as its own subjects, it is obliged to respect freedom of opinion and conscience. It is surely not justified in making restrictions in this natural authority of the State by attributing other qualities to it which are capable of having an ambiguous meaning.
When we say that “the official language of the State is Turkish,” everybody understands what this means; everybody understands that it is natural that the Turkish language should be used in official affairs. But will the sentence “The State religion of Turkey is the Mohamedan religion” be accepted and understood in the same way?
It must naturally be criticized and explained.
I could not answer the question put to me by the journalist, my interviewer, with: “The State cannot have a religion.” On the contrary, I answered: “It has one the Mohamedan religion.”
I immediately felt the need of commenting on and qualifying my answer by the following sentence: “The Mohamedan religion includes the freedom of religious opinion.”
Thereby I wanted to express that the State is obliged to respect freedom of opinion and freedom of conscience.
Undoubtedly my interviewer did not find my reply reasonable and repeated his question in the following form: “Did you mean to say that the State will identify itself with a particular religion?”
“I do not know,” I said, “whether this will be the case or not.” I wanted to end the debate, but this was not possible. “Then,” they told me, “the State will prevent me from expressing an opinion that corresponds to my views and thoughts on any question. And if the case should arise I shall be punished for having done so.” “But will everybody discover a way to silence his conscience?”
At that time I was thinking of two things. The first was: Will not every grown up person in the new Turkish State be free to select his own religion?
Then I recalled Hodja Shukri s proposal which was: “Some of my colleagues among the Ulema as well as myself, consider it to be our duty to publish our common thoughts, as well the prescriptions of Islam, which are confirmed and set forth in the books of the Sheri . . . to enlighten the minds of the Mohamedans, which have unfortunately been led astray.”
I also recalled the following sentence: “The Caliphate of Islam has been entrusted by the Prophet to protect and perpetuate the religious prescriptions and to be the representative of the Prophet in the exercise of the Sheriade.”
But to quote the words of the Hodja would be equivalent to an attempt to abolish the national sovereignty.
But, on the other hand, we had not to consider the bulk of the knowledge of the Hodjas comprised in formulae which had been dictated in the time of Caliph Yesid* and which had been appropriated to a regime of absolutism.
Consequently, who would be deceived if the expressions “State” and “Government” were enwrapped in the cloak of religion and the Sheriade? Although the meaning of these expressions, as well as of the authorities of the Assembly, are now clear to everybody, what need is there for this deception?
Mustafa Kemal is asked to be the Caliph.
“the Mohamedans in the countries through which he had been travelling demanded that I should become Caliph, and that the competent Mohamedan bodies had commissioned him to inform me of this desire.”
“…………Certain persons who wrongly believed that it was necessary, for religious and political reasons to maintain the Caliphate, proposed at the last moment when the decisions were to be taken, that I should assume the office of the Caliphate.
I immediately gave a negative reply to these men.
Let me emphasize another point which arose: When the Grand National Assembly had abolished the Caliphate, Rassih Effendi, an ecclesiastic and deputy for Adalia, was president of the deputation of the Red Half-Moon, which was in India.
He came back to Angora via Egypt. After soliciting an interview with me, he made statements to the effect that “the Mohamedans in the countries through which he had been travelling demanded that I should become Caliph, and that the competent Mohamedan bodies had commissioned him to inform me of this desire.”
In the reply which I gave to Rassih Effendi, I expressed my thanks for the benevolence and affection which the Mohamedans had shown me and said: “You are a Doctor of Religious Right. You know that Caliph signifies Chief of the State. How can I accept the proposals and desires of people who are governed by kings and emperors?
If I should declare myself ready to accept this office, would the sovereigns of those people consent to it?
The orders of the Caliph must be obeyed and his interdictions submitted to.
Are those who want to make me Caliph in a position to execute my orders?
Consequently, would it not be ridiculous to rig me up with an illusionary role which has neither sense nor right of existence?”
Gentlemen, I must frankly and categorically declare that those who continue to occupy themselves with the chimera of the Caliphate and thereby mislead the Mohamedan world, are nothing but enemies of the Mohamedan world, and especially of Turkey.
They are only ignorant or blind men who could attach hopes to such jugglery.
Is it from love of our faith that such people as Rauf Bey, Tsher- kess Edhem and Reshid, all the “Hundred and Fifty”*), all members of the deposed dynasty of the Sultanate and the Caliphate with their adherents, all enemies of Turkey, are working with so much bitterness?
Is the aim of those who are working so energetically against us, sheltering themselves under the words “holy revolution,” but who use means such as murderous attempts, and gangs of brigands, and who maintain organization centers at our frontiers, who have always made the destruction of Turkey their aim is this aim actually a holy one?
Indeed, to believe this would mean that we were possessed of unmitigated ignorance and boundless blindness.
From now onwards it will not be so easy to suppose that the Mohamedan peoples and the Turkish nation would have fallen to such a low level as to continue in the abuse of the purity of the con science and the tenderness of the sentiments of the Mohamedan world to criminal aims. Impudence has its limits……”
……]
naveed rana
May 2, 2011
iqbal had never been the admirer of mustafa kamal pasha ataturk.instead he proved himself a strong critic of kamal pasha. the proof of this is his poetry in which he says
chaak kar di turk e naadaa’n ne khilafat ki qaba
saadgi apnon ki daikh oron ki ayyaari bhi daikh
it was he who condemned the idea of mustafa kamal at first instance and repeatedly condemned him at every forum as my brother junaid said iqbal has been misinterpreted by the so called seculars.
and as far as the combination of state and religion is concerned iqbal says
juda ho deen syasat se to reh jati hai changezi
and everyone of us knows about changez khan and his pathatically cruel deeds.islam being the best source of peace and harmony among the people gives the ways to rule and to be ruled as clearly as it tells us about the namaz roza etc etc. rulers have their own restrictions and principles according to which they have to act and the principles for public, to be ruled by the rulers, have their own paradigm and both of these i.e the principles for rulers and public are so basic in their nature that if those are followed with their true spirit im sure there would be no debate of secularism at all in pakistan or in anyother muslim country.
today we are being influenced by a media propaganda which is capturing our minds and thoughts.its true that we have all those problems with us which are being pointed out by the national and international media.but none of us is willing to sort out these problems with his own thoughts.we are just copying what the western nations has done so far. why we are comparing ourselves with others?why dont we try to build our nation by ourselves with our own ideology and thoughts?why are we so ashamed of being muslims? is there any religion in the world which directs the leader to be the servant of his people?is there any religion which tells the leader that if you are awarded with any power you will be asked about the use of it?if you get some authority you are bound to abide by the limitations of that authority?you are not allowed to be the God(may Allah forgive me)?
our constitution starts with the words the Allah has the supreme power and we are just trustee of Him but if we limit this phrase only to books or columns its not the fault of islam which is according to modern world is a hindrance towards prosperity and progress.its us and our leaders who do not obey what our religion directs us. and Allah himself says in the Holy Qur’an that Allah does not change a nation unless it itself doesnt try to be changed.
islam is a religion of moderation and this is what we have been instructed by our prophet Muhammad(peace be upon him) repeatedly. he told his companions (sahaba R.A) not to exceed the limit and he did so many times. but what we did and what we are doing in the name of islam, due to which we have been given the name of a terrorist nation,is only because of our ignorance and not knowing the basic principles of islam. islam demands peace islam grants peace and if the government is run under islamic rules there’s no doubt that this debate would come to end automatically.
thanks for bearing with me guys hope i have put the positive share in the debate. thank u again.
Kazi
June 22, 2012
Interestingly, it is Erdgon’s moderate Islamic party which brought change in Turkey. A Muslim mind is intrinsically abhorrent to western secularism however a middle ground can be struck which again takes us back to the fundamental principle of Islamic thought-‘moderation’. Tarek Fatah’s views on Islam are twisted and smacks off imperial cronyism.
Tehreem
October 26, 2013
I cant understand why every secular person starts justifying his argument by dragging Quaid or Iqbal n then struggles to prove these great Leaders ”secular” too! Both of our Heros were against theocracy but this doesn’t mean that they were fond of western democracy or they were away from religion! ”jamal padshahi hok jamhori tamasha…….. juda ho deen siyasat se tou reh jati hai changaizi…..” is enough reference to prove that Iqbal wasn’t a secular person!
burak
April 30, 2014
Do u really know who was mustafa kemal???
Go to wikipidea and see what he has done to Muslims
Do all of u really know adout secularism? ???? Shame on those Pakistanis who want kemal,s ideology in Pakistan
burak
April 30, 2014
In reign of mustafa kemel he noy only abolished caliphate
He baned on headscarves
He banned on salat ( namaz)
He banned on arabic and azan
He banned on building of mosques
Many mosques were turned into museums
……………… and still u love mustafa kemel
Shame on u
Shame on pak secular movements who love kemel
And quaid never want kemel, secularism
We have get Pakistan only on name of islam not for secularism
And on many places iqbal greatly hated and disgusted kemel
kliknij strone
November 18, 2020
It is notmy first time to go to seethis web page, i