Iqbal and orientalists
IT is usually Iqbalean criticism which deals with a great deal of Western sources of inspiration — Nietzsche, Fichte, Bergson, Renan and others. And one is in a quandary to see our poet being under the influence of one aspect of a thinker’s thought while steering himself clear of the other influences attributable to him.
Some of our critics have often blundered in deducing the ‘whole’ from a part or vice versa. Going through Dr Aslam Ansari’s article in Iqbal, a journal of Majlis-i-Iqbal, Lahore, one comes across a similar situation. Writing under the title of Iqbal, Renan Aur Jamaluddin Afghani in the latest issue, Dr Ansari, basing his argument of Iqbal’s mention of Renan’s contribution to Ibn Rushd studies in one of his lectures in the Reconstruction of Islamic Thought, talks quite appreciatively of Renan’s positive attitude towards Islam. He also quotes Shibli’s indebtedness to Renan in that he summarized Renan’s book on Ibn Rushd in his article on the great Andlusian authority on Aristotle.
There is no doubt that Renan is one of the most outstanding French orientalists whose eight-volume work, The History of Religions, is a magnum opus. As a radical thinker he antagonized the traditional Christian scholars by holding the opinion that Jesus was not the son of God but a venerable prophet of God. He also wrote History of the Origin of Christianity and Life of Christ. He was ex-communicated from the Catholic church for his heretical ideas.
I wonder what makes Dr Ansari conclude that Renan was well-disposed towards Islam. He called Islam a religion which was not compatible with civilization, science and reason. There is no need to emphasize that Renan has no soft corner for Islam.
It is not only Dr Ansari but also our other writers who have toed the same line and given a quite bland appreciation of the orientalists and thinkers they want to look upon with favour.
One could go on citing numerous examples of such academic oversights. For example, the German poet and thinker Goethe is a well-known critic of Prophet Muhammed (PBUH), yet most of the academics are quite contented with some of Goethe’s positive elements. Even Iqbal, in his Payam-i-Mashriq, which was composed in reply to Goethe’s book Diwan-i-Maghrib (translated title) doesn’t take up Goethe’s criticism of the holy Prophet and confines himself to the rebuttal of Goethe’s criticism of the East terming it inferior to the West.
We could take up all those orientalists such as Gibbon, Carlyle, George Ssle, Rodwell, Savery, Voltaire and such modern writers as H. A. R. Gibb, Arnold Toynbee and Montgomery Watt who are thought to be a bit fair and positive in their understanding and appreciation of Islam. One could take up each one of them and point out the negative attitude towards a religion and a civilization of which they are not deemed to be critics.
I am not talking of Bernard Lewis who doesn’t mind for himself the accolade of Islam-hater, but the list of the names given above has such luminaries as Gibbon, Carlyle and Toynbee.
It is not Iqbalean studies which mostly suffer from the confusion of one orientalist supplanting another for his ‘positive views’ about Islamic mysticism or Fiqh but the whole range of our works deriving strength from the opinions of orientalists. For example, Carlyle is often accepted as a great advocate of Islam and Prophet Muhammed. One wonders why is it forgotten that the same Carlyle has written some uncharitable observations about Islam. I will refer to Prof Syed Habibul Haq Nadvi’s research treatise Islam Aur Mustashriqin. There are numerous publications on this subject but Prof Nadvi’s work is, perhaps, the most satisfying of them all.
While studying Iqbal we come across a good number of European thinkers and writers who have influenced him. He has been influenced by each one of them to varying degrees. For example, he mentions Ernest Renan’s views of nationhood in his presidential address at the Muslim League session in Allahabad in 1930. He doesn’t seem to be agreeing with him because it could have led to the acceptance of a nationhood regardless of the religious divide.
But in his lectures Iqbal is overawed by Renan and accepts him to be the leading light of the world. But there is hardly any Iqbalean critic who has tried to point out which were the elements of thinking of each of Iqbal’s sources of inspiration which were not to the liking of Iqbal.
Another great influence on Iqbal is that of Nietzsche. The morass in which the Indian Muslims found themselves in demanded of them a herculean effort to rejuvenate themselves. Iqbal thought that it was Nietzsche’s philosophy which could help them to come up. He accepted many influences from him but not his belief in the Death of God.
Iqbal was moved by his contemporary scenario to go for such leaps and it became immaterial for him whether he could be faulted with accepting Nietzsche’s influence in its totality. No, he never imbibed the totality.
Iqbal’s was an open mind. There was a time when he disparaged Husain bin Mansur bin Hallaj (Not Hasan bin Mansur bin Hallaj) for his Wahdat-ul-Wujood. Nicholson corrected this impression in his book The Idea of Personality in Sufism. Nicholson vehemently denies that Hallaj was a believer in Wahdat-ul-Wujood. Iqbal corrected his view and that’s why Hallaj forms the Triad of Three Sacred Souls along with Qurratul Ain Tahira and Ghalib.
There are some scholars who find in this retract of Iqbal a contradiction. There is no contradiction at all. This is correcting one’s position.
Mansur Hallaj was a follower of Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal and yet a follower of the Shuaibya Movement. A fact sometimes could be quite disturbing and unpalatable.
The Iqbal Academy and the Majlis-i-Iqbal should take up Iqbalean Dictionary of Biography — sifting out chaff from the grain of each influence on Iqbal so that differentiations and not contradictions of Iqbal could be appreciated.
Test cricket should not be jazzed up
BEYOND Sri Lanka’s Under-19 tour of Pakistan, the international scene is quiet in Pakistan. But a great deal of cricket is being played elsewhere including Zimbabwe’s tour of Bangladesh, two evenly matched teams. Sri Lanka made short work of the West Indies despite a Brian Lara hundred in the first innings. But in the end, the incomparable Muralitharan was too much for them.
The West Indies continue to struggle and unless something dramatic happens, the future looks extremely bleak for the once invincibles. Those of us who have been privileged to have seen them at their best are both amazed and saddened that the mighty should have fallen so low.
The game of cricket is the poorer for it. Gary Sobers like Don Bradman was a case apart but I am trying hard to think of a batsman of the present day who could be compared to Rohan Kanhai. Sachin Tendulkar is a batsman in a different mould but Kanhai in full flight was like the choral in Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony, an ode to joy.
I am not sure whether I am in favour of oho “gambling” with declarations in order to get a decision. It seems contrived and in the present climate of match-fixing is open to suspicion. The first Test match between Australia and New Zealand had everyone on the edges of their seats and New Zealand almost brought off an upset but seemed a bit bogus.
Perhaps, I am too old-fashioned and cricket has become a young man’s game but I don’t think we should try to jazz up Test cricket. The one-day version is bad enough. Test cricket has never been show business and I am glad to see that the players still wear ‘whites’ and a red ball is used. I realise that the one-day game has brought an immense amount of money in the game mainly through television rights. But there should be no compromise on the integrity of the ‘product’.
But seeing New Zealand playing against Australia, a local ‘derby’ made me quite angry. New Zealand could have easily toured Pakistan without any risk at all and they have been allowed to get away with it. Apart from depriving the Pakistan cricket public of watching international cricket, the Pakistan Cricket Board took a hefty financial knock and someone should compensate it, either New Zealand or the ICC.
A one-day series was hastily arranged with Sri Lanka but Sri Lanka ‘chickened’ out having had second thoughts about security. Yet the Sri Lanka Cricket Board had no hesitation in sending its Under-19 team! Yet nothing has changed in the security environment.
As I write this, India is counting more heavily on the weather rather than on Tendulkar, Saurav Ganguly, Rahul Dravid and Vangipurappu Laxman to save the second Test match and the series against South Africa. It has been, so far, a poor advertisement for Test cricket. To start with the umpiring has been sub-standard and the offender has been Ian Howell the home umpire.
To be fair, both teams have been at the receiving end of some atrocious decisions so that it is incompetent rather than biased umpiring. India got off on the wrong foot in its team selection, playing only two seamers. This was bitterly criticised by the television experts. India won the toss and put South Africa in on a cloudy morning and on a wicket that was tailor-made for seam bowling. Jagaval Srinath bowled magnificently but he had no back-up.
Even so South Africa was troubled and even the mercurial Herschelle Gibbs was restrained though he played glorious cricket. South Africa has depth in its batting and is a disciplined team and every player is expected to chip in. Once again India batted poorly and Tendulkar was outplaying what looked like an absent-minded pull and getting out to the softest of dismissals. Only Laxman held firm and in the company of Anil Kumble saved the follow-on.
But take away Shaun Pollock from the South African attack and this is a pretty mediocre bowling attack. All the Indians have to do is to handle Pollock with extra-care and Pollock can’t bowl the whole day. India batted poorly in that the shot selection was poor and there was very little application.
I get the impression that there is very little communication between the players in the dressing-room. I could be wrong, of course, but every player seemed to be batting to his own script and there was no team plan. Kumble showed that if you put a price on your wicket you can hang in there and Test cricket is about occupation of the crease. After all, a Test match is supposed to last five days.
Since, almost all of us watch international cricket on television, the commentators have started to play dominant roles in shaping the cricket public’s attitudes. This confers an immense responsibility on them. I don’t think it is their job to give tutorial classes on how to bat or bowl or field and nor is essential that their criticism is so harsh that it becomes cruel.
A certain amount of banter between them is welcome but for Geoff Boycott to tell Navjot Sidhu that he should be in a circus goes beyond banter. Sidhu looked flustered. I think that Boycott should consider himself to be very lucky that there was no Boycott doing the commentary when he was playing! There is a difference between criticism and ridicule.
One gets tired of a commentator who is a supercilious Mr. Know-all. And, as if, technology was not bad enough, the commentators have taken on the umpire’s job and started to give decisions from the commentary-box that undermines the authority of the umpires. And there is incessant appealing and glares from the bowlers and in some cases some abusive language from the bowlers. What is the match-referee doing?