December 15, 2007...11:27 am
Deconstructing Iqbal’s ‘Reconstruction’
Iqbal’s philosophy would remain alive in the form of these lectures as students all over the world would continue to explore the innumerable dimensions of this single most important work on Islamic theology during the last century
Leaving aside the force of his inspirational poetry, Iqbal’s philosophical project is posited best in his ‘Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam‘. This thin volume which was once described as the ‘Bible of Modern Islam’ is now remembered as one of the most important milestones in the history of intellectual tradition of modernist movement in Islam. While generally being the object of admiration and praises, these lectures also recieved various shades of criticisms - from sweeping judgements like H.A.R. Gibb’s that Iqbal’s work cannot even be considered as a point of departure for building a structure of new Islamic theology to balanced arguments like Fazlur Rahman’s who while suggesting that Iqbal’s approach is very much dated explained his conclusion in following words:
…since he took seriously his contemporary scientists who tried to prove a dynamic free will in man on the basis of new subatomic scientific data; which they interpreted as meaning that the physical world was ‘free’ of the chain of cause and effect![...]Iqbal did not carry out any systematic inquiry into the teaching of Quran but picked and chose from its verses - as he did with other traditional material - to prove certain theses, at least some of which were the result of his general insight into the Quran but which, above all, seemed to him to suit most of the contemporary needs of a stagnant Muslim society. He then expressed these theses in terms of such contemporary theories as those of Bergson and Whitehead.
Albeit an ostensibly cruel judgement (enough to mislead those who have not studied Fazlur Rahman’s methodology of Islam in detail), it represents well the gap beween ‘Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam’ and Iqbal’s other intellectual endeavours. Other critics who point towards the same gap, for instance Suheyl Omar and Javed Iqbal, consider Reconstruction as an excessively complicated book refering scores of philosophers, scientists and jurists. The reader is expected to get familiarized with these personalities, their times and thoughts before being able to follow Iqbal’s pointers meaningfully. Those well versed with Iqbal’s poetry struggle to establish whether its the verse which is the acme of philosopher’s thought or these seven lectures. Iqbal himself pointed towards these difficulties of expression in a letter to Ghulam Mustafa Tabassum in Sep 1925:
My religious knowledge is too limited however I try to increase it in my free time. The matter is more of personal satisfaction rather than formal education[...]besides this fact, I spent most of my life studying western philosophy and this point of view has now become my second nature. Intentionally or unintentionally, I feel compelled to study Islam through the same angle.
and this, in my view, is what Fazlur Rahman termed as couching the Quranic message in terms of particular theory.
The criticism, though well grounded, does not take away a lot from the established importance of these lectures and a lot
can be said in defense of this criticism. Iqbal, unlike many other thinkers of his time, tried to remain in harmony with the noetic paradigm of his audience while avoiding conflicting categories of various philosophical constructs. In a way, he was one of the earliest proponents of Islamization of Knowledge and tried to prove that science and philosophy must agree with the absolutes of religious truth and should be outrightly refuted where they disagree with it.
Unlike Malek Bennabi’s Quranic Phenomenon and Fazlur Rahman’s Islam, Reconstruction of Religious Thought was largely left out of traditionalist vs modernist debate. Partly because majority of traditionalists in Iqbal’s times were not equipped enough to comment upon his finer points; for instance, Prophet’s test of Ibn Sayyad’s psychic experience - and partly, by ignoring his controversial comments; for example, the one in favour of women’s right to divorce.
In my view, Iqbal’s philosophy would always remain alive in the form of these lectures as students all over the world would continue to explore the innumerable inherent dimensions of this single most important work on Islamic theology of the last century.



















5 Comments
January 9, 2008 at 5:27 pm
[...] became noticeable to an extent that some notable Muslim Scholars, for instance Dr. Iqbal in his famous lectures, questioned the validity of Hanafi law in this particular area and asked the Muslim jurists to [...]
January 9, 2008 at 5:34 pm
[...] became noticeable to an extent that some notable Muslim Scholars, for instance Dr. Iqbal in his famous lectures, questioned the validity of Hanafi law in this particular area and asked the Muslim jurists to [...]
January 9, 2008 at 8:57 pm
[...] became noticeable to an extent that some notable Muslim Scholars, for instance Dr. Iqbal in his famous lectures, questioned the validity of Hanafi law in this particular area and asked the Muslim jurists to [...]
January 23, 2008 at 6:59 am
Or partly because Iqbal himself was not equipped to comment on the tradition… as his subsequent exchange with Allama Syed Suleman Nadvi and Hazrat Mehr Ali Shah RA proves.
It seems some are interested in reviving the Reconstruction because they see in Iqbal a person of enough stature to challenge the authority of traditional religion. Even though this stature depends on theconservatism of the jawab e shikwa rather than the reformism of the Reconstruction. Has not Suheyl Umar documented his retreat from the Reconstruction in the very book you cite?
Fortunately the ignorant public still seems to have enough sense to take Islam from the madressea and the khaneqahs. alhamdolillah.
Interesting Aasem bhai. But not entirely convincing.
January 26, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Sorry for the belated response, janab.
On tradition front, I don’t disagree with you. Iqbal did not think himself an ‘Islamic Scholar’ and neither do most of his contemporaries; not even most of the present specialists on his life and work.
The Reconstruction, however, is not primarily a text on Islamic Tradition; at least this was not the project that Iqbal meant it to be - neither in its content, nor in terms of choice of audience. The primary and direct audience of Reconstruction is a breed of minds equipped with the tools of western philosophy to which Iqbal proposed a possible ‘coherent’ theology; a route to access truth.
Anything more than that are readings into the text. The place of Reconstruction is in modernist religious philosophy and Iqbal is important as he is one of those who took the first step as far as Islam is concerned.
Most of us (including me) and perhaps Iqbal also, do take ‘practical’ and ‘ritualistic’ part of religion from the places you mentioned rather than going to the philosopher. And I was not convincing the opposite, my friend.
Your comments are always enlightening and thoughtful. Jazak Allah.
wassalam
Leave a Reply