This part will explore the ideology behind the various demands in the context of the inquiry, in continuation of Part I…

During the course of the inquiry, a large number of Ulama were interviewed to understand the ideology behind the demands along with important concepts such as characteristics of an Islamic state, democracy in an Islamic State, law making in an Islamic state, position of non-Muslims, apostasy, role of Muslims within non-Muslim states etc. The arguments in the interviews are mired in a maze of confusion which exists in the minds of the Ulama as well as ordinary citizens regarding the concept of a functioning Islamic State.

When Pakistan was formed none of its creators had in mind a purely theocratic Islamic state. Neither Quaid-e-Azam nor Allama Iqbal had such convictions. Iqbal stated in his presidential address in 1930 “Nor should the Hindus fear that the creation of autonomous Muslim States will mean the introduction of a kind of religious rule in such States. The principle that each group is entitled to free development on its own lines is not inspired by any feeling of narrow communalism”. And how can we forget the famous words by Quaid-e-Azam in his address “You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other places of worship in this State of Pakistan”.

Dichotomy no.1 – Islamic State:  The Ulama unanimously agreed in the interviews that each of the three demands were religious in nature and were based on the principles of an Islamic state. As per the Ulama, in an Islamic State or in Islam, there is a fundamental distinction between the rights of Muslim and non-Muslim subjects, and position of non-Muslims will that of zimmies which means that they will have no voice in the making of laws, no right to administer the law and no right to hold public offices. This formed the basis of the 3 demands. However, this concept is in complete disagreement with our constitution which states “every citizen shall have the right to profess, practice and propagate his religion”. This concept is also in violation of UN charter on human rights, to which Pakistan was a signatory at that point in time.

Therefore, a question was posed to the Ulama to identify the characteristics of an Islamic state or at least point out a Muslim Islamic state in history. The replies from each of the Ulama non-specific and were poles apart from each other. The perfect Islamic state as pointed out by Ulama varied from government of Holy Prophet PBUH to government of Hazrat Umar PBUH to Salahuddin Ayyubi to Mahmood Ghaznavi to Aurangzeb Alamgir. Some even mentioned that details of the Islamic state would be worked out and agreed upon in future by the Ulama.

Dichotomy no.2 – Legislation: The Ulama agreed that in an Islamic state the institution of legislature is contrary to the Quran and the Sunna. The objectives resolution (section 2A of constitution of Pakistan) states that constitution is to be framed for a sovereign state in which principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance, and social justice as enunciated by Islam shall be fully observed. However, in Islamic laws only God is sovereign not the state, and the law found in the Quran and the Sunna is complete and above all man-made laws. And in case of a conflict, irrespective of its nature, Islamic law will always prevail. Therefore, further legislation is prohibited and the only function of those entrusted with the administration of law is to discover and interpret the law in Quran for the purposes of a particular case. This concept effectively makes our parliamentary system null and void.

Dichotomy no.3 – Democracy:  Ulama agreed that principles of Islamic law are not democratic in nature. Democracy implies that people or any other groups of persons in it are entitled to conduct the affairs of that country and frame any law they deem necessary. However, in an Islamic State, sovereignty, in its essentially juristic sense, can only rest with God and since the religion has all answers therefore, there is restriction on the legislative power of a State which in turn is a restriction on the sovereignty of the people of that State. Therefore, as a result, the sovereignty of the State and its people is essentially taken away. Also, if the legislature in an Islamic State is a sort of ijma’, the masses are expressly disqualified from taking part in it because ijma’-i-ummat in Islamic jurisprudence is restricted to ulama and mujtahids of acknowledged status and does not at all extend, as in democracy, to the populace. Therefore bulk of the responsibility to execute, interpret law will have to be taken up by the Ulama of the time.

Now, let’s imagine for a moment that we can do away with these dichotomies and we intend to define a framework for an Islamic theocratic state. For that to happen, it is absolutely imperative that there is a unanimous and agreed point of view by ulama on matters relating to interpretation of law which can be applied to everyday conduct of life and business. However, during the course of the inquiry, none of the Ulama agreed on similar interpretations and in some cases the ideologies were poles apart. Just to demonstrate the gap, here are replies by various religious leaders on definition of a Muslim.

1. Maulana Abul Ala Maudoodi, Amir Jama’at-i-Islami: A person is a Muslim if he believes (1) in tauheed, (2) in all the prophets (ambiya), (3) all the books revealed by God, (4) in mala’ika (angels), and (5) yaum-ul-akhira (the Day of Judgment).
2. Maulana Ahmad Ali, President, Jami’at-ul-Ulama-i-Islam, Maghribi Pakistan: A person is a Muslim if he believes (1) in the Qur’an and (2) what has been said by the prophet.
3. Mufti Muhammad Idris, Jamia Ashrafia, Nila Gumbad, Lahore: I would require pages and pages to describe what a momin is. A person is a Muslim who professes to be obedient to Allah. He should believe in the Unity of God, prophet hood of the ambiya and in the Day of Judgment. A person who does not believe in the azan or in the qurbani goes outside the pale of Islam. Similarly, there are a large number of other things which have been received by tavatir from our prophet. In order to be a Muslim, he must believe in all these things. It is almost impossible for me to give a complete list of such things.
4. Ghazi Siraj-ud-Din Munir:  A person is a Muslim if he professes his belief in the kalima, namely, and leads a life in the footsteps of the Holy Prophet.
5. Maulana Ahsan Islahi, VP Jama’at-i-Islami: There are two kinds of Musalmans; political Muslims and real Muslims. To be a political Muslim 10 basic requirements have to be met and he has to merely profess his belief while a real Muslim needed to believe in and act on all the injunctions by Allah and his prophet in the manner in which they have been enjoined upon him.

This is just one example of the utter confusion that exists but there are several more (read page 200-235 of the report). We are aware of the vast ideological differences that exist between Shia, Sunni, Deobandis etc. Therefore, if one religious leader was to become the head of state there is a high likelihood that he would declare the others as Kafirs, infact some of the so called leaders already have.

The report states a very thought provoking passage “The net result of all this is that neither Shias nor Sunnis nor Deobandis nor Ahl-i-Hadith nor Barelvis are Muslims and any change from one view to the other must be accompanied in an Islamic State with the penalty of death if the Government of the State is in the hands of the party which considers the other party to be kafirs. And it does not require much imagination to judge of the consequences of this doctrine when it is remembered that no two ulama have agreed before us as to the definition of a Muslim.”

It is also extremely insightful to read the views of Ulama on some international matters. When asked if a Muslim is bound to obey a non-Muslim (Kafir) government, answer was a firm NO. This effectively means that Muslims should not be faithful to governments such as in India or any other place, no matter how fairly the government treats them.

Also the Ulama claim that if for some reason they declare the Pakistan Government as Kafir, no Muslim is bound to obey its laws. But the question remains if the Ulama can’t define and agree on a basic definition of a Muslim, the enactment and enforceability of any law becomes absolutely impossible. In effect, law will be what your own or the Ulama interpretation is and there can be no order in place.

When asked, considering the same ideology which Ulama propagate, what if the Muslims in non-Muslim states are treated under local religious law and are denied basic rights of citizenship answer was of complete indifference or it’s not my problem. Another answer was “I will March on India if such a law is enacted”. When asked that in case of a war between Pakistan and India what millions of Indian Muslims should do, Maulana Maudoodi stated “Their duty is obvious, and that is not to fight against Pakistan or to do anything injurious to the safety of Pakistan.”

Just imagine the consequences. This effectively means that under this ideology all Muslims in non-Muslim countries will become perpetual suspects, will not have basic rights of citizenship, will be denied higher positions in public offices, cannot enroll in army and thus will be completely marginalized.

(To be continued…)

This part will explore the ideology behind the various demands in the context of the inquiry, in continuation of Part I…

During the course of the inquiry, a large number of Ulama were interviewed to understand the ideology behind the demands along with important concepts such as characteristics of an Islamic state, democracy in an Islamic State, law making in an Islamic state, position of non-Muslims, apostasy, role of Muslims within non-Muslim states etc. The arguments in the interviews are mired in a maze of confusion which exists in the minds of the Ulama as well as ordinary citizens regarding the concept of a functioning Islamic State.

When Pakistan was formed none of its creators had in mind a purely theocratic Islamic state. Neither Quaid-e-Azam nor Allama Iqbal had such convictions. Iqbal stated in his presidential address in 1930 “Nor should the Hindus fear that the creation of autonomous Muslim States will mean the introduction of a kind of religious rule in such States. The principle that each group is entitled to free development on its own lines is not inspired by any feeling of narrow communalism”. And how can we forget the famous words by Quaid-e-Azam in his address “You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other places of worship in this State of Pakistan”.

Dichotomy no.1 – Islamic State:  The Ulama unanimously agreed in the interviews that each of the three demands were religious in nature and were based on the principles of an Islamic state. As per the Ulama, in an Islamic State or in Islam, there is a fundamental distinction between the rights of Muslim and non-Muslim subjects, and position of non-Muslims will that of zimmies which means that they will have no voice in the making of laws, no right to administer the law and no right to hold public offices. This formed the basis of the 3 demands. However, this concept is in complete disagreement with our constitution which states “every citizen shall have the right to profess, practice and propagate his religion”. This concept is also in violation of UN charter on human rights, to which Pakistan was a signatory at that point in time.

Therefore, a question was posed to the Ulama to identify the characteristics of an Islamic state or at least point out a Muslim Islamic state in history. The replies from each of the Ulama non-specific and were poles apart from each other. The perfect Islamic state as pointed out by Ulama varied from government of Holy Prophet PBUH to government of Hazrat Umar PBUH to Salahuddin Ayyubi to Mahmood Ghaznavi to Aurangzeb Alamgir. Some even mentioned that details of the Islamic state would be worked out and agreed upon in future by the Ulama.

Dichotomy no.2 – Legislation: The Ulama agreed that in an Islamic state the institution of legislature is contrary to the Quran and the Sunna. The objectives resolution (section 2A of constitution of Pakistan) states that constitution is to be framed for a sovereign state in which principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance, and social justice as enunciated by Islam shall be fully observed. However, in Islamic laws only God is sovereign not the state, and the law found in the Quran and the Sunna is complete and above all man-made laws. And in case of a conflict, irrespective of its nature, Islamic law will always prevail. Therefore, further legislation is prohibited and the only function of those entrusted with the administration of law is to discover and interpret the law in Quran for the purposes of a particular case. This concept effectively makes our parliamentary system null and void.

Dichotomy no.3 – Democracy:  Ulama agreed that principles of Islamic law are not democratic in nature. Democracy implies that people or any other groups of persons in it are entitled to conduct the affairs of that country and frame any law they deem necessary. However, in an Islamic State, sovereignty, in its essentially juristic sense, can only rest with God and since the religion has all answers therefore, there is restriction on the legislative power of a State which in turn is a restriction on the sovereignty of the people of that State. Therefore, as a result, the sovereignty of the State and its people is essentially taken away. Also, if the legislature in an Islamic State is a sort of ijma’, the masses are expressly disqualified from taking part in it because ijma’-i-ummat in Islamic jurisprudence is restricted to ulama and mujtahids of acknowledged status and does not at all extend, as in democracy, to the populace. Therefore bulk of the responsibility to execute, interpret law will have to be taken up by the Ulama of the time.

Now, let’s imagine for a moment that we can do away with these dichotomies and we intend to define a framework for an Islamic theocratic state. For that to happen, it is absolutely imperative that there is a unanimous and agreed point of view by ulama on matters relating to interpretation of law which can be applied to everyday conduct of life and business. However, during the course of the inquiry, none of the Ulama agreed on similar interpretations and in some cases the ideologies were poles apart. Just to demonstrate the gap, here are replies by various religious leaders on definition of a Muslim.

1. Maulana Abul Ala Maudoodi, Amir Jama’at-i-Islami: A person is a Muslim if he believes (1) in tauheed, (2) in all the prophets (ambiya), (3) all the books revealed by God, (4) in mala’ika (angels), and (5) yaum-ul-akhira (the Day of Judgment).
2. Maulana Ahmad Ali, President, Jami’at-ul-Ulama-i-Islam, Maghribi Pakistan: A person is a Muslim if he believes (1) in the Qur’an and (2) what has been said by the prophet.
3. Mufti Muhammad Idris, Jamia Ashrafia, Nila Gumbad, Lahore: I would require pages and pages to describe what a momin is. A person is a Muslim who professes to be obedient to Allah. He should believe in the Unity of God, prophet hood of the ambiya and in the Day of Judgment. A person who does not believe in the azan or in the qurbani goes outside the pale of Islam. Similarly, there are a large number of other things which have been received by tavatir from our prophet. In order to be a Muslim, he must believe in all these things. It is almost impossible for me to give a complete list of such things.
4. Ghazi Siraj-ud-Din Munir:  A person is a Muslim if he professes his belief in the kalima, namely, and leads a life in the footsteps of the Holy Prophet.
5. Maulana Ahsan Islahi, VP Jama’at-i-Islami: There are two kinds of Musalmans; political Muslims and real Muslims. To be a political Muslim 10 basic requirements have to be met and he has to merely profess his belief while a real Muslim needed to believe in and act on all the injunctions by Allah and his prophet in the manner in which they have been enjoined upon him.

This is just one example of the utter confusion that exists but there are several more (read page 200-235 of the report). We are aware of the vast ideological differences that exist between Shia, Sunni, Deobandis etc. Therefore, if one religious leader was to become the head of state there is a high likelihood that he would declare the others as Kafirs, infact some of the so called leaders already have.

The report states a very thought provoking passage “The net result of all this is that neither Shias nor Sunnis nor Deobandis nor Ahl-i-Hadith nor Barelvis are Muslims and any change from one view to the other must be accompanied in an Islamic State with the penalty of death if the Government of the State is in the hands of the party which considers the other party to be kafirs. And it does not require much imagination to judge of the consequences of this doctrine when it is remembered that no two ulama have agreed before us as to the definition of a Muslim.”

It is also extremely insightful to read the views of Ulama on some international matters. When asked if a Muslim is bound to obey a non-Muslim (Kafir) government, answer was a firm NO. This effectively means that Muslims should not be faithful to governments such as in India or any other place, no matter how fairly the government treats them.

Also the Ulama claim that if for some reason they declare the Pakistan Government as Kafir, no Muslim is bound to obey its laws. But the question remains if the Ulama can’t define and agree on a basic definition of a Muslim, the enactment and enforceability of any law becomes absolutely impossible. In effect, law will be what your own or the Ulama interpretation is and there can be no order in place.

When asked, considering the same ideology which Ulama propagate, what if the Muslims in non-Muslim states are treated under local religious law and are denied basic rights of citizenship answer was of complete indifference or it’s not my problem. Another answer was “I will March on India if such a law is enacted”. When asked that in case of a war between Pakistan and India what millions of Indian Muslims should do, Maulana Maudoodi stated “Their duty is obvious, and that is not to fight against Pakistan or to do anything injurious to the safety of Pakistan.”

Just imagine the consequences. This effectively means that under this ideology all Muslims in non-Muslim countries will become perpetual suspects, will not have basic rights of citizenship, will be denied higher positions in public offices, cannot enroll in army and thus will be completely marginalized.

(To be continued…)

Somewhere in the long list of things we lost in blood and fire is the joy of poetry.

It is a loss I cannot reconcile with. My memories get in the way. It was through poetry, that I learnt to think, feel, mean and be. Words existed in our household with an identity of their own, like people with names, personalities and pasts. There would be good words and bad, happy and melancholy, wise and wanton. When strung together in perfect meter and imperfect reason, they would offer doggerel explanations of the abstract in a way no other genre could. Poetry would respect life for its expanse and vagueness, not subject it to confined dialectics.

I have always felt that a poem, whether conceived in joy or pain, captures forever the place in life that elicited it; like a white Christmas trapped in a snow globe. There is a strange comfort in hearing from another, what one is feeling within. And so, having navigated life by finding solace, company and sometimes humour in these footprints from the past, I cannot imagine a world without the abstract. To lose the joy of poetry is to lose the counsel of wonder. It is not a loss to be reconciled with.

My grandfather used to quote that a poem is never finished, only abandoned. He was, among many things, a writer and a critic. His book, ‘Urdu shaairi ka tanqeedi ja’eza’ (a critical overview of Urdu poetry), is more of poetry in the horizontal than prose. However, you may not be able to find the book in print anymore. I have an old copy which I hold very dear. I fear that if I don’t, it will be lost forever as the irrelevancy that poetry has become today…

We may be sympathetic to the passion of Faiz and the romance of Faraz, but truth is that most other poets, some very good ones, hardly make it to their second editions. Book stores like Ferozesons, Maavra etc which used to have complete collections of all poets, black, white and brown, have degenerated to the level of deli’s selling what sells. Ironically, you would more easily find classical poets’ complete works in India, than in Pakistan. But is it the problem, or merely a symptom?

Perhaps it is both. Literature, in particular poetry, cannot be treated like Wall Street Journal, good only as long as it sells. But publishers are in the business of selling. I believe the onus therefore lies on the universities, Urdu boards and academies of the country to promote poetry, not as a mercantile pursuit, but as a way of looking at life.

It has to be the easiest thing to do! One would only need to create the platforms. The rest will just happen. Who can deny the fiery provocation of Faiz’s ushhaq, the transcendent drift of Ghalib’s sense of self and the lofty persuasions of Iqbal’s shaheen? What heart wouldn’t relate to the pained pride that was felt and expressed in every possible form by Faraz. Who wouldn’t identify with Jon’s temper, Nasir’s agony or Perveen’s insecurities? Whose thoughts would atleast once not have wandered as freely as Zaidi’s?

These are life-long relationships waiting to happen. Failure to recognize the joy and perspective these bring to life would be like sentencing oneself to a tunneled life clogged with reality and deprived of oxygen. We have too many people worrying ‘what colour is their parachute’, and not enough wondering ‘what colour is the wind’. It is a whole different ball game of self-actualization that is as, if not more, important as the more tangible pursuits in life.

An immediate priority should be an all-hands-on-the-deck effort to digitize Urdu poetry. We should do it before it disappears. If the Urdu Academy doesn’t do it, perhaps we should look at a more private venture to make it happen. Universities, colleges, and poetry lovers all over would need to plough in. A first step in this direction may be developing a reliable OCR for Urdu. With the talent we have in the country in the field of IT, and given the fact that Urdu has no home but ours, it is the least we should do. With the OCR in place, digitization can be led by the universities, proof-read by poetry lovers and institutions, and preserved forever in the cyber-world.

The second step, hopefully an outcome of the first, would be integrating poetry with life. More Mushaairas, more ghazal singers, more celebration of the new and appreciation of the old in the field. What better way to drain the paranoia from reality-clogged minds, too afraid to dream and too clumsy to dance?

It will take time, perhaps five to ten years, but it will be forever. I sincerely hope that we act before it is too late.

For as long as I lived in Lahore, my idea of a perfect evening was an old bench in Lawrence Gardens, a book of poetry and a steaming cup of doodh patti. I feel we have an obligation to add this joy to the packsack of keepsakes we leave behind for the next generation. They can add coffee and kindle a’ la mode, but atleast they will have their counsel of wonder …

By Abdul majeed Abid:

“Every generation has its own dreams and vision which it wants to accomplish without interference. Not imitation but freedom is required to build a new world. Therefore, an attempt should not be made to repeat but to make new history. People should be liberated from the shadows and allowed to flourish in a free society. Great leaders should be respected but not worshipped”.
(Dr Mubarak Ali)

Ibne Khaldun, the doyen of Muslim Historians, described History as a science and not an art. He was of the view that History should be objective, not subjective to the historian’s whims or the needs of the hour. The problem with later-day Muslim historians arose when they tried to “glorify” Muslim history and “re-invented” certain personalities as shining examples for the modern Muslims. This historical revisionism was at its peak during the 19^th century and early parts of the 20^th century.
Dr Mubarak Ali, in his book, “Taareekh ki Daryaft” (Exploring history) provided some glaring examples of historical revisionism from sub-continental history. The most famous religious figures from 15^th to 18^th century are supposed to be Sheikh Ahmad Sirhindi(also known as Mujaddad Alaf Sani) and Shah Waliullah. According to Dr Mubarak, the hype about  Sheikh Ahmad was propagated by Maulana Manazir Ahsan Gilani and Maulana Abul Kalaam Azad while Shah Waliullah  was “re-invented” by Obaidulah Sindhi as he was searching for someone resembling Karl Marx in the Islamic world. Sheikh Ahmad was made out to be the nemesis of Mughal Emperor Akbar. Another very important source of such revisionism was famous novelist Naseem Hijazi. This trend of bending history according to the time was continued after creation of Pakistan. An “Ideology of Pakistan” was created during the 1960s. The father of that Ideology was designated to be Allama Mohammad Iqbal, poet and philosopher. (For more on the story of creation of this so-called Ideology, I recommend reading the book “Dau Qaumi Nazriya: Aik Taareekhi Jaiza” by Professor Amjad Ali)
As a part of Historical Revisionism, Allama Iqbal’s poetry was used to stir up emotions of Nationalism and Pan-Islamism. Thousands of books have been written on Iqbal, most of them in his praise and very few in critiques. I will try to present some aspects of Iqbal’s poetry that I consider to be erratic and anachronistic.
Iqbal himself can be categorized as a historical revisionist. He remained passionate about Pan-Islamism throughout his life. While the argument that all the adherents of a religious ideology should combine and form one entity is very promising but it is utopian at best. Iqbal, of all people, would have known that since the death of Caliph Usman, Muslims have NEVER been a single entity throughout history. In fact, more Muslims have been killed by other Muslims in the last 1400 years than by people from other faiths.
Iqbal’s idea of an all conquering  “Mard-e-Momin” is not very different from the “Superman” of Neitzche. Allama Iqbal also propagated the idea of Muslim Supermacism i.e. only Muslims deserve to lead the world. This approach has led to a national cultural narcissism.
There is no place for women in Iqbal’s poetry, echoing a patriarchal approach by the esteemed poet. According to Mohammad Haneef, Iqbal wanted Muslim youth to take refuge in Mountains and that Martyrdom should be our ultimate aim. Now that the youth (TTP) has taken up all these endeavors, we can’t even stop them because we always taught them to do so. Interestingly, the most remarkable work done by Iqbal were his lectures titled “Reconstructing Islamic thought”. We do not find any reference to those lectures in mainstream media or textbooks only because they don’t teach anything about following without thinking(Taqleed) rather they slam this approach. There are also many contradictions in Iqbal’s poetry regarding structure of State. Iqbal criticized Democracy, Capitalism and Communism but did not hint at what kind of state he perceived. This issue has been highlighted by Dr Javed Iqbal, Iqbal son, in his autobiography(Apna Garebaan Chaak).Iqbal wrote most of his poetry in either Urdu or Persian, while the majority of Muslim Population communicated in Bengali, Punjabi, Sindhi or Pashto. According to figures collected in 1951, 54.6% people in Pakistan spoke Bengla, 28.4% spoke Punjabi, 7.2% spoke Urdu, 7.1% spoke Pashto while 5.8% spoke Sindhi. Keith Callard, Pakistan: Political Study, George Allen & Unwin, Oxford, 1957, p. 181). We declared Iqbal as our national poet despite the fact that fewer than 8 per cent of Pakistani people spoke Urdu as a first language(1981 national census). Iqbal’s so-called plan for Pakistan(due to which we credit him as the “dreamer/thinker of Pakistan, wrongly because 64 such suggestions had been publicly presented before 1930) did not include East Pakistan which was the hub of Muslim political activity in United India.

Due to so much diversity in the message of Iqbal, many elements have tried to use his poetry for their own agendas. Mullahs(clergymen), whom Iqbal opposed all his life and actively wrote against, blatantly used Iqbal’s message of Pan-Islamism for their own purposes.
In recent years, Iqbal’s poetry has been used for propaganda-mongering by Glenn Beck of Pakistan, Zaid Hamid who did two shows namely ‘Iqbal ka Pakistan’ and ‘Iqbal the Mysterious’ eulogizing the “mystic” aspects of Iqbal and attributed all kind of supernatural powers to Iqbal.
According to Nadeem Farooq Paracha, writer and blogger, “ I sometimes feel, a non-critical stance towards Iqbal’s work in this country has actually damaged his standing. He was a product of his time and well suited to compliment what was going in the minds of Indian Muslim men in the first half of the 20^th century. But was he a visionary? I don’t think so. I don’t think his work is as relevant today as it is made out to be. Certainly not in a post-modern world where the notions of universalism based on certain singular concepts of faith and progress have long crumbled and given way to a healthy respect and need for democracy, pluralism and diversity.”

Despite all the above-stated criticism, I cannot deny the importance of Allama Iqbal as a poet and as a Philosopher. All I am saying is that we need to project a balanced image of Allama Iqbal and refrain from deification a mortal man. We also need an objective approach towards history so that our future generations do not suffer from paranoia as we are. We should also encourage constructive criticism of Iqbal and leave behind the notion that saying anything about Iqbal is akin to blasphemy.