AHMAD AMIN AND MUHAMMAD IQBAL

Datlev Khalid

I. The “Missing Link”

To Ahmad Amin (1872—1954) perhaps the most prominent aspect of the present-day world situation is the dependence of the Easterners upon the Westerners who are masters of all trades. The thought of this Egyptian historian rotates constantly round this theme and the various phenomena connected therewith. He does not, how-ever, lament over this modern constellation. Rather he deplores the attitude of hesitation and tardiness of the Muslims in seeking Western assistance. He is pained to see schools built on ultra-modern designs whereas public instruction follows medieval methods with the help of antiquated books. Similarly he is grieved by the dichotomy between the emancipated Muslim females dressed according to the latest fashion and other members of their own sex who still go fully veiled. The Muslim world accepts certain externals of the West without, however, owning the principles and inner meanings which form the kernel of those achievements. Ahmad Amin sums up by saying:

“In adopting the sciences and experiences of Europe we ought to have been as determined and quick as the Japanese.”[1].

The opinion that the Muslim world could and should emulate the example of Japan in technical development is held even by a revisionist author like Abū 1- ‘Ala Mawdūdi.[2] Therefore, when Ahmad Amin advocates adoption of European methods of agriculture, industrialization and education and plans to infuse into them the best of Islamic tradition, i.e., rahuniya (spirituality), he merely follows a conception current among contemporary writers of various trends, an often-repeated cliché.[3] In this context he fails to indicate what he exactly means by adoption of the “ principles and the intrinsic nature” of Europe.[4] Thus he does not appear to be really different from other Egyptian intellectuals of the liberal generation whose stance has been described by an acute observer as “ a formula full of wisdom, but merely a formula”, because the decisive factor in solving the crisis of orientation is to define precisely the ‘best’ which is to be adopted from the Orient and the Occident.[5] Nevertheless, the dictum of Pierre Cachia in his dissertation on Taha Husayn and his place in the development of modern Muslim thought holds equally true of Ahmad Amin, to wit: “To have realised that there is more than technology in the achievements of the West, to have recognized that the forces of the spirit need not solely be contemplative; these are so many steps nearer to the formulation of a positive principle for the Egyptian Renaissance.”[6]

The force with which Ahmad Amin demands the adoption of Western sciences is certainly remarkable. He envisages it as a radical process. This is one of the main topics of the Stream of Thought (a ten volume collection of his essays).[7] Besides, in his series on Muslim history he has made a vigorous and fairly successful attempt to give a tangible expression to this ideal.[8] In his writings he has dealt at length with the complexity of problems connected with this adoption. Therefore, it is all the more surprising when he reduces the whole issue to the simplified formula of “lopping and grafting” (al-taqlim wa 1-tat’im). By lopping he means doing away with those portions of the traditional knowledge which no longer fit into modern times. On the purged heritage are to be grafted all those elements of modernity which are considered to be useful. This procedure is basic to the thought process of the former Azharite who became Dean of the Faculty of Arts, Cairo University.[9] It is borne out by the emphatic words used by him in the following quotation, “The operation of lopping and grafting’ is the law of life.”[10]

With this central motive in mind one easily gets the proper perspective for understanding fully one of the earliest essays in the Stream of Thought. It is entitled A Missing Link and provides a clue to the manner in which he plans to carry out the ‘ operation’. It also brings into focus the models that serve him as guides.

“In Egypt,” he writes, “a link is lacking which we miss especially in the academic circles, although it constitutes one of the strongest pillars on which we have to base our reconstruc­tion. Its absence is one of the causes of our paltriness in the creation of values and suitable nourishment of the spirit.

“That missing link is a group of scientists who combine a thorough grounding in Arabic and Islamics with an education of the European scientific type . . . . Without such a group it will not to be easy for us to rise.”[11]

This professor of Arabic literature then proceeds to describe the two factions that dominated the intellectual life of Egypt in his days. On the one hand, there are the graduates of Al-Azhar, of the Dār al‑ and the Madrasat al-Qadā’. He reproaches them for incompetence to understand the language and methodology of modernity. In their writings, he observes, they stick to petrified parabels which cause weariness of mind and ennui. About Kant and Bergson they know nothing, and they have miserably failed to represent the traditional lore and values in a new and attractive form. They have retired into a world of their own, and the people are glad they did so. On the other hand, there are the degree holders from European universities and the graduates of the modern Egyptian institutions. They possess a very comprehensive knowledge of the latest theories in the natural sciences, the philosophy and literature of Europe, but their knowledge of the Arabic language is deficient and they are unable to pass on their learning to others. Many of their attempts in this direction met with utter failure. On account of thi they are as much cut off from the masses as the first mentioned grousp of theologians. Their appalling ignorance of Muslim culture is illustrated by Ahmad Amin as follows: “Yesterday I had a conversation with a number of modern educated persons. We talked about al-Birūni and his discoveries in mathematics and astrology. I told them that the German orientalist Sachau is firmly of the opinion that al-Birūni is the greatest mind of all times. For this reason he intends to found a society dedicated to the revivification of his work, called the `Al-Biruni Society’. Thereupon most of them told me that they had never come across any of his writings nor had they even heard of his name. They are, however, very well acquainted with Descartes, Bacon, Hume, and John Stuart Mill. Improvement in this situation is not possible without endeavouring to provide the ‘ missing link’. This endeavour means to take full account of both the branches of education—the oriental and the occidental—, the recognition of both the fountainheads of knowledge. Therein the Arabic language and the spirit of Islam would be forceful and firmly entrenched. One would find in it whatever the Europeans have produced of fascinating means of presentation and elegant methods of composition as well as a stimulating comparison between the works of the ancient and those of the modern scholars.”[12]

As an excellent example for the realisation of the link he mentions Rifā’a al-Tahtāwi (1801 — 1873 ) and his bureau of publication. This Azhari Shaykh who accompanied the first batch of Egyptian students to France was probably too advanced for his time. Tahtāwi’s successors, Ahmad Amin holds, did not come up to his standard.[13] The well-read scholar of Cairo continues his reflections about the “missing link” with the revealing confession that: “In providing this missing link and utilizing it our Indian brethren are ahead of us. They have produced Muslim history in a new garment. They have presented it after the model of the western writers but in an Islamic spirit. They have written about Islamic religion and law in the language of the modern times. Outstanding examples of this trend are Amir Ali and Muhammad Iqbāl. Both these great scholars were well-grounded in European education. Their hearts were permeated by the love of Islam. They wrote books which the educated youth read and love. They appreciate the topics of these writings and long to read more about them. While reading them the young people specialised in biology and chemistry discover that these books keep pace with the science in which they are trained, that they conform to the method to which they are used. With Muhammad Iqbāl one finds a presentation of Kant’s philosophy which gives evidence that he has studied this subject profoundly. He writes about Ghazāli on whom he has also done thorough research. He compares Islam with Christianity and proves to be a scholar who knows what he is writing about. He discusses German poets like Goethe and analyses them most admirably. When he talks about the Mu’tazila and Sufism, it is evident that he has penetrated into the full depth of their thought. He brings to light the innermost essence and explains their doctrines so brilliantly and in an enjoyable way as the Europeans do with there philosophy.”[14]

However, being Pakistanis both these Muslim brethren write in English. The Arabs are, therefore, still waiting for the day when the missing link will be inserted into the Arab world, when the barriers between the two compasses of knowledge—the oriental and the occi­dental—are going to be demolished.[15]

Notwithstanding his otherwise so fruitful labour in the field of writing and editing our prolific Egyptian author does little to provide a more concrete theoretical outline of the link he desires to establish.

But it certainly goes to his credit that he succeeds fairly well in giving individually—a practical shape to his aspiration. This has earned him the deep felt admiration of many colleagues and especially of his friend Taha Husayn with whom he shares the orthodox background of the ‘Abduh-reformed Azharite institutions as well as the emancipation towards the Western inspired liberalism that characterizes the epoch of Egyptian intellectual life in which he lived. A striking proof for the successful self-identification with Iqbāl is the fact that Tāhā Husayn’s appreciation of Ahmad Amin’s first major achievement, the history entitled Dawn of Islam, is almost identical with the latter’s description of Iqbāl’s work as quoted above.[16]

To point out conceivable failings in the scheme of Ahmad Amin would be of little consequence in the context of the present discussion. Our concern here is to elaborate his ideas and to pinpoint the models which serve as his poles of orientation. After he has expressed so clearly how precisely Iqbāl’s procedure corresponds to his own ideal pattern, it is rather surprising that later on he never refers to Iqbāl again. It is only in Dawn of Islam (1929), his first volume on the history of Muslim culture, that he cites as one of his sources The Development of Metaphysics in Persia with which Iqbāl had obtained his doctorate from Munich in 1907.[17] After that even the name of Iqbāl has not been mentioned in any of his publications. This is most striking in his book Leaders of Reform in the Modern Age where he dedicates two of the ten treatises to Sayyid Ahmad Khān and Sayyid Amir ‘Ali two great Muslims outside the Arab world. The book was published in 1948,[18] i.e., at a time when Iqbāl, who died in 1938, had become as much a subject of historical research as, say, Sayyid Amir ‘Ali.

The Syrian author Mustafā al-Sibā’i has been very critical of Ahmad Amin. In his book The Sunna and its Position in Muslim Jurisdiction he reports that during one of his sessions he learned from Doctor ‘Ali Hasan that Doctor Ahmad Amin once gave an advice to Doctor Hasan ‘Abd al-Qādir, who had got involved into a vehement dispute with the furious Azharites. Ahmad Amin is alleged to have said:

“The Azhar does not accept independent scientific views. The best method to disseminate whatever you find valuable with the orientalists is not to ascribe it openly to them but to present it to the readers as your own research and to clothe it into a fine garb the touch of which they do not feel as unpleasant. That is what I have done in my books Dawn of Islam and Forenoon of Islam.”[19]

This polemical report is certainly not of a deserving type. The substance cannot, however, be disavowed. During the course of the present study it will be shown that in fact he acted in accordance with the principle laid down above and presented many an idea as his own although it is clear beyond any shadow of doubt that they originated with Iqbāl. It is tempting to surmise that by doing so he might have intended to obviate objections against the ‘ Anglophone’ Pakistanis[20], objections to which they are subjected by many Arabs almost automatically because of their immersion in British culture.[21] There are few Muslim scholars from the Indo-Pakistan subcontinent and the rest of the non-Arab world who have succeeded, like the Nadawi-men, in gaining full recognition from the Arabs.[22] To the majority of the Arabs and especially to the Azharites a perfect mastery of the Arabic language is still the indispensable pre-requisite for recognition as an authority on Islam. “Knowledge of the Arabic language is a religious obligation,” writes M. Rashid Ridā in his treatise on the Caliphate.[23] This is one of the arguments on which he bases his verdict that the Caliph has necessarily to be an Arab from the tribe of Quraysh.[24]

Ahmad Amin’s book on leading reformers contains inter alia a chapter on the Arab nationalist, ‘Abd al-Rahmān al-Kawākibi, who betrayed a poignant anti-Turkish bias. While reviewing his writings Ahmad Amin pays hardly any heed to the entwinement of Islam and Arabism which appears so indissoluble in the thought of the Syrian author. As a matter of fact, Zaki al-Mahāsini, whose Lectures on Ahmad Amin are otherwise mere eulogy, has criticised his hero on one single point, viz., his detached attitude towards modern Arabism. He ascribes this shortcoming to Ahmad Amin’s undue adherence to Ibn Khaldun who in his turn was no good because of his naz’a barbariya (Berber tendency, or inclination toward Berberism). Al-Mahāsini generously concedes that during Ahmad Amin’s lifetime the concept of the Arab nation had not yet so forcefully emerged. He is firmly convinced that otherwise Ahmad Amin would surely have called hisbooks Dawn of Arabs and Forenoon of the Arabs instead of Dawn of Islam and Forenoon of Islam.[25] The fact that he did not do so is certainly remarkable because even a Muslim revisionist like Hasan al-Bannā, was ensnared in the Arabist tangle spun by Rashid Rida and al-Kawākibi. This is evident from a statement of Bannā at the Fifth Congress of the Society of the Muslim Brethren of which he was the founder, to wit:

“Islam arose among the Arabs and it was passed on to other nations by the Arabs. Its Holy Book is in Arabic. The tradition say’s ‘When the Arabs are degraded, Islam is degraded.’ The correctness of this view was proved when the Arabs lost political power and the reins of government were taken over by non-Arabs. The Arabs are the main pillar of Islam, they are its guard.”[26]

Since the reference to this attitude is here made in the context of Iqbāl and his echo in the Arab world it may not be out of place to quote a passage from his writings which illustrates how his stress on the supranational tendency in Islam caused him to clash with Arab tutelage. While discussing Ibn Khaldun’s view on the Caliphate and the attitude of the modern Turk, Iqbāl says:

“To my mind these arguments, if rightly appreciated, indi­cate the birth of an international ideal which, though forming the very essence of Islam, has been hitherto overshadowed or rather displaced by Arabian imperialism of the earlier centuries of Islam.”[27]

The trend of thought that characterized the Shu`ubiya-epoch of nationality conflicts within the Muslim community has obviously never been overcome. Whatever lip service may be paid to the ideal of complete equality, in reality the Muslim brother who is not of Arab descent is seldom recognised as an equal partner in the discussions on Islamic sciences. This attitude has found a grotesque illustration in the case of the Ahmadiya sect. The Ahmadi hermeneutics probably Surpass whatever arbitrary interpretation the history of Islam has known,[28] this notwithstanding Arab theologians hardly ever brother to enter into a detailed discussion of this exegetic dexterity. Rather they reject the totality of Ahmadi doctrines ab initio with the argument that these people do not know Arabic properly and, therefore, they have no right to claim theological competence and to enter into details The Ahmadis or Mirzā’is, on the other hand, devote most of their propaganda effort not so much to the actual dissemination of their heterodox ideas. Their main concern is rather to make the Arabs come round to recognise the Ahmadi scholars on the basis of their grounding and proficiency in Arabic. Their founder, Mirzā Ghulām Ahmad, even offered a price of Rs. 500, which was quite an attractive amount at the turn of the last century, to anyone who was able to write such excellent Arabic as he took his own to be. Indeed, he believed that, with the exception of the Glorious Qur’an, no other Arabic style could compare with the beauty of his own writings in that language.[29] Ever since Mirzā’is are in the vainglorious habit of pointing out that so far no Arab has had the courage to take up this challenge.

Thus the intellectual assertions of Muslim revisionists betray a frame of mind that more-often-than-not puts the instrument and the form of expression above the value of its content. Evidently, Ahmad Amin is completely free from such an attitude. His contacts with European literature and with outstanding orientalists like Nallino, Nyberg, Schaade, and Bergstrasser may have been partly responsible for this. Besides, there is his intellectual impetuosity which drove him to learn English laboriously for many years.[30] It proves that his attitude is closer to that of his liberal friends at the National University than to that of the Azharites. No doubt, it is surprising that he does not contribute to a sounder Arab understanding of the historic role of the Turks in Muslim culture. It is, however, remarkable that he puts the Iranian contribution to Islam on an equal footing with that of the Arabs.[31] He even holds the refreshing opinion that Muslim resurgence need not necessarily proceed from the Arabs, for he writes:

“God accustomed us to the fact that if the sun of Islam disappeared in one direction, it would rise in another. Al-Andalus fell into the hands of the Spaniards, but the sun of Turkey rose at the same time, strong in its first appearance. Baghdad declined under the impact of the Tatar onslaught, but Islam spread to India. Palestine was lost, but the Arab people rose in Syria, Iraq, Egypt, and [sic] Indonesia to seek their independence. Therefore, we look for another strong sun to appear in the Muslim world to give it strength, something similar to what has happened to India with the appearance of Pakistan as a strong modern power.”[32]

For an unbiased mind like Ahmad Amin who was emancipated enough to regard the intellectual and spiritual achievements of the Iranians as equal, nay, even superior to those of the Arabs and who, moreover, admitted that many a European orientalist had a more thorough knowledge of Islamic issues than most Muslim scholars, for such a mind it could not be difficult to acknowledge the Islamological competence of a Pakistani brother like Iqbāl. As an Egyptian, how-ever, he must have been conscious of the fact that Iqbāl, who did not write in Arabic, could never be recognised as an authority by the Azharite and the circles affiliated to them.[33] Looked at from this point of view it is understandable that later on he does not mention the name of Iqbāl any more and reproduces ideas of the Pakistani thinker as if they were his own. Again, this does not satisfactorily explain why in his book on Leaders of Reform he does not devote a chapter to Iqbāl after his chapter on Amir `Ali. It is true that the passages which Ahmad Amin has literally taken over from Iqbāl are also present in Amir ‘Ali’s The Spirit of Islam, which was corrected by Iqbāl, then a student at Cambridge (he also prepared the index, see preface, VIII).[34] The similarity with Amir ‘Ali is restricted to con-tents only. It is not a literal one as is the case with a number of phrases from Iqbāl. Besides, The Spirit of Islam embodies some and not all of the typical Iqbalian thoughts that appear in the writings of Ahmad Amin.

It cannot be ruled out completely that while leaning increasing-1Y on Iqbāl, Ahmad Amin did not want to make his dependence on the poet-philosopher’s thought too apparent. In other words, he did not want to draw the attention of the Arab reader unnecessarily to the little known Iqbāl. In this way it was certainly easier to assert the merit of his independent creation. The scarcity of intellectual communion between modern Pakistan and the Muslim thinkers of Egypt is a phenomenon not yet sufficiently explained. It has baffled quite a number of observers, like the orientalist Kenneth Cragg who calls Iqbāl an example of Muslim thought from outside the Arab world that is too uncomfortable to deal with. He holds that it is for this very inconvenience which Iqbāl’s challenging approach poses that he has not found any disciples among the Arabs. Cragg concedes that Iqbāl’s poetry is difficult to translate and his thoughts, in their symbolical presentation, can be apprehended only through assiduous efforts at interpretation which renders critique rather irksome. All this notwithstanding, his eminent position in the intellectual life of Pakistan ought to have secured him some Arab following However, such a discipleship, even if it exists, has not yet come into prom-i nence.[35]

Since Cragg expressed this opinion Iqbal has, no doubt, received somewhat more attention from the Arabs. The blind poet of Egypt, Sāwiy Sha’lān, has come out with some more translations of iqbal’s verses[36] and the number of articles devoted to Iqbāl in Arabic cultural magazines has increased.[37] In Morocco, the Bergson disciple M. ‘Aziz Lahbabi with his concept of Muslim personalism (shakhsanyia) betrays great affinity with the Pakistani philosopher, although he quotes him in French from the rather defective translation of Eva Meyerovitch.[38] The Lebanese writer, Hasan Saab, ranks Iqbāl among the three great Muslim thinkers of our time, along with the existentialist ‘Adb al-Rahman Badawi in Egypt and the Moroccan ‘Aziz Lahbabi mentioned above.[39] A leading Egyptian Islamicist like Father Anawati goes a step further by admitting that the Arabs have no one who can compare with Iqbal as a Muslim philosopher[40]; but, on the whole, Cragg’s observation still holds true that there exist few serious works about Iqbāl in Arabic and hardly any attempt at interpreting his famous Six Lectures on the Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam.[41]

The above quoted excerpts from the essay on the “ Missing Link “ clearly show that Ahmad Amin refers to the lectures delivered by Iqbāl at the universities of Madras, Aligarh, and Hyderabad in 1928. They were published in 1934 under the title of The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam with a seventh chapter in addition to the original six lectures. Whereas Iqbāl’s verses were written in Persian and Urdu, this prose work is in English. Bergson, Kant, Goethe, Ghazāli, the movement of the rationalist Mu’tazila, Sufism, and the relation of Islam to Christianity, in short, all the salient features enumerated by Ahmad Amin, are treated in this book of Iqbāl most explicitly. Over the years the influece of this outstanding work on the writings of Ahmad Amin becomes noticeable to an ever increas­ing degree until, in the Day of Islam (1952), we come across more or less literal borrowings — as shown in the appendix to the persent paper. It is, no doubt, possible that this influence received a new impetus through the Arabic and English translations of Iqbāl’s poetry like The Secrets of the Self by Nicholson in 1920, or The Tulip of Sinai (1947) and the Persian Psalms (1948) by Arberry.[42]

One of Ahmad Amin’s best friends was ‘Abd al-Wahhāb ‘Azzām. They came to know each other at the Madrasat al-Qada ‘ where ‘Azzām was a student of Amin. Later on they were colleagues for more than twenty years at the University and in the Committee for Writing, Translation, and Publication. As delegates of the University they travelled together and attended conferences in Palestine, Syria, Iraq, Belgium, Italy, France, and Switzerland.[43] In 1937 they went together on pilgrimage to Mecca. In 1955 a booklet in honour of Ahmad Amin was published with the title Ahmad Amin as Seen by Himself and by His Friends. Whereas most of the contributors write as former students, co-workers, and admirers, ‘Azzām writes his Souvenirs of Ahmad Amin from the viewpoint of a close associate and friend.[44] One of the few photos contained in the brochure depicts the two scholars together on Hajj. In the History of World Literature published by Ahmad Amin the chapter on Persian literature is by ‘Abd al-Wahhāb ‘Azzām.[45] Later he became Ambassador for Egypt in Pakistan and translated Iqbāl’s Message of the East (Payam-i Mashriq) into Arabic. In the preface to this translation ‘Azzam mentions that he has received this book long before his departure for Pakistan from the Turkish poet Mehmet Akif.[46] It would be of no avil to surmise that the interest of Ahmad Amin in Iqbal was solely kinled by .Abd al-Wahhāb ‘Azzām, but it may be conceded that this interest was nurtured by the intense prepossession of his companion with the Pakistani poet. ‘Azzām was not only the first translator of Iqbāl into Arabic but also the author of a little monograph on the Muslim philosopher.[47] For Iqbālists it must certainly be disappointing that in his study on ‘Abd al-Wahhāb `Azzam the Syrian professor Zaki al-Mahāsini gets stuck up in the futile attempt to press him into the obligatory mould of Arabism with racial undertones.[48] In this way he missed the opportunity of unfolding ‘Azzam’s role as an intellectual bridge, however fragile it might be between Pakistan and Egypt. In this monograph, there is no mention about the dissemination of Iqbāl’s ideas which started with the trans. lator of the Message of the East.[49] Both ‘Azzām and Amin wrote essays on the Sūbarmān. Following Iqbāl, they contrast the Islamic notion of the Perfect Man (al-insan al-kāmil) with the Superman of Nietzsche.[50] This was done at a time when the Pakistani thinker was even less known to the Arab world than he is today.

Iqbāl, the poet, and Amin, the historian, are very different types of spokesmen. They differ from each other particularly in their different modes of expression. Notwithstanding this, there is an affinity in nature as well as in experience between the two personalities. It may have been this affinity which impelled Ahmad Amin to an unconscious—if not conscious- self-identification with the intellectual endeavour of Muhammad Iqbal. Common to both is the strong con­cern for education— which is but natural for modernists who follow in the direct reform tradition of Sayyid Ahmad Khan and Muhammad ‘Abduh.[51] Iqbāl cherished the hope of undertaking a journey to Turkey, Egypt, and Iran to study the educational systems of these countries. Such a task was dearer to his heart than the political activity in which he found himself involved.[52] Amin testifies in his autobiography that among all his manifold duties he was most dedicated to those having to do with teaching and the reform of education.[53] Whereas Iqbāl worked out a course for Urdu teaching at institutions of higher learning,[54] Amin participated in writing several text-books of Arabic which are still in use.[55] Iqbāl was invited by King Nādir Shāh to discuss problems connected with the foundation of a university in Kābul.[56] Similarly, when Amin was invited to Baghdād, his advice was sought by King Faysal with regard to the educational system in Iraq.[57] Both, Iqbāl and Amin, took part in Round-Table Conferences with the highest representatives of the colonial power in London — Iqbāl discussed in 1931 and 1932, the future of India and Pakistan,[58] Amin in 1946 that of Egypt and Palestine.[59] They welcome the Turkish revolution and reforms in the same spirit, although later on Amin is less sharp in his criticism of the heedless imitation of Europe by Atatūrk than Iqbal with his biting condemnations.[60] Another interesting feature, common to both, is their brand of utopianism. Being faced with seemingly impassable hurdles in their own countries, they transpose their ideals of a reformed Muslim society to another land which they claim as model, thereby giving it almost the veneer of a dreamland. Thus in Iqbāl’s Payam-i Mashriq as well as in his Musāfir Afghanistan is transfigured into the ideal of a progressive yet Muslim state; this may be paralleled with Amin’s praise for Turkey in his autobiography.[61] Such a flight away from dismaying realities at home is cartainly a phenomenon common to many thinkers of all ages. What makes this transposition of ideals relevant in the case of Iqbāl and Amin is the similarity of situation and motives, of purview and aspiration. This is best expressed by Iqbāl in his preface to a book by British authors on Modern Afghanistan where he writes:

“The Afghan conservatism is a miracle: it is adamantive yet fully sensitive to and assimilative of new cultural forces. And this is the secret of the eternal organic health of the Afghan type.”[62]

Most prominent among the Iqbalian ideas adopted by Ahmad Amin is that of the dominion of Greek philosophy on early Muslim thought. This foreign element impaired the believers’ vision of the Qur’ān until they rose in intellectual revolt against Greek thought. Here again it is true that this view of Greek philosophy is not con-fined to Iqbal and Amin alone. As Wilfred Cantwell Smith has rightly observed, some Muslim writers consider the influence of Greek thought a greater threat to the religion of Islam than the crusaders or the Mongols, and therefore they are suspicious even of theology.[63] However, the distinguishing feature of the Iqbal-Amin approach is the line of argument that leads to the concept of an intellectual revolt against Greek philosophy in all departments of thought, a revolt “that brings out the real spirit of the culture of Islam, and lays the founda­tion of modern culture in some of its most important aspects.”[64] lqbāl’s confrontation of induction as an Islamic (Arabic) method and deduction as a Hellenistic (European) method can be met within Amin’s Noon of Islam[65] but still more so in the Day of Islam where he writes: “The Islamic method relics on induction insofar as it investigates all data separately as much as possible and then draws the general conclusion from the totality of those results. This is how Muslim scholars proceeded, e. g., in grammar (al-fā’il marfū’). The Greek, i. e., the Aristotelian philosophy, however, relies on deduction .... The inductive method led the Muslim scholars to the principle of doubt and experiment.”[66]

This clearly echos Iqbal who says in the Reconstruction:

“It was, I think, Nazzām who first formulated the principle of ‘doubt’ as the beginning of all knowledge and Ibn Taymiya, in his Refutation of Logic, shows that induction is the only form of reliable argument. Thus arose the method of observation and experiment.”[67]

For the sake of comparison we reproduce another passage from Ahmad Amin’s Day of Islam:

“In the Animal Life of Jahiz we notice in various places that he starts his observation by putting something in doubt and then putting it to the test. He is bold enough to point out the mistakes of Aristotle and to prefer the information provided by an Arab Beduin. Nazzām did so even with the traditions of the Prophet. First he doubted their authenticity then he subjected them to the test of reason to find out whether they are genuine or not. Ghazali and Jāhiz forestalled Descartes in the principle of doubt and Miskawayh anticipated Darwin’s theory of evolution . . . . The Europeans claim that Roger Bacon was the first who, during the Renaissance, advocated the method of induction. They do not take into consideration that he was a graduate of the Arab universities of Spain...The same applies to Ibn Khaldūn. He preceded Descartes in founding sociology. The difference between the two is that Ibn Khaldūn bases his work on the inductive method which the Arabs preferred to the deductive method followed by the Europeans.”[68]

These lines are but a gist of Iqbal’s lecture on The Spirit of Muslim Culture and in particular of the quotation from Briffault’s Making of Humanity given therein, a quotation that has obviously an everlasting fascination for Muslim writers of the apologetic trend.[69]

Here we are not concerned with the validity of this conception which regards Greek philosophy as utterly opposed to the spirit of the Qur’an. Since the time when Amin began to follow in the footsteps of Iqbal some Muslim writers have disputed this contention and some of them have even risen in counter-revolt.[70] As a matter of fact, one may well hold that Ahmad Amin who wrote so forcefully against taqlid[71] has in this instance himself fallen a prey to it. In the following, especially while discussing Amin’s interpretation of Muslim universalism, his heavy leaning on Iqbal will become more and more apparent.[72] Here it may suffice to say that the subtler ideas of Iqbal are hardly found in the writings of Ahmad Amin, at the most they occur in fragments and are rather vague in their reformulation. Such central concepts as time and Satan, which are so essential to the Pakistani’s philosophy of “self “, have not been touched by the Egyptian.[73] Kenneth Cragg thinks the noteworthy fact that Egyp­tian thought has not seriously tackled the issues broached by Iqbāl could possibly be attributed to the pragmatic nature of the Arabs whose spirit is not speculative and to whom Iqbāl’s world of ideas is unfamiliar. Iqbāl’s reconstruction of Islam, he argues, is in fact a construction of religious thought.[74] While fully admitting that Ahmad Amin’s study of European philosophy was negligible as com­pared to that of his Pakistani model we are rather inclined to hold the linguistic barrier as partly responsible for the lack of a deeper understanding of Iqbāl’ s message. Although Ahmad Amin had learnt English well and even translated the Primers of Philosophy by A. S. Rappoport[75] some of the Lectures must necessarily have remained inaccessible to him as a scholar who had received no basic English education. S. A. Vahid has called Iqbāl’s style as simultaneausly elegant, idiomatic, impressive, and eloquent[76] but again, the verdict of Cragg is that “they are too English in their address and assumptions ever to be a potent force popularly within the Islamic setting.”[77]

We may not entirely agree with Cragg but we cannot ignore the View of the German orientalist Annemarie Schimmel, who is certainly much more at home in English than Ahmad Amin was. She has stated that the “rather complicated” English prose of the lectures requires several perusals if they are to be understood properly.[78] It is, therefore, but understandable that the more or less literal adaptations in Ahmad Amin’s Day of Islam are all from the fifth and especially from the sixth lecture—The Principle of Movement in the Structure of Islam. These two lectures are of a less philosophical nature and more easily understandable than the rest.

In 1937 Ahmad Amin performs the pilgrimage to Mecca. He is deeply impressed by the demonstration of’ piety which bears a ‘democratic’ stamp. But at the same time he is so much disgusted by the lack of organization, the undignified bustle and unhygenic conditions in the hallowed places that he sends a report about it to the Egyptian Foreign Ministry. The same complaints he raises in his talks over the radio. Thereupon he is called to the Ministry and finally Tal’at Pasha Harb, the then Minister, succeeds in persuading him to desist from further inciting the public through the press and broadcasting In return the Egyptian Government promises to forward his report to the competent authorities in Hijaz.[79]

Thus it is not surprising that later on he takes great interest in very liberal ideas of pilgrimage. In the second volume of his history called Noon of Islam he recapitulates:

“Finally we saw that al-Hallāj (the famous 9^th century mystic Husayn Ibn Mansur of Baghdad) was accused of having propagated the abolition of the hajj. He held it to be sufficient that man undertakes the prilglimage to a room in his house. Abū Hayyān al-Tawhidi wrote a treatise entitled ‘The Intellectual Pilgrimage’ which, however, we could not lay hand on, in spite of all our efforts to find it out.”[80]

The reader is reminded of Iqbal who expressed his admiration for Ibn Sa’ud and his’ purification’ of the hallowed places. For thus sympathising with the Wahhābis he incurred the wrath of several of the self-appointed custodians of religion. Throughout his life Iqbāl hoped to perform the pilgrimage and often he deplored his inability to realise this intention. Had he been able to do so his reaction could hardly have been different from that of the Egyptian historian. In compensation for the physical pilgrimage he was unable to perform, Iqbāl raised the ‘spiritual’ or ‘symbolical’ pilgrimage to the rank of the ideal just as Ahmad Amin made it his ideal in compensation for the disappointment he experienced at the craddle of Islam. Deprived of the hope that he might kiss one day the threshold of the Prophet and the Black Stone of the Ka’ba, Iqbāl finds consolation in the internal meaning of the rites, and in the circumambulation not of the sacred building but of the Divine Beloved.81 Similarly for Amin, the pilgrimage becomes a symbol of the direct presence of God wheresoever it may be experienced.[81]

The Egyptian author, who was also editor of the leading cultural magazine Al-Thaqafa, confronts an Islam benumbed by rituals with the true inwardness of faith. In fact, he treads in the best tradition of Sufism the initial motive force of which was genuine moral enlightenment, following the lead given by al-Ghazāli who taught that an excessive stress on the external disciplines of the revisionist faith merely creates religious fossils. Ahmad Amin’s departure from revisionist interpretations of Islam is clearly evident when he says:

“True religion raises its followers above all lust of power and above all politics. Artificial religion, however, makes its followers distort the faith so that it may be exploited for the sake of power and serve political ends.”[82]

The following lines by the great Spanish mystic Ibn ‘Arabi are a favourite quotation in the essays of the Egyptian scholar:

“My heart began to absorb every picture;

It became a pasture for gazelles and a monastery for monks.

A temple for idolators and a Ka’ba for the believer;

It turned into Torah-scrolls and into a copy of the Qur’an;

I profess the religion of love —regardless of whatever object

it may turn. Love is my law and my faith.”[83]

It is therefore but natural that his interpretation of Islam (Ices not bow before the restrictiveness of pan-Arabism. Under the heading Precedence of Religion and Culture over Nationalism, he writes:

“This culture of Islam dominated all Muslim peoples and gradually assimilated their distinct mentalities. Finally they gave preference to their culture and religion over their national feelings. Therefore, the Egyptians are Muslim first, and Egyp­tians afterwards; the same applies to the Syrians, North-Africans, and Andalusians. They all have one uniform culture, and uniform principles of government. National identity, regionalism, and attachment to language and native place assume secondary place for them.”[84]

The close resemblance to Iqbāl becomes apparent if the lines quoted above are compared to the poet’s speech delivered at the annual session of the All-India Muslim Conference at Lahore in 1932:

“Patriotism is a perfectly natural virtue and has a place in the moral life of man. Yet that which really matters is a man’s faith, his culture, his historical tradition. These are the things which in my eyes are worth living for and dying for, and not the piece of earth with which the spirit of man happens to be temporarily associated.”[85]

The founder of the Egyptian popular university describes how Muslims assimilated different regional cultures and thereby brought about an intellectual unity. Like Iqbāl he never ceases emphasizing the assimilative spirit of Islam.[86] His concept of ‘mental unification through cultural assimilation’[87] amplifies the positive motive of pan-Islamism because thus it is envisaged as a constructive stage on the way toward “a world without war, without crime, without nationalism, where humanism and cosmopolitism would Occupy the seat of nationalism, where there would be no colonialist and all peoples would be like brothers.”[88]

Here again Iqbāl seems to have provided the orientation; for in the Reconstruction he says:

“Islam is non-territorial in its character, and its aim is to furnish a model for the final combination of humanity by drawing its adherents from a variety of mutually repellent races, and then transforming this atomic aggregate into a people possessing a self-consciousness of their own.”[89]

Iqbāl employs the allegory of Greek and Afghan, for the Western and the Eastern men, who are not yet free enough from the clay and water of differentiation to say “First I am a man.” Amin, the Egyptian, adopts the symbol of two pyramids:

“As a matter of fact,, these two pyramids are not at logger-heads with each other because of their intrinsic nature, but rather because of a misunderstanding between their inhabitants. It is certainly possible to create strong bonds of friendshipbetween them, each one assisting the other with his respective vritues.”[90]

In the Day of Islam there occurs a passage which may evoke the impression that Ahmad Amin gives vent to anti-European sentiments. He was frustrated with the progress of Muslim integration toward the goal of world-community; nevertheless, he appears to be glad about the internecine wars among the Christian nations rendering them weak.[91] Such resentment certainly renders correct assesment of his real aspirations more difficult. It seems to contradict our findiug that throughout his writings one of his main concerns is to bridge the gulf between the Orient and the Occident. He constantly visualized the establishment of a world culture based on genuine tolerance encompassing all peoples in peace and harmony. No doubt, the Day of Islam echoes an outcry against the Western domination of the East as does, in the field of poetry, Iqbāl’s Mysteries of the Self.

But the ideal of a global humanism is reiterated even in the Day of Islam.[92] The book is, therefore, to be understood as the lament of a jilted lover rather than an implacable foe. This becomes all the more apparent in his later book East and West, the subject-matter of which is stated as follows:

“The ideal we aim at is a humanist civilization without nationalism, a civilization where the entire world is regarded as one family, where the sick person is cared for until he is healed, where the little one is taken by the hand until he is grown up, and where highways are made for those left behind so that they could catch up with those who have gone in advance.”[93]

Concomitantly he does not ascribe the responsibility for the backwardness of the Orient to the Occident alone, but holds both sides equally responsible for that. In his treatise East and West he gives expression to the desirability of replacing the abuses of orientiel spirituality by healthy measure of materialism and equally to add a measure of uncorrupted spirituality to occidental materialism.[94] This is exeactly what Iqbāl wanted to convey by saying that reason Without love is a diabolical enterprise which the West is pursuing. On the other hand ‘ishq without ‘aql is a self-deception into which the East is fondly indulging. In his criticism the professor of Cairo exposes the abuses of Oriental spirituality almost more forcefully and convincingly than those of occidental materialism.[95] Thus another strong parallel between Iqbal and Amin is their abysmal hostility toward the mullahs. The unmitigated acrimony with which the Egyptian author depicts the irksome manners of the teachers of religion is not confined to his autobiography. It is a prominent feature of his Stream of Thought, for he frequently takes the field against the “syndicate of the descendants of the Prophet, the trade. guilds of the mystical orders and all that goes along with it such as anniversaries of saints and motive offerings.”[96] He desires to “preserve religion in its most prefect form and sublime significance”[97] and his rejection of the “noisy theatre performances and acrobatics of artificial religion”[98] commensurate with the ringing condemnations used by the Pakistani poet while exposing the galling hypocrisy of the priestly class:

“The religion of God is more shameful than unbelief, Because the mullah is a believer trading in unfaith!”[99]

Ahmad Amin has once been accused of plagiarism, although in a different context. In Al-Adab al ‘Arabi fi Athar al-Darisin the Lebanese M. Yūsf Najm writes that the Literary Criticism[100] by Amin is nothing but a concise version of English works on this subject.[101] The well-known Egyptian author Bint al-Shati’ (‘A’isha ‘Abd al-Rahmān), however, found no difficulty in proving that this fact had been duly acknowledged by Ahmad Amin in the preface to the book.[102] With regard to the borrowings from Iqbal in the Day of Islam such an acknowledgement is obviously not possible. There is no bibliography but a few footnotes which indicate the sources of some of the quotations. Iqbal, however. is nowhere mentioned.

Besides, the author has not remained faithful to the systematic exposition of Iqbal. The relevant passages are interwoven into his own writings in a rather incoherent manner. This book is anyhow the least systematic one of his works. The styles, however, is quite swaying and reminds in many ways of a sermon, one of those lengthy khutbas in the course of which the preacher returns every now and then to his cardinal points.

In 1955, shortly after the death of Ahmad Amin, the Committee for Writing, Translatian, and Publication[103] published the Arabic translation by Mahmud ‘Abbas of The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam.[104] Amin was chairman of this committee from its inception in 1914 till his death in 1954. In fact, during the last years of his life most of his activity was dedicated to this lajna.[105] Therefore, it is certain that Iqbal’s lectures were rendered into Arabic under his supervision. The language barrier was thus removed, but for a deeper penetration into the philosophical purport it was obviously too late. The Egyptian author, who was by then almost entirely blind, dictated his Day of Islam somewhat earlier. In the preface he states that this volume is based on what has been stored up in his mind from the books he happened to study during the course of many years.[106] Whether the literal adaptation of the excerpts from the lectures of Iqbal are due to an intense absorption dating back much earlier or whether they are to be attributed to a simultaneous occupation of their Arabic version is a moot question. Even his associates have not been able to. answer it univocally,

In the appendix to the present paper a few examples have been adduced showing the almost literal conformity of passages in the Day of Islam with the Lectures on The Reconstruction of Religious Thought. These examples are chosen at random. They serve no other purpose but to demonstrate the extent to which one has to be conversant with the Iqbalian model while studying Ahmad Amin’s contribution to modern Muslim thought, despite the fact that in all his writings he has mentioned the name of Iqbal only once.

APPENDIX

Iqbāl explains the meaning of the word ijtihād (Reconstruction, P. 148) and observes that (p. 149) "the idea of complete ijtihād is hedged round by conditions which are well-nigh impossible of realization in a single individual."

Amin explains the meaning of the word ijtihād (Yawm al-Islam, P. 189) and observes:

لم یبق فی الناس من تتوفر فیہ شروط المجتہد۔

Analysing the development that led to the closure of the 'door of ijtihād', Iqbāl writes (Reconstruction, p. 149) :

"The real causes are, in my opinion, as follows:

1. We are all familiar with the Rationalist movement which appeared in the church of Islam during the early days of the Abbas ides and the bitter controversies wich it raised.

(p. 150)....conservative thinkers regarded this movement as a force of disintegration, and considered it a danger to the stability of Islam as a social polity."

Amin expresses himself in a similar vein in Yawm al-Islam (p. 190):

و انما اصیب المسلمون بقولہم بسدباب الاجتہاد لآسباب ثلاثۃ:

اؤلہا کارثۃ المسلمین بضیاع المعتزلۃ و ھم الفرقۃ العقلیۃ فی الاسلام و انتصار اھل الحدیث علیھم۔

Iqbal continues his enumeration (Reconstruction, p. 150):

"2. The rise and growth of ascetic Sufism....On its purely religious side Sufism fostered a kind of revolt against the verbal quibbles of our early doctors. The case of Sufyān al-Thawri is an instance in point. He was one of the acutest legal minds of his time...; but being also intensely spiritual, the dry-as-dust subtleties of contemporary legists drove him to ascetic Sufism."

Similarly Amin says (Yawm al-Islam, p. 190):

و الثانی مہاجمۃ اھل التصوف للفقہاء بانھم شکلیون و یعنون باشکل اکثر مما یعنون بالروح، فاتفقوا مع المعتزلۃ فی مناھضۃ الفقہاء و کان علی راسہم سفیان الثوری الذی توغل فی الروحانیۃ مع اطلاعہ الواسع فی الفقہیات۔

(With tawaghghala fi l-rūhāniya Amin has in fact rendered Iqbāl's "being also intensely spiritual" better than Mahmud Abbas in his published translation of the Reconstruction where he writes wa lakinna farta ruhaniyatihi,) Reconstruction, p. 151:

"On the top of all this came the destruction of Baghdad - the centre of Muslim intellectual life… all the contemporary historians of the invasion of Tartars describe the havoc of Baghdad with a half-suppressed pessimism about the future of Islam. For fear of further disintegration, ... the conservative thinkers of Islam focused all their efforts on the one point of preserving a uniform social life for the people by a jealous exclusion of all innovations and there is no doubt that they were partly right." Yawm al-Islām, p. 190

الثالث سقوط بغداد علی ید التنترو قدکانت بغداد اذ ذاک مرکز الحضارۃ و الثقافتۃ۔ الاسلامیتین فاصیب العلماء بالفزع من جراء ھذا السقوط و غلبہم التشاؤم وودوا ان استطاعوا فقط حتی المحافظۃ القدیم من غیر تجدید و ھم فی ذالک معذورون بعض العذر۔

Speaking about the sources of Muslim law Iqbal begins with the hadith (Reconstruction, p. 171) saying:

"Among their modern critics Professor Goldziher has subjected them to a searching examination in the light of modern canons of historical criticism, and arrives at the conclusion that they are, on the whole, untrustworthy .... there arises a very important question as to how far they embody the pre-Islamic usages of Arabia which were in some cases left intact, and in others modified by the Prophet."

"The Shari'a values (ahkām) resulting from this application are in a sense specific to that people; and since their observance is not an end in itself they cannot be strictly enforced in the case of future generations." (p. 172)

In Amin's adoptation this reads as follows (Yawm al-Islam p. 196):

ورغم ان الا ستاذ جولدزیہر نقدھا نقدا علمیا حدیثا و ابان ان کثیرا منہا مزیف ماخوذ من شرائع اخری دست فی الاسلام فانہا اصل من اصول التشریع الاسلامی۔ نعم ان کثیرا من الاحکام الشرعیۃ اسست علی تقالید کانت جاھلیۃ و اقرھا الاسلام لانھا لا تزال وفق بیئتہ فاذا تغیرت البیئۃ لم یعد للعمل بہذہ الاحادیث محل۔

Reconstruction, p. 172

"It was perhaps in view of this that Abu Hanifa made practically no use of these traditions. The fact that he introduced the Principle of istihsan ... throws further light on the motives which determined his attitude towards this source."

Yawm al'-Islām, p. 196:

و ربما کان ھو الداعی ایصا الی تحرج الامام ابی حنیفۃ من الاحادیث و العمل بہا و اقتصارہ علی نحوسبعۂ عشر حدیثا، و انما اعتمد اکثر ما اعتمد علی الاستحسان۔

Reconstruction, p. 1973:

"The third source of Mohmmedan Law is ijmā' which is, in my opinion, perhaps the most important legal notion in Islam. The growth of republican spirit, and the gradual formation of legislative assemblies in Muslim lands constitutes a great step in advance."

Yawn al-Islām, p. 197:

توسع ابوحنیفۃ فیہ و لکن مع الاسف طبقہ تطبیقا ارسططا لیسیا

Speaking about the fourth basis of Muslim Law, giyās, and the school of Abū Hanifa, Iqbāl writes (Reconstruction, p. 176):

"The application of Aristotelian logic, ... was likely to prove exceedingly harmful in the preliminary stages of legal development."

Compare Yawm al-Islām, p. 197:

Quoting from Sarkashi, Iqbāl holds that (Reconstruction, p. 178):

... "ijtihād for later doctors is easier than for the earlier doctors. Indeed the commentaries on the Qur'ān and Sunna have been compiled and multiplied to such an extent that the mujahid of today has more material for interpretation than he needs."

Accordingly, Amin says (Yawm al-Islām, p. 191):

و الا جتہاد فی عصرنا اسہل من الا جتہاد فی عصرھم، فا لمطابع نشرت عشرات التفسیرات للقرآن الکریم، و عشرات الکتب فی جمع الحدیث، و اصبحت المطالعۃ فی الکتاب تغنی عن الرحلات المختلفۃ الی ممر و الانداس و الحجاز، فقد کفانا المحدثون مئونۃ ذلک۔

 NOTES