THE MEANING AND ROLE OF INTUITION IN IQBAL’S PHILOSOPHY

Riffat Hassan

According to Kant, the perceptual manifold must fulfil certain formal conditions in order to constitute knowledge. For him the noumenon or the ‘thing-in-itseir is only a limiting or regulative idea. If there is some actuality corresponding to the idea, it transcends ‘actual’ experience and consequently its existence cannot be rationally demonstrated. The subject matter of metaphysics falls outside the boundaries of experience and cannot be systematised by space and time, and therefore, according to Kant, metaphysics is impossible. In Kantian terms, religion is equally impossible, but according to Iqbal, it is possible to attain knowledge of Ultimate Reality and therefore both metaphysics and religion are possible. In Iqbal’s words, “Kant’s verdict can be accepted only if we start with the assumption that all experience other than the normal level of experience is impossible.”[1]

Iqbal believes that it is the lot of human beings to share in the deeper aspirations of the universe around them and to shape their own destiny as well as that of the universe.”[2] However, in order to achieve the fullest possible development of their potentia­lities it is essential for human beings to possess knowledge.” Man’s life and the onward march of his spirit depend on the establishment of connections with the reality that confronts him. It is knowledge that establishes these connections.”[3]

Iqbal defines knowledge as “sense-perception elaborated by understanding”[4] (‘understanding’ here does not stand exclusively for ‘reason’ but for all non-perceptual modes of knowledge) maintains that there are two sources of knowledge-the inner consciousness of humankind (“anfus”) and the outer world or nature (“afāq”).[5] The direct way of establishing connections with the Reality that confronts us is by means of observation and sense-perception; the other way is through direct association with that Reality as it reveals itself within. The latter is the intuitive method and in Iqbal’s philosophy great emphasis has been laid on intuition’ as a mode of knowledge.[6]

The word ‘intuition’ is derived from a verb means ‘looking at’, and its extended use seems to have originated as a metaphor from sight.[7] “It would stand, presumably, for a mental inspection in which a direct revelation is made to the mind, comparable to the direct revelation which accompanies the exposure of a physical object to the eye.”[8] The word is used in the works of Descartes and Locke to mean the apprehension of indubitable, self-evident truths. Descartes explains how intuition is “not the fluctuating testimony of the senses, nor the misleading judgement that proceeds from the blundering constructions of imagination, but the pure intellectual cognizing so ready and so distinct that we are wholly freed from, doubt about that which we thus intellectually apprehend.”[9] Locke describes intuitive knowledge as “the clearest and most” certain that human frailty is capable of. This part of knowledge is irresistible, and, like bright sunshine, forces itself immediately to be perceived, as soon as ever the mind turns its view that way, and leaves no room for hesitation, doubt, or examination, but the mind is perfectly filled with the clear light of it.”[10] Hence the traditional philosophical meaning of ‘intuition’ is knowing with absolute certainty, or knowing in such a way that there is no room for doubt.

Possibility of intuitive knowledge Kant in showing the limitations of pure reason had also demonstrated the impossibility of ‘intuitive’ experience without which metaphysics and religion are not possible. But, paradoxically enough, in proving the relativity of the finite objects of experience to the intelligence, he also showed” though without himself being fully conscious of it, and almost, we might say, against his will, that we cannot admit the validity of the empirical consciousness without admitting the validity of the consciousness of that which, in the narrower sense of the word, is beyond experience.”[11] It can be seen clearly from his Lectures that Iqbal is very anxious to show the possibility and validity of the intuitive consciousness. If intuitive experience is possible then it follows that both metaphysics and religion are possible.

Kant had rejected the possibility of metaphysics because it dealt with that which could not be systematized by the categories of space and time and therefore, in his opinion, could not constitute knowledge. But supposing, says Iqbal, that there is more than one kind of space and one kind of time, then it is quite possible “that there are other levels of human experience capable of being systematized by other orders of space and time-levels in which concept and analysis do not play the same role as they do in the case of our normal experience.”[12] Iqbal agrees with Kant in regarding space and time as subjective but he does not look upon them as unvarying modes into which all” our knowledge is moulded. Rather, they admit of new meaning in relation to various grades of experience and their import varies as psychic powers increase or decrease.[13]

Iqbal has devoted a considerable portion of his Lectures to discussing the question of the nature of Space and Time. It was necessary for him to do so in order to demonstrate the possibility of levels of experience which were free from the “normal” spatiotemporal determinations. Iqbal distinguishes between kinds of Space and Time, and points out that there are levels of experience which refer not to these forms of experience in their ordinary connotation, but to “the interpenetration of the super-spatial ‘here’ and the super-eternal ‘now’ in the Ultimate Reality.”[14] Such an interpenetration suggests “the modern notion of space-time which Professor Alexander, in his lectures on Space, Time and Deity regards as the matrix of all things.”[15]

Iqbal believes, then, in potential types of consciousness which lie close to our normal consciousness and yield life and knowledge.[16] Such knowledge is gained through intuition. Iqbal describes the main features of intuitive experience when he enumerates the characteristics of mysticism which deals with the Ultimate by way of intuitive apprehension.[17]

Characteristics of intuitive (Mystic) Experience

(a) The characteristic of intuition which has traditionally, been most emphasized is its indivisibility. “Intuitionism is the theory which asserts, in the face of all skeptical criticisms, that absolutely certain knowledge occurs in human experience.”[18] Iqbal states that according to the Qar’an, the heart or “is “something which ‘sees’ and its reports, if (the interpreted, are never false.”[19]

(b) It is immediate experience of Reality. A notable writer on mysticism writes, “we can claim for those whom we call mystics-and, in a lesser degree, for innumerable artists and contemplative souls-that experience at its fullest and deepest ‘does include the immediate apprehension of an unchanging Reality, and that this apprehension, in one form or another, is the sheet anchor of the religious consciousness.”[20]

Intuitive experience is direct like perception but sensation is not involved in it. As Plato said, intuitions come “in a flash”[21] Iqbal, the Poet, says

[22] (Bal-e-jibril, p. 29)

or, as he says in the introduction to Zabur-a-’Ajam

[23] (Zabur-e-’Ajam, p. 2)

For Iqbal the immediacy of mystic experience lies in that in it God is known as other objects are known. “God is not a mathematical entity or a system of concepts mutually related to one another and having no reference to experience.”[24] As Ibn ‘Arabi pointed out, God is a percept not a concept.[25]

(c) Intuitive experience possesses an analyzable wholeness. In it Reality is given as one indivisible unity. Iqbal compares intuitive consciousness with discursive consciousness. “When I experience the table before me, innumerable data of experience merge into the single experience of the table. Out of this wealth of data I select those that fall into a certain order of space and time and round them off in reference to the table. In the mystic state, however vivid, such analysis is not possible.”[26] A writer observes that, here, Iqbal is denying, by inference, that immediacy to normal experiences which he associated with them earlier.[27] But a closer analysis shows that Iqbal is not denying the immediacy of sense-perception but rather trying to show the relative importance of analysis in the two types of consciousness. The rational consciousness specializes in analysis and synthesis but in the mystic consciousness all the diverse stimuli run into one another forming a single unanalysable unity in which the ordinary distinction of subject and object does not exist.[28] The distinction between the discursive and intuitive consciousness as regards the apprehension of part and whole has also been brought out by H. H. Price.

“In discursive consciousness, there is a passage of the mind from one item to another related item, for instance, from a subject to a concept under which we classify it, or from premises to conclusion...And when we have discursive consciousness of a whole or complex of any sort (as in counting) although the whole may be vaguely present to the mind from the first, yet definite consciousness of the whole comes after consciousness of the parts. In intuitive conscious­ness, on the other hand, consciousness of the whole comes before definite consciousness of the parts. And there is no passage of the mind; whatever we intuit is present all at once. We might say that intuitive consciousness is ‘totalistic’, not ‘progressive’ or ‘additive”[29]

(d) Intuitive experience is objective. Iqbal thinks it is erroneous to think that the mystic state is “a mere retirement into the mists of pure subjectivity.”[30] The mystic, for instance, experiences God or the Ultimate Reality as both immanent and transcendent. He or she is in direct communion with the ‘Other’ and momentarily loses consciousness of himself or herself as a distinct and private personality.[31] But he or she emerges from his or her experience possessing “a Supreme Richness-unspeakable Concreteness-overwhelming Aliveness, having been a witness to the Being which gives Becoming all its worth.”[32]

Iqbal compares the objectivity of intuitive experience with the objectivity of social experience. We know other minds only by inference and yet “the knowledge that the individual before us is a conscious being floods our mind as an immediate experience.”[33] One test of the objectivity of our social experience is that other persons respond to us. Iqbal bases the objectivity of religious experience on the testimony of the Qar’an that God responds to our call.

“And your Lord saith, call me and I respond to your call” (40:62); “And when My servants ask thee concerning Me, then I am nigh into them and answer the cry of him that crieth unto Me.” (21:182)[34]

Iqbal advances another argument to substantiate the claim that religious experience which is based on intuition is objective. The very fact the religious life is divided into periods indicates that like the student of the scientific methods, the practical student of religious psychology learns to sift experience critically in order to eliminate all subjective elements, psychological, in the content of his or her experience with a view finally to reach what is absolutely objective.[35]

To meet the charge that intuitive experience is purely subjective, Iqbal points out a number of times that intuition is not a faculty of knowledge qualitatively distinct from reason of perception, but rather is a quality which is implicit in cognition at every level.[36]Thus while intuition is feeling, this does not mean that it is purely subjective since feeling itself has cognitive, content as Bradley and Whitehead have shown.[37] .Iqbal points out that reflection on the character of our knowledge of our self, shows that human beings rise from the intuition of the finite self of the awareness of life as a centralizing ego and the ultimate experience of God as a universal, unifying, telic power.[38]

(e)         Intuitive experience is incommunicable. One of the most oft-repeated objections to intuitive experience is that being incommunicable, its reality cannot really be established. To this objection Evelyn Underhill is likely to reply:

“If expressibility be indeed the criterion of the real, as some philosophers have dared to suggest-and this leads us to the strange spectable of a Real World laboriously keeping pace with the expanding vocabulary of man-not only our mystical but out highest aesthetic and passional experiences, must be discredited; for it is notorious that in all these supreme ways of human knowing and feeling, only a part of that which is apprehended can be expressed; and that the more completed and soul-satisfying the experience the more its realization approximates to the mystic’s silence where all lovers lose themselves.”[39]

In Iqbal’s viewpoint the incommunicability or inexpressibility of mystic experience is due to the fact that it is essentially a matter of inarticulate feeling, untouched by discursive intellect.[40] But intuitive experience has a cognitive content which can be translated into idea. Feeling is outward-pushing as idea is outward reporting.[41] The mystic reports not directly but through symbols and “the wonder surely is not that there reports tell so little; but-when we consider our human situation and resources-that they tell so much. The reports are always oblique, but so are the reports of all artists; of whom it is probably true to say that the greater the aesthetic values which they seek to communicate, the more oblique is the method involved.”[42]

(f) In Iqbal’s opinion, intuitive experience reveals Reality as an eternal ‘now’ and reveals the unreality of the serial character of time and space.[43] “All intense religious experience-more than this, all experience in which transcendental feeling is involved-appears to be accompanied by a marked slowing-down of consciousness, a retreat to some deeper levels of apprehension where reality is experienced not merely as succession but as existence; a genuine escape from the tyranny of ‘clock-time’, though not a transcendence of duration.”[44] According to Iqbal this state does not abide although it gives a sense of overwhelming authority to those who have experienced it. Both the mystic and the prophet return to levels of ordinary experience, but for Iqbal the return of the prophet is of greater meaning than that of the mystic.[45]

(j) Mystic experience springs from the ‘heart’ but it is not qualita­tively different from ‘normal’ experience. Iqbal believes that the seat of intuition is the ‘heart’ “which in the beautiful words of Rumi, feeds on the rays of the sun and brings us into contact with aspects of Reality other than those open to sense-perception."[46] Professor Nicholson tells that in mystic thought, “the qalb, though connected in some mysterious way with the physical heart, is not a thing of flesh and blood. Unlike the English ‘heart’ its nature is rather intellectual than emotional, but whereas the intellect cannot gain real knowledge of God, the qalb is capable of knowing the essences of all things, and when illuminated by faith and knowledge reflects the whole content of the divine mind, hence the Prophet said, ‘My Earth and My Heaven contain Me not, but the heart of My faithful servant contains Me!" [47]

Iqbal does not regard intuitive experience as ‘mysterious’. It is “a mode of dealing with Reality in which sensation, in the physiological sense of the word does not play any part. Yet the vista of experience thus opened to us is as real and concrete as any other experience.”[48] Iqbal differs from William James whom he interprets as saying that religious experience is completely unconnected with normal experience and non-deducible by analogy from other sorts of experience since it refers to a wider spiritual environment which the ordinary, prudential self cannot enter.[49] Iqbal extends the sphere of normal experience to cover mystic experience since what-ever be the mode of knowledge, it is the same Reality which operates on us.[50]

(h) Intuitive experience reveals life as centralizing ego. It makes us aware of “the simple fact of experience that life is not a formless fluid, but an organizing principle of unity, a synthetic activity which holds together and focalizes the dispersing dispositions of the living organism for a constructive purpose.”[51] The intellect tries to reduce the rich variety of experience to a concept, but intuition does not proceed by universalization and as a consequence is able to reveal the true character of concrete things, namely, that every living entity coverages upon an egohood.[52] Like the existentialists Iqbal holds that the intuitive consciousness grasps Reality not in an abstract theoretical way but in a decisively personal manner.[53] This “intuitive insight into individual essence” has been aptly described by Mr. Roth writing on the philosophy of Spinoza, “Abstract recognition passes into concrete appreciation. Man is then conscious of nature as a unity, but does not as before from the outside. He feels it in himself; he under stands its wholeness in and from his own being. He thus not only contemplates externally the ways of the universe in which, like everything else, he is caught up. He not only sees himself as one item in the detail controlled by an all-embracing cosmic order. Nature for him is more than an abstract whole of general laws. It is a concrete system of self-directing individualities. He knows himself in it as an individual, and realizes his place in it among other individuals. He grasps both himself and things, not in their universal aspect only, but in their unique singularity.”[54]

REASON AND INTUITION

The dependence of Reason upon Intuition: Intuition is opposed to demonstration in that it needs no proof and is a single act while reasoning is a complicated process. But reason cannot function with-out intuition. All demonstration starts with propositions which are themselves incapable of proof. Plato had believed that it was possible to have innate knowledge of universal ideas. “Knowledge of truth, he would have said, is acquired by metaphysical intuition, and the function of logic or scientific methods is then deductive.”[55] Not only does all reasoning begin with intuitions, intuition is operative continuously throughout every process of reasoning, since every step in the reasoning, taken by itself, is an intuition, self-evident and needing no external justification.[56] It has been said that the necessity of intuitive experience lies in the principle that we discover new truths neither by logic nor by scientific investigation, but by reaching out beyond the given, grasping the new thoughts, as it were, in the dark, and only afterwards consolidating them by means of reasoned proof. [57] Iqbal writes of the intellect’s indebtedness to intuition.

[58](Payam-e-Mashriq, p. 156)

Pointing out the different ways in which thought and intuition operate and also their interrelatedness, Iqbal said, “the one grasps Reality piecemeal. The other grasps it in its wholeness. The one is present enjoyment of the whole Reality; the other aims at traversing the whole by slowly specifying and closing up the various regions of the whole for exclusive observation.[59] Now, an act of reason is a process which occupies a considerable stretch of time. The question arises; how does the thinker hold together the successive moments of his thought? At the end of a process of reasoning there is a conclusion but it depends for its truth and meaning on what was revealed in the course of the process. It is intuition. “in its characteristic, function of making possible the keeping of a whole in mind,’’[60] which enables the thinker to hold together in his mind all the steps of the process. J.L. Stocks observes.

“We cannot suppose that the thinker, as he proceeds to each new proposition, remembers all the propositions which he has previously asserted, and it is equally impossible that he has forgotten them: he has them, evidently, in some real sense in mind. As propositions, as assertions, they are dead and gone; but their work remains. Each proposition, as it is asserted, has its felt source and confirmation in an intuition of the relevant whole, and contributes something to the development of the intuition, so that, when the development is fruitful, other assertions are possible there-after which were not possible before.”[61]

It is implicit in Iqbal’s thought that reasoning is not an autonomous, self-directing power, but dependent on intuition (or what he calls ‘Love’ as in his poetry) if it is to possess real value and validity. A philosophy which is not based on ‘intuition’ is lifeless.

[62] (Zarb-e-Kalim, p. 37)

He rejects reason which does not recognize intuitions

[63](Zabur-e-’Ajam, p. 161)

Spinoza had described intuitive knowledge as the goal of thought and “the function of reasoning may in fact be described without inaccuracy as precisely the development of intuition.”[64] Iqbal approves whole-heartedly of ‘reason’ which has ‘intuition’ as its goal

[65]( Javid Nama, p. 222)

The dependence of intuition upon Reason

Iqbal states that intuition and thought-rejuvenate each other.[66] The Ego grasps Reality both by means of intuition and intellect.

[67] (Zabur-e-’Ajam, p. 2)

In his Lectures, Iqbal supports Ghazzali’s view that intellectual discipline ought to precede intuitive insight.[68]

Although the final intuition remains unproven and unprovable, intuition is not a certainty arising from mere inspection to which reason makes and can make no contribution. Although intuition goes beyond reason, it does not exclude intellectual spade-work.

[69] (Bal-e-Jibril, p. 97)

Bergson also states “We do not obtain an intuition from reality that is in intellectual sympathy with the most inmost intimate part of it - unless we have won confidence by a long fellowship with its superficial manifestations.”[70]

Iqbal would not have subscribed to a rationalism which stood for the view that the world can be known and life lived by something like a set of geometrical theorems, but if rationalism stood “for the faith that truth, independent of place and position, is attainable to man”[71] then Iqbal would have supported it wholeheartedly. He realized, as Locke and Mill had done, that “an intuition which claims sacrosanctity and declines the test of reason is… a moral and social offence, a mere misnomer for blind prejudice and crass superstitution.”[72]

Iqbal is very anxious to find in reason an ally for intuitive experience. He says, “Indeed, in view of its function, religion stands in greater need of a rational foundation of its ultimate principles than even the dogmas of science. Science may ignore a rational metaphysics; indeed, it has ignored it so far. Religion can hardly afford to ignore the search for a reconciliation of the oppositions of experience and a justification of the environment in which humanity finds itself.”[73] Iqbal states clearly that as regions of normal experience are subject to interpretation of sense--data for our knowledge of the external world, so the region of mystic experience is subject to interpretation for our knowledge of God.[74] In one sense, then, reason is the interpreter of intuitive experience, and “philosophy has jurisdiction to judge religion.”[75] But, as Iqbal points out, religion has no need to be afraid of reason which call give only a sectional view of Reality.[76] It can find room within its “universe that thinks and knows” for all values, whether scientific, asethetic, ethical or mystical, finding in the transcendent the worth and meaning of the immanent, and in the immanent a graded revelation of the transcendent.[77]

The relationship and relative importance of Reason and Intuition

At the very outset of his Lectures, Iqbal states that there is no reason “to suppose that thought and intuition are essentially opposed to each other.”[78] More has been written on the apparent conflict between reason and intuition (or between “aql” or “ilm” and “ishq” in Iqbal’s works than on any other aspect of his thought. Yet, there is no doubt that “as a philosopher… Iqbal has given intellect its full right besides the intuitional experience.”[79] He went solar as to say that “thought and intuition are organically related.”[80] If Reason and Intuition are organically related, it follows that neither can function alone but both must operate together.[81] In its deeper movement thought becomes almost identical with intuition (which, following Bergson, Iqbal describes as a higher kind of intellect.[82] In its narrower sense, reason may be contrasted with intuition, but only in the way in which analysis-synthesis may be opposed as complementary processes within a developing whole of thought.[83] The basic relationship between reason and intuition remains unaltered, since intuition, “is always found in intimate relation to the reasoning process, never in sheer opposition to it.”[84]

I throughout his writings Iqbal am anxious to show that there is no bifurcation between the temporal and spiritual aspects of life. If intuition and reason are completely unrelated and if intuition alone can reach Ultimate Reality, then reason has to be left behind. In some places Iqbal says precisely that this should be so

[85](Bal-e-Jibril, p. 119)

But in fact, one of the chief aims of Iqbal’s philosophy is to show “that neither the world nor thought should be left behind.”[86] His ideal is to unite Reason and Intuition, Power and Love, State and Religion

[87](Zabur-e-’Ajam, p. 210)

Both reason and intuition are necessary for the fulfilment of human destiny. Both must be employed to grasp the fulness of life. “To see the self only in the state of concentrating its power, of making itself a pearl or diamond, is as wrong as to see it exclusively in its exterior activity.”[88] In “Gulshan-e-Raz-e-Jadid” Iqbal tells us that it is sinful to see the world “with one eye”

[89] (Zabur-e-’Ajam, p. 208)

Iqbal tries to show that there is something in common between reason and intuition (or Love)

[90](Zabur-e-’Ajam p. 36)

or between intuition and reason

[91] (Pas Che Bayad Kard Ai Aqwam-e-Sharq? p. 4)

Perfect knowledge - that which unites reason and intuition-destroys the idols which stand in the way of the attainment of Ultimate Reality

[92] (Zarb-e-Kalim, p. 19)

And so Iqbal says

[93] (Zabur-e-`Ajam, p. 217)

“Bergson’s Message” is in ‘fact his own too

[94] (Payam-e-Mashriq, p. 247)

Iqbal has criticized Ghazzali for abandoning Reason and regarding mystic intuition as the only true source of the knowledge of Ultimate Reality. When everything has been said about Iqbal’s defence of reason (as against Bergson for instance) and the importance he gave to it, his fundamental position is, at least in one sense, not very different from Ghazzali’s. As Professor Whittemore remarks,

“At the heart of Iqbal’s philosophy lies the existen­tialist conviction that Reality is inexpressible purely in terms of reason and science. This is not to deny the import of these latter. Whatever view of Man, Universe and God we ultimately arrive at, it must, Iqbal thinks, be one in which the data of science are accounted for, one in which the demands of reason for coherence are met. Yet below and above the level of science there is that which man knows simply because he feels it and intuits it.”[95]

Bergson too had felt that there is something in the universe analogous to the creative spirit of the poet, a living, pushing force, an elan vital which eludes the mathematical intelligence and can be apprecia­ted only by a kind of divining sympathy or a feeling which approaches nearer to the essence of things than reason.[96]

Iqbal holds, then (with Bergson, Bradley, Whitehead, Ibn ‘Arabi, Ghazzali, Rumi and others) that it is through intuition that the Ultimate is known. The experience which leads to this gnosis is not a “conceptually manageable intellectual fact; it is a vital fact, an attitude consequent on inner categories.”[97] Whitehead calls this vital way “transmutation” and Bradley refers to it as the transformation involved in the passage from the relational to the super-relational level of experience.[98] Iqbal, following the Qor’an calls it “Iman” which is not merely a passive belief in one or more pro-positions of a certain kind, it is a living assurance begotten of a rare experience.”[99] It is “Iman” which makes the reader of the Book into the Book itself

[100] (Zarb-e-Kalim, p. 57)

Contrast between Reason and intuition (Love) in Iqbal’s Poetry Perhaps the most common contrast in Iqbal’s poetry is between “ishq” and “aqI”. Scientific knowledge is equated with aql’ and mystic knowledge with “ishq’. The former is usually associated with the West and the latter with the East.

In Iqbal’s verse the use of both Reason’ and 'Love’ is very wide. His poetry illustrates Evelyn Underhill’s observation that Love “as applied to the mystics is to be understood in its deepest fullest sense; as the ultimate expression of the self’s most vital tendencies, not as the superficial affection or emotion often dignified by this name. It is a condition of humble access, a life-movement of the self: more direct in its methods, more valid in its results - even in the hands of the least lettered of its adepts than the most piercing intellectual vision of the greatest philosophical mind.”[101]

Underlying Iqbal’s poetry is the idea that the world yields its secret only to one who sees with the eyes of Love:

[102](Payam-e-Mashirq, p.178)

The Poet explains the difference between scientific and mystic experience in Javid Nama.

[103] (Javid Nama, pp. 133-134)

Iqbal often refers to intellect as “the wayside lamp” which shows the way to the destination but cannot give knowledge of the Ultimate

[104] (Bal-e- J fibril, p. 120)

The Poet is inspired by Love and so he has a more direct and intimate access to Reality than the metaphysician[105]

[106](Payam-e-Mashriq, p. 122)

Knowledge which is not incandescent with love and remains a star to its travails, is of no avail[107]

[108] (Bal-e- Jibril, p. 83}

Reason can yield only “Khabar” (knowledge) and cannot lead to “Nazar” (vision)

[109](Bal-e-Jibril, p.65)

The seeker, needs something more than mere information

[110](Bal-e-Jibril, p..70)

And so he protests

[111] (Javid Nama, p. 5)

Iqbal calls the intellect “a question” and Love “the answer”

[112] (Zarb-e-Kalim, p. 13)

The ‘heart’ (“dil”) says to the ‘mind’ (“aql”).

[113] (Bang-e-Dara, p. 26)

The mind insists that vision of God is impossible, and yet Love prays hopefully

[114] (Payam-e-Mashriq, p. 30)

Compared with the treasures hidden in the ocean of Love, the intellect has very little to offer

[115] (Payam-e-Mashriq, p. 203)

Reason gives power but it cannot answer some fundamental auestions.

[116] (Zarb-e-Kalim, p. 78)

and so the exhortation comes

[117] (Bal-e-Jibril, p.48)

An idea found often in Iqbal’s poetry is that it is Love and not Reason which lead to life-giving and life-renewing action.

[118] (Zabur-e-`Ajam, p. 218)

And so the Poet urges

[119] (Bal-e-Jibril„ p. 57)

Rational Knowledge is a sheath without a sword.

[120] (Bal-e-Jibril, p. 17)

For a seeker of knowledge, Iqbal prays that he may learn to understand what lies beyond the superficial meaning of words

[121] (Zarb-e-Kalim, p. 81)

Love “flies into me Divine Presence”[122] unlike reason which noves through the crooked paths of secondary causes.

[123] (‘avid Nama, p. 179)

Love, on the other hand, is not circumscribed by anything, and works like lightning.

[124] (javid Nama, p. 17)

Reason is cautious and fearful and proceeds slowly. Love is audacious and proceeds unhesitatingly- bold in manner and unswerving in resolve

[125] (Javid Nama, p. 139)

One significant difference between Reason and Love is that the former is calculating and cowardly but the latter risks all without fear

[126] (Bang-e-Dara, p. 312)

To the West (which Iqbal identified with the cold, loveless Intellect) Iqbal sent this message

[127] (Payam-e-Mashriq, p. 225)

And because Love is “more brave than Intellect” the Poet writes

[128] (Zarb-e-Kalim, p. 71)

Iqbal “struggles mercilessly against that Intellect which is separated from Love.”[129] Wisdom comes only through suffering or “soz (a synonym for Love) and the Poet prefers such wisdom to analytic knowledge.

[130]( Zabur-e-Ajam, p. 32)

The Intellect is waylaid by a thousand doubts but Love pursues its objective with single-minded dedication

[131] (Payam-e-Mashriq, p. 194)

Iqbal regards loveless Intellect as being allied to Satan and forces of evil, of magic and idolatry. In Payam-e-Mashriq he quotes Rumi’s famous line “From Satan Logic and from Adam Love.”[132] In Javid Nama he writes

[133] Javid Nama, pp: 82-83)

Iqbal often refers to the Mind as a creator of Idols, and to Love as the destroyer of these idols

[134] (Zabur-e-’Ajam, p. 108)

This motif pervades Iqbal’s whole work. Often Abraham is shown breaking the idols of his father. Love is a real ‘Muslim’ because it only worships the One, whereas Reason still wears the ‘Zannar’-the Magian’s Girdle-”which means not only that it creates new idols before which ignorant people prostrate themselves but also that it is still limited by the spell of serial time which hinders man from grasping the fulness of Divine time.”[135] The thought is repeated in lines such as these.

[136] (Bal-e- J ibril’, p. 4)

Love, in effect, becomes the criterion for faith

[137] (Bal-e- Jibril, p. 54)

Iqbal is unhappy over the fact that modern education does not teach the value of Love but insists on the supremacy of reason

[138] (Asrar-e-Khudi, p. 77)

Only Love can lead to vision, to the true realization of a person’s deepest self

 [139](Javid Nama, pp. 4-5)

Reason can conquer only the visible world, but Love is more ambitious

[140] (David Nama, p. 9)

And if human beings are constant in love, they can capture even’ God Himself

[141] (Asrar-e-Khudi, p. 23)

Love lives on, though Reason dies

[142] (Bang-e-Dara, p. 163)

The embodiments of Love are not subject to decay. The Mosque at Cordoba, for instance, is a work of art created with love and faith, and so it lasts while generations of human beings pass away. The whole poem- one of the most beautiful in all Iqbal’s work- is a poem on the potency and efficacy of Love

[143] (Bal-e-Jibril, p. 129)

Perhaps one of the best known contrasts between Reason and Love occurs in ‘Rumuz-e-Bekhudi where Iqbal sums up what he considers to be the chief differences between the two modes of apprehending Reality

[144] (Rumuz-e-Bekhudi, pp. 125-126)

OFFPRINTS

contributors of articles to the Iqbal Review are supplied five offprints of their articles by the Academy If more than five offprints are required, this may please be stated, in red ink, on the first page of the article, even if a request has been made in the letter accompany­ing the article. These will be printed and the cost will be adjusted against their remuneration.

Editor, Iqbal Review