The Madani–Iqbal debate was a debate between Islamic scholars of 20th century British India, Hussain Ahmad Madani and Muhammad Iqbal, on the question of nationalism in the late 1930s. Madani's position throughout the debate was to insist on the Islamic legitimacy of embracing a culturally plural, secular democracy as the best and the only realistic future for India's Muslims whereas Iqbal insisted on a religiously defined, homogeneous Muslim society. Madani and Iqbal both appreciated this point and they never advocated the creation of an absolute Islamic state. They differed only in their first step. According to Madani, the first step was the freedom of India for which composite nationalism was necessary. According to Iqbal, the first step was the creation of a community of Muslims in the Muslim-majority land.
Concept of Nationalism Muhammad Iqbal Iqbal's concept of nationalism is part of his overall discourse on Western civilisation. Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. According to Iqbal, popular Western political ideologies should not be accepted by Muslims, no matter how progressive and humanistic they appear, for these political ideologies are rooted in the fundamentally profane and secular spirit of the modern Western civilisation. The West has gone through a specific experience after the reformation. These ideologies are the product of specific time, place, and historical circumstances. The genesis and evolution of these ideas should be carefully studied by Muslims. Muslim civilisation, on the other hand, has its own unique ideals and visions. Muslims should therefore construct their own concepts in order to understand themselves and the nature of their mission in history. They cannot truly understand themselves through the categories developed by the West. Blindly accepting these categories will distort the self-image of Muslims and this will be the continuation of slavery and colonialism.
In order to develop his thesis on nationalism, Iqbal drew on various western thinkers, including Sir Arthur Keith and Lord Acton. Sir Arthur Keith centers the notion of nationalism on racial and tribal identities and therefore, the division of mankind into nation-states, according to him, was against the Zeitgeist. Lord Acton was a harsh critic of the nationalism ideologies and the institution of nation-states. He simply declared nationalism as the pursuit of insanity. According to him, the modern state is totalitarian and therefore, oppressive. Secondly, he regarded nationalism as incompatible with Catholicism and modern nation-states, as it is bound to subjugate religion.
Iqbal was fully aware of European history and the development of political modernity. There are two fundamental assumptions in political modernity. Firstly, political modernity assumes a political space that is independent of religious and private space. Secondly, ‘nation’ is defined as a basic political unit. John Stuart Mill, for example, observes that the presence of diverse and heterogeneous national groups can hinder the development of free institutions in a polity. According to Max Weber, this ‘political space’ lacks in traditional Muslim societies and that explains why capitalism and modern political institutions failed in developing in the Muslim world. Iqbal was skeptical of the highly centralised and totalitarian nature of modern nation-states. Nationalism and modern nation-states thus can never be compatible with the spirit of Islam which has a unique vision about the destiny of man, Iqbal claimed.
According to Iqbal, nationalism in Europe was the result of the reformation movement led by Martin Luther. The Catholic Church, despite being corrupt, was providing a common moral force to the entirety of Europe. Although not consciously intended, one of the consequences of the Lutheran movement was the loss of the common moral force which was transformed into a central religious authority. Multiple churches appeared in place of the Catholic Church under the broad Lutheran or Protestant umbrella, and this phenomenon provided Europe with the exact conditions for the rise of various rival nationalities. Enlightenment thinkers, like Rousseau and Voltaire, further diluted the moral force of religion by attacking the institution and the dogma of the Church. This was the historical and intellectual backdrop of the rise of nationalism in Europe. That is the reason Iqbal's concept of freedom from the British is not just limited to the end of British rule in India. He is more concerned about intellectual slavery in the form of the continuation of Western ideologies and political institutions. In his presidential address at the All India Muslim Conference in 1932, he categorically stated:
According to Iqbal, Islam as a moral force cannot be reduced to the private sphere of individuals only, as it is also the cornerstone of modern nationalism, which would eventually lead to atheism and thus the common thread amongst the citizens of modern nation-states will be their ‘irreligiousness.’ Iqbal also emphasised the works of Hegel (1770–1831), a famous German philosopher, who highlighted the spiritual character of nations. Thus, Iqbal thinks that only religion and faith can provide secure foundations for a social order. Nationalism weakens this foundation which is a loss for the social organism and humanity. He thinks that this is exactly the principal mission of Islam: to break the idols of race, color, and nationality.
Islam, according to Iqbal, presents a unique relationship between the individual and society. The formulation of the relationship between the individual and society is one of the main questions of any social order. Iqbal sought to explain this relationship in his two famous mystical poems The Secrets of the Self and The Secrets of Selflessness. In The Secrets of the Self, stages and conditions for the development of Khudi (higher Self) in an individual are discussed, while in The Secrets of Selflessness he emphasises the potential of this higher Self (Khudi), which could only be actualised when an individual becomes a member of society. Thus, it is through a human group, community, or society, that an individual nourishes or enlightens their soul. But this is possible only when social order itself is based on spiritual ideals.
Iqbal considers Ummah as a spiritual community that helps with the transformation and development of this Self. It is known that there was a paradigm shift in Iqbal's discourse on nationalism. According to Shahid Rasheed and Humaira Ahmad:
But later, Iqbal revisited his views after a thorough study and in-depth analysis of the philosophical outlook and the historical movements which paved the way for nationalism in Europe. Iqbal declared nationalism as an enemy of Islam in the later stages of his life. He, through his poetry and prose, said that humanity cannot unite by first dividing it into rival nations and then creating a league of nations. That is why he was critical of the League of Nations. In his poem "Makkah and Geneva" he says:
Iqbal also placed nationhood in the Islamic paradigm rather than in territory, language, or culture. He clearly observes: "It is not the unity of language, or country, or identity, or economic interest, that constitutes the basic principle of our nationality. It is because we believe in a certain view of the universe and participate in the same historical tradition that we are members of the society founded by the Prophet of Islam."
Iqbal differentiates between patriotism and nationalism. While patriotism can be a natural sentiment towards one's motherland, nationalism is a modern political ideology emerging from an atheistic and imperialistic worldview. In his address at the annual session of the All India Muslim Conference in 1932, Iqbal clearly stated:
He declared "Wataniyat" as an idol carved by Western imperialism and wanted to replace this Wataniyat with the love of Watan in a Prophetic tradition. In the Prophetic parlance, watan is completely different from the political meaning of the word watan.
Iqbal's discourse on nationalism is distinct not only from modernists but also from many traditional ulama, who were active in the political struggle against the British rule. Modernists, like Chiragh Ali (1844–1895) and Syed Ameer Ali (1849–1928), were ready to fully embrace the Western political paradigm. These scholars struggled to prove that the spirit of Islam was fully compatible with the political ideals and structures of the modern West.
Deobandi ulama's discourse on nationalism, however, is rooted fundamentally in their political struggle against colonial rule. They were more pragmatic in their approach to the political realities of Muslim India. Hussain Ahmad Madani, arguably, is the most important figure out of these ulama. Different public debates or discourses between Muhammad Iqbal and Maulana Madani over the meaning and interpretation of nationalism have been explored by scholars and researchers.
Some serious difficulties have arisen in understanding Iqbal due to the ‘nationalisation’ of Iqbal as a philosopher and poet. State narratives have oversimplified the complexity and profundity of Iqbal's political vision. This is also true in the case of literary criticism of Iqbal's works. Pakistani historian K. K. Aziz has struggled to explain that Iqbal's famous Allahabad Address does not mean the creation of a separate homeland for Indian Muslims. Here Iqbal is not against Hindu-Muslim unity or alliance for a greater cause, but he emphasises that such unity or alliance should not be understood as a composite Indian nation. Muslims can and should cooperate with Hindus but this cooperation is like the alliance of Muslims with the Jews of Madina through Mithaq-e-Madina. Muslims are not a language or race. Iqbal's concept of nationalism is fundamentally non-territorial. Iqbal does not seek a territory for a Muslim nation. He wants to awaken the consciousness of Muslims, that they should know their historic role in the unfolding of human history. His theory is a critique of the idea of nation-states. Humanity divided amongst rival nations is a disaster for mankind.
The force, according to Iqbal, that can unite mankind is Tawheed, as the unity of God leads to the unity of mankind. Iqbal's theory, in fact, is too grand and universal to be reduced to just a call for a separate homeland of Pakistan. Iqbal himself seems aware of this misinterpretation of his ideas. In a letter to Edward John Thompson in 1934, Iqbal writes:
However, many scholars, including S. Q. Fatimi, Manzooruddin Ahmad, and Ahmad Hasan Dani argue that Iqbal moved from Islamic universalism to Pakistani nationalism.
Hussain Ahmad Madani