Talk:Muhammad Iqbal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Muhammad Iqbal article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
Featured article star Muhammad Iqbal is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 19, 2006.
Peer review This page has been selected for Version 0.5 and the release version of Wikipedia. It has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale. It is in the category LangLit.

Contents

[edit] Iqbal and the Ahmadiyya

The paragraph about Iqbal and the Ahmadiyya movement read.

Another influence in his life and his family was with Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian, to whom he became a great admirer as well as Sir Sayed Ahmad Khan. Iqbal's brother Shaikh Ata Muhammad joined the Ahmadiyya Movement of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad first, and Iqbal made his pledge in 1897. He had defended Ahmadiyya before and after this event.

This is often controvertial issue between Ahmadiyya, Qadians and other Muslim groups, each of whom say that Iqbal was on their side. Here is an excerpt from Allama Iqbal reply to a set articles published by awaharlal Nehru on the Issue of Qadianis.

"The cultural value of the idea of Finality in Islam I have fully explained elsewhere. Its meaning is simple : No spiritual surrender to any human being after Muhammad who emancipated his followers by giving them a law which is realizable as arising from the very core of human conscience. Theologically the doctrine is that : The Socio-political organization called "Islam" is perfect and eternal. No revelation the denial of which entils heresy is possible after Muhammad. He who claims such a revelation is a traitor to Islam. Since the Qadinis believe the founder of the Ahmadiyya movement to be the bearer of such a revelation, they declare that the entire world of Islam is infidel. The founder's own argument, quite worthy of a mediaeval theologian, is that the spirituality of the Holy Prophet of Islam must be regarded as imperfect if it is not vreative of another Prophet. He claims his own Prophethood to be an evidence of the Prophet-rearing power of the spirituality of the Holy Prophet of Islam. But if you further ask him whether the spirituality of Muhammad is capable of rearing more prophets than one, his answer is "No." This virtually amounts to saying : 'Muhammad is not the last Prophet ; I am the last."

Deleted a few lines regarding Iqbal's allegience to Ahmadiyya Movement since the evidence regarding is inconclusive at best. Also removed a line regarding the position of the other branch of the movemnet and their stance on Kashmir since their stance is irrelevant to the topic at hand.--Vonaurum 06:42, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)


can you provide a permanent link to the above paragraph, this can serve as a permanent point to resolver future disputes of similar nature that may arrise, and they will. I have found this paragraph here: http://alhafeez.org/rashid/Iqbal.htm that seems an article written by Allama Iqbal himself. --digitalSurgeon 06:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Historical Facts:

As the article in question should contain historically correct material, Iqbal's affiliation and subsequent Alienation from Ahmadiyya movement should be mentioned. There are all kinds of arguments for and against such "facts", we should bear in mind that Iqbal trusted Mirza Basheerud Deen Mahmood (2nd Khalifatul Maseeh) and supported his appointement as the Chairman of Kashmir Committee. Kashmir Committee being a milestone in the struggle for indepence of Kashmir. § Lutf--Khokhar976 14:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Posted this link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35Ap_up92Ew

Not sure why it is being deleted from the external links. Khokhar976 15:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grandfather's migration

The article presented one side of the story regarding the migration of his grandfather from Kashmir, added the other side of the story to give a NPOV. --Vonaurum 19:44, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Family

Ramesh Kumar's thesis on Iqbal's ancestry was added to the article which is however rejected by most other scholars. In recent years different conflicting theories have come about regarding the events concerning the conversion of Iqbal's Family. Anyway this is not really relevent to the article at hand so I am going to delete it anyway and stick to the most widely accepted theory on the event. Additionally the theory implies that Sheikh Nur Muhammad was Ratan lal which is extremely unlikely since there is enough documented evidence regarding the involvement of Sheikh Nur Muhammad in religious circles of Sialkot in his youth to discredit the theory.--Vonaurum 06:50, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Can't we keep the alternative theories there--if only to show what different people have opined and which one is most likely true?—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 18:50, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

For this suggestion I recommend that we start a new article on "Family Background of Iqbal" so that the current article does not degrade into discussions regarding theories about Iqbal's family which just keeps attention from Iqbal the person. So I am sarting a new article on that which presents three theories with the deleted text added.--Vonaurum 21:29, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't like the notion of a separate article. In so far as this is a suitable topic for an encyclopedia, warranting more than a brief mention, it should be part of the main article. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:32, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I put the information in a seperate article since it was starting to look as if the current article is less about Iqbal and more about his family. Another problem is that most of these theories are ideologically motivated so its best to concentrate on the person but in order to give an equal opportunity for contradicting viewpoints on Iqbal's family origin I moved the stuff into the new article.--Vonaurum 23:14, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I noticed an ambuigity regarding the number of children. In the Family section it says that "The couple instilled a deep religious consciousness in all their five children." while the the youth section it says that "The couple had three children." I am personally not that knowledgable on Iqbal's family structure so request that could somebody please see and correct the figures. Thanks.

[edit] The Promise

There seems to be scant information about the "promise" in sources pertaining to Iqbal and it also violates NPOV.

         "In spite of a promise he made to his father-- that he would not make any profit out of his poetry--he sold copies of them and used the proceeds to supplement his small income."

[edit] Persian

The follwoing is incorrect since it implies that writing in Persian is easier than in Urdu. The genre of Urdu poetry is heavily influenced by Persian poetry. Plus Persian poetry is known for using complex or elaborate schemes. The sentence almost degrades the Persian language and hence does not represent NPOV. The main reason for switching to Persian was because it allowed him to reach to a wider audience, namely people in Iran and Afghanistan.

         "While in Europe he also began to write his poetry in Persian, because it was easier to write in than Urdu."

--Vonaurum 03:53, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Worth looking into, but at that time, most Urdu poets also wrote in Persian—and considered it a higher form than Urdu. And I say this as a lover of Urdu.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 21:30, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
That is a good point too. Plus Iqbal's own contributions to Urdu were significant (though he did make the conscious effort) in replacing Persian with Urdu as the language of the arts in Colonial India. --Vonaurum 06:54, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think Iqbal wrote poetry in Persian to reach larger audience not because some language was easy or difficult, this is Iqbal we are talking here for him urdu, persian would be the same. --digitalSurgeon 06:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Pakistan Movement"

Needs more info on his political activities after returning to "India".—iFaqeer (Talk to me!)

[edit] Suggestion to Restructure

The manner in which the article is structred at the moment seems to be the following the standard template on essays regarding Iqbal from a Pakistani textbook even though the content is not from there. I suggest that at least some parts of the article, if not the whole thing be retructured and more emphasis should be placed on Iqbal's ideas. --Vonaurum 08:15, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Chasm-e-maa roshan, dil-e-maa shaad*, Von A. And I am not just saying "So do it!". Some times, if you don't have the bandwidth to do it yourself, post an outline on this page so that others can help. That's the beauty of Wikis!
—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 18:15, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
*Translation: "That makes my eyes light up and my heart happy." (Persian)

[edit] Expand ideas section

I concur with Vonaurum. The section on Iqbal's philosophical ideas and influences should be tidied up and expanded. I would recommend involving an expert on Iqbalian philosophy to revise this section, if possible. See the site http://www.allamaiqbal.com/ for lists of sources for further detail and analysis of Allama Iqbal's philosophy. One idea that should definitely be examined is what exactly did Iqbal mean when he advocated the idea of "Pakistan."

[edit] Why the Iqbal redirect?

[1]--Greasysteve13 12:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of scholars

I've removed this for a number of reasons. First, it's not clear what is meant by "scholar"; anyone who's written on Iqbal? Just those who meet a certain (unstated) criterion? Secondly, is it possible for such an (open-ended) list to be complete? Thirdly, such a list is in any case not really appropriate for an encyclopædia article like this (I don't know of a similar list in any other comparable article). What does it offer the reader? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Iqbal studies or Iqbaliat is a complete subject and people are doing PhDs all over the world on the thaughts and works of Iqbal. I didn't include this in 'see also', I rather wanted to start a list of notable scholars on Iqbal. Eventally this would go to separate article. The listed scholars are not just any scholars but the people closely assicated with Iqbal. Therefore, I still think that for time being there is no harm in leaving this list there. Thanks --Falcon007 17:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Moreover, I agree with most of your points. I believe that a separate category is needed for this list, but it will take time. The whole idea was to catch the attention of regular contributors so that they can eventually expand on it. Considering that still many people don't know about wikipedia, its important to have this list on the main page. Thanks --Falcon007 17:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't really see that such a list is encyclopædic, I'm afraid, and it would be even less so as a separate article. A mere list of names is singularly uninformative. If any of them is notable enough for an article, then that's fine, and perhaps a Category (Category:Iqbal scholars) would be acceptable. If you still disagree, we can place the article at RfC to get other editors' opinions. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pic of Javid Iqbal

That pic was not of Iqbal but of Javid Iqbal with his maternal uncle Kwaja Abdul Ghani, dated 1931. I have the book Apna Greban Chaak and its in the pic section. I am moving it to Javid Iqbal page. --Falcon007 11:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

What page is that on? Seragenn 09:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iqbal

I am little disturbed why have you reverted my last edit on Iqbal? I am only trying to make it a better article. If you have any problem with any section or part please write it in the talk. I removed some redundent information (like name in persian which was wrong and extra). His birth and other details are to be discussed in his biography as per other articles. Regading his writing Indian national song, its related to the works and can be mentioned there, and please do check similar articles. Thanks --Falcon007 23:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

  • And if you want to know more about his contribution towards Islam in general you can look at his works on Iqbal Academy site or read some articles in Iqbal Review [2], Thanks --Falcon007 23:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
It wasn't clear to me why you thought that the new version was an improvement, but it included a number of changes from good wikilinks to bad (see, for example, the links to languages; there's no article English, as you changed [[English language|English]] to). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Your latest edits have corrected some of these problems, but left others. I've tried to catch all of them, but I'll have another look later. The claim about his being the "spiritual father" of Pakistan was obscure at best (especially as he didn't want to see a separate Pakistani state, but an Islamic state with a federal India). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Hi Mel Etitis, before elaborating on some of the points I must say that I admire your contribution to Iqbal's article and your criticism on certain points would certainly make it a better one.
  • Now regarding his being spirtual father, please see article of Iqbal's contribution to Pakistan movement [3] by Prof. Muhammad Munawwar Mirza, who was an an eminent scholar of Pakistan, although his name is not mentioned but this is from his book, Dimentions of Pakistan movement. Similarly, please check the book Iqbal : The Spiritual Father of Pakistan whose very title is what I wrote. I would not site here all the references but its better if you search "iqbal spiritual father" in google. It is a general opinion not by people in Pakistan but all around the world, and this is how he is remembered.
  • Regarding citation for "the reconstruction of religious thoughts in islam", I will be searching for a relevent one in English, but for time being I am changing it to more relevent in context. Thanks --Falcon007 14:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your replies. My problem with "spiritual father of Pakistan" was mainly that it's not clear what it means. The book that you cite doubtless explains it at length, but if we're going to use the phrase I think that it needs to be explained. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I have included the "Notes" section and we can explain it there, thanks --Falcon007 17:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] changed the note system

I've updated the notes system of this article.

please use this one from now on

to add a reference note

<ref name="id_of_note">[http://URL TEXT_TO_SHOW_AT_THE_NOTES_SECTION]</ref>

--digitalSurgeon 07:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

Hi, what's with the irrelevant, baseless attack by Rama's Arrow:

"Sectarian conflict in Pakistan between Sunni Muslims and Shia Muslims and between the ethnic groups of Punjab and Sind and the Mohajir community in Karachi are seen by a small number of critics as examples of the failings of Islam as a political identity.[24]"

1- Aren't such incidents more common in India? 2- Pakistan has problems, yes, but really how many people believe that these problems are due to "failings of Islam" rather than massive corruption and violence by a minority few?

Rama is taking this thing way too personally. he should chill off, relax and go out to see the sun --digitalSurgeon 15:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


Hi, Rama's Arrow is repeatedly blocking the following sentence:

However, considering present-day India's inter-religious disharmony and without knowledge of whether the situation would have been more peaceful had the Indian subcontinent not been partitioned, such critiques are considered by some to amount to mere speculation.

I genuinely feel that he cannot make the following sweeping, derogatory statement:

"Critics also point to the civil war that led to the secession of East Pakistan in 1971, as well as recent sectarian and religious conflict in Pakistan to suggest that Iqbal's notion of a natural Muslim nation and of Islam as a political, unifying identity was inherently flawed and fanciful"

This needs to put into context. A) India has a lot more inter-religious violence than Pakistan. B) How is that the failing of Islam? How can he make the leap and say that the situation would have been better considering the religious turmoil within India? He cannot just delete other people's edits and ask them to be "civil."

How can one request Wikipedia to remove such people from administrator rights?

--66.25.124.237 23:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
You don't need to request anyone as Rama's Arrow has not been granted admin privileges. Please restrain your comments to the content and not the contributor. --Gurubrahma 08:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Propose changing the intro

I believ the introductory segment of the article has some redundant information and does not progress in order of importance of the fame and recognition associated with Iqbal. For the purpose of a more smoother and flow of emphasis, it probably is better to have the intro as following:

Sir Muhammad Iqbal (Urdu: محمد اقبال, Hindi: मुहम्मद इकबाल) (November 9, 1877–April 21, 1938) was an Indian muslim poet, writer, philosopher, and politician who is one of the most prominent and highly-regarded for his poetic and literary works in Persian and Urdu, and for his work on religious and political philosophy in Islam, and he is credited with first proposing the idea of an independent state for Indian Muslims. He is commonly referred to as Allama Iqbal, where Allama means scholar and is declared the national poet of Pakistan.

Iqbal was a strong proponent of the political and spiritual revival of Islamic civilisation across the world, but specifically in India; a series of famous lectures he delivered to this effect were published as The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam. One of the most prominent leaders of the All India Muslim League, Iqbal served in public office and also president of the League, and in his presidential address would encourage the creation of a "state in northwestern India for Indian Muslims". Iqbal encouraged and worked closely with Muslim political leader Muhammad Ali Jinnah, and though he did not live to see the creation of Pakistan, he is known as Muffakir-e-Pakistan ("The Thinker of Pakistan"), Musawar-i-Pakistan ("The Architect of Pakistan") Shair-i-Mashriq ("The Poet of the East"), and Hakeem-ul-Ummat ("The Sage of Ummah").

His best known poetic works include the Asrar-e-Khudi, in honour of which he was knighted by the British government, Rumuz-i-Bekhudi, and the Bang-i-Dara. Scholars have hailed his poetry in the Persian as some of the best in modern times, and he is highly acclaimed for his poetry on Islam.

Excuse me but your different version is really no different from the intro. And please do not revert war while this article is up for WP:FAC. Rama's Arrow 19:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, the changes are minor and provides more pertinent information for readers in the intro. Iqbal's works of poetry should follow the passage describing his importance in the regional influence he had and is remembered for. And I believe his recognition as the national poet of Pakistan should be mentioned in the very first para. Omerlives


He was born in Sialkot, spent much of his life in Lahore, so he is not Indian (present day India). In article, we can refer him either South Asian or similar term, but no Indian, which directly links with present day India.--Spasage 06:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but Pakistan never existed before August 14, 1947. And there is no nationality or citizenship known as "South Asian" which will include Sri Lanka, Nepal and Bhutan - not parts of British India. And citizens of British India were commonly known as "Indian." Rama's Arrow 06:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I am not saying that Pakistan existed before 1947, but instead of Indian using Indian (Indian subcontinent) make things clear. Meaning of India Before 1947 and after 1947 is different. Before 1947, Indian was Pakistan+India but now it is divided into 3 countries. I think Indian(Indian subcontinent) should be used. What you say? --Spasage 06:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Look no citizen of British India was ever referred to as "British-Indian." Even Muhammad Iqbal called for the independence of "Indian Muslims," of "Northwest India," not "Indian subcontinent Muslims." And Indian subcontinent/South Asia also includes Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan, Maldives and Afghanistan. Rama's Arrow 06:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I concur with Rama's Arrow. A British Indian is commonly someone brought up in Britain who is of Indian descent. There are 3/4 million of us! Labelling him as a British-Indian is too ambiguous. As Pakistan as an entity did not exist at the time, all he can be considered as is an Indian. If the link to the disambig page isn't good enough, it could link directly to British India. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I can't believe this discussion is even happening. He was never a citizen of the Republic of India, but that hardly means anything. Was Qin Shi Huang Chinese? Just like there's a China, and there's a People's Republic of China, we're talking of two different concepts here. Kingdoms and Republics rise and fall, but the fact remains that the notion of an India was already in place latest by the time of Megasthenes, and several Greeks have written books on "India" (e.g., Indica (Arrian)), and at no point before 1940s, was it ever imagined not to include the whole Punjab and Sindh (can't say the same about NWFP and Baluchistan.) So, Muhammad Iqbal was born and Indian, died and Indian, and most importantly always identified himself as Indian. To digress a bit, Cuisine of India was renamed Indian cuisine due to demands that there's no "cuisine of Republic of India" but a general cuisine that reflects the entire cultural region. Cuisine of Pakistan was still maintained, covering mostly the same information as Indian cuisine, because of similar attitudes. I feel these objections are only a result of an identity crisis. deeptrivia (talk) 00:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Identity crisis? Please do not stoop that low that you have to resort to personal attacks. I do not understand your obsession with labelling Allama Iqbal as Indian. The fact is that the distinction MUST be made. For instance, it be would be technically correct to call New Zealand cricketer Stephen Fleming an Australian just because New Zealand is part of the continent of Australia; however, no sane person would argue against identifying Fleming by his country and not by his continent. Why cause confusion? There is no reason to do so. You give examples of ANCIENT writers who used the word Indian; I think you yourself provide the best reason why "Indian" should NOT be used. These writers used the word Indian because they did not know any better! Remember, when Columbus came back from North America, he called the natives there Indians! Are these people Indians like yourself just because a group of European authors decided to call them Indian? Obviously not. The canonical form of writing history dictates that the writer should relate things in present terms; I would think that MORE young kids know about Sri Lanka than about Ceylon. Why would you try to confuse them? If you read the Columbus article, they refer to PRESENT-day countries like Honduras. Why did they not call Honduras a little place in India like Columbus did? I hope this makes more sense to you now.--66.25.124.237 03:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Call for peacful compromise

I propose removing the Indian adjective altogether and just mentioning that Iqbal was born in the Indian subcontinent in present-day Pakistan. If we're all striving for factual accuracy, this should suffice.

Indian subcontinent/South Asia is not in the least acceptable, as well as inaccurate. You don't seem to realize that nobody from Ankara can be described as from Anatolia, or a native of Casablanca as from the Sahara Desert. This Fire Burns.....Always 06:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Read the above argument, it's not my fault if your powers of comprehension not existent.--66.25.124.237 06:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Congrats

Congrats to everyone who worked hard to make the article a featured one.--Dwaipayan (talk) 10:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation check

Looks like I missed the boat on getting this in on time for the FAC, but a citation spot check on this did turn up one big problem and a couple small ones. If someone could fix these, that would be great. Results:

  1. Footnote 3: Throughout his life, Iqbal would prefer writing in Persian as he believed it allowed him to fully express philosophical concepts, and it gave him a wider audience.
    • Checks out. From PDF: "Apparently he required Persian for two reasons. Firstly, according to him, it enabled him to express complex ideas, which Urdu did not...Secondly, Persian also made communication beyond the Indian North-West possible. It served as a Pan-Islamic lingua franca with readily available traditions"
  2. Footnote 8 (a): He explains that an individual could never aspire for higher dimensions unless he learns of the nature of spirituality.
    • Problem. Website cited is deadlink.
  3. Footnote 15: Some historians postulate that Jinnah always remained hopeful for an agreement with the Congress and never fully desired the partition of India.
    • Checks out. Unable to check exactly due to different edition and page #s, but several statements in the book appear to be legitimate sources for this.
  4. Footnote 13 (a): "Iqbal asserted that secularism as a guiding principle for government was a mistake and must be abandoned by the Muslim polity."
    • Iffy. From book: "The 'religious ideal' cannot be separated from social order."
      • The statement in the article is stronger and further reaching than the one in the book.
  5. Footnote 13 (d): Many historians and Indian nationalists criticize Iqbal's vision for a Muslim state as specifically implying the denunciation of Hindus and Hinduism, as well as the peaceful co-existence of Hindus and Muslims.
    • Iffy. From book: "What Iqbal is saying...is that Muslims can only live with other Muslims."; "...what isn't mentioned, is Iqbal's rejection of Hindu India"
      • No evidence here that "many historians and Indian nationalists" share these criticisms, and, again, the statement in the article seems stronger than that in the book.

On the whole, though, excellent article. --RobthTalk 13:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Reply on "Iffy" points - for footnotes 13(a) and (d), this is an alternative source to verify Naipaul:[4] I'll add it to the citations. The "infopakgov" site has the same data as the Iqbal academy site, so I'll make the necessary corrections. This Fire Burns.....Always 17:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link to discussion of article at Wikipedia talk:Lead section

This article is being discussed here: Wikipedia_talk:Lead_section#How_to_reference_summary_style_sections_such_as_the_lead_section. Please add comments if you wish. Carcharoth 15:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Article ...

I'm not sure how to propose this article to the front page as a daily featured article, so if anyone knows how, please do, because this article explains (in generality) the partition of India, which most people are ignorant of. 69.218.219.100 21:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The article has already been entered for main page. I've requested it for November 9, "Iqbal Day" but no guarantees. Rama's arrow 23:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hindi script?

Iqbal, by many, is considered Pakistani, a Pakistani who died before the creation of Pakistan. This claim is supported by the fact he was the one who gave a clear ideology for a separate country i.e. Pakistan. He was one of those leaders who persuaded Quaid-e-Azam to come back and take control of Muslim League which led to the creation of Pakistan. He is officially national poet of Pakistan and his Mausoleum is guarded by government of Pakistan. In addition, he was a poet of Urdu and Persian (Farsi) and his name is combination of Arabic and Persian. Muhammad is Arabic and Iqbal is Persian. Keeping in view all these facts, what is the point of writing his name in Hindi? It gives wrong implications about Iqbal. IMHO, Hindi script should be removed.

Szhaider 09:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Whether the translation is Hindi or Vietnamese bears no relevance to Iqbal the person. Iqbal lived and died before the creation of Pakistan - thus he can't have been a Pakistani. If "Muhammad" is Arabic and Iqbal is "Persian," are you suggesting that every Pakistani and Indian Muslim with "Muhammad" in his name is actually an "Arab?" With no intention of being uncivil, I must declare your point is xenophobic rubbish. Rama's arrow 14:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Szhaider, I see your Urdu-fascism spreads beyond just Abrar-ul-Haq. It seems to be you've actually made the case for changing all Arabic-derived 'Urdu' labelled names to 'Arabic/Persian'... Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 17:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
It's an easy way to call fascism whatever you don't understand. In the same way I can call Mr. Sukh's behavior Punjabi-fascism but it is not the right term. Anyway both of you guys completely misunderstood my point. My point is Iqbal has nothing to do with Hindi even if he died before the creation Pakistan. Therefore, there is no point having Hindi script. He is not Nehru, Gandhi or Rabinder Nath Tigor. Szhaider 19:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I never misunderstood your point, I understood it clearly. I would tend to agree with you on your observation actually (unless Rama's Arrow can expand on the Hindi relevance - I'm not too knowledgable on Mr Iqbal). At least I can see when someone makes a valid point, rather than mindlessly reverting. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 19:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Lemme ask you this Szhaider - what harm is done if there is a Hindi script transliteration of Iqbal's name? Its just more info, dat's all. If you like, you can add a Chinese, Persian or Indonesian transliteration. The reasons you gave as a rationale for removing the Hindi script is an attempt to say that Urdu belongs to Pakistanis, and Hindi to Indians. No, I'm sorry I will oppose your reasoning. Rama's arrow 20:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
People have died in Urdu-Hindi conflicts, because Urdu, from its very beginning, is considered language of "Muslims" and ended up being national language of first ideological Islamic state i.e. Pakistan. Hindi transliteration of Iqbal's name is info, right; but irrelevent info because he was not Hindi poet. Only relevent translitertion of non-English words should be added to Wikipedia. Szhaider 09:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

On a side note, I've reverted the bolding of the text. Please don't edit Wikipedia just because your system is for some reason technically deficient. I'll give you some tips on fixing problems with invalid Urdu text. First, ensure that it's stuck in language tags (lang-ur or lang|ur like I've done). Then download a Unicode Nastaliq font (I think the one I use it called Nafees Nastaliq). Finally, set this font to be your standard Arabic script font and adjust the size for Arabic in your browser options (this is easy in Firefox, and I think it's simple in IE too). Hopefully that should fix size/visibility issues for you. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 21:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I know Urdu fonts more than you can imagine. Default font at English Wikipedia is ‎not what you have Advised me to download. By the way, I already have all of them. The ‎tag you are suggesting is completely useless. By bolding Urdu script I am trying to ‎facilitate all those readers who do not have their systems optimized for Urdu, therefore, ‎rely on what Microsoft has provided with the system. Bold font of Urdu script is easier to read specially for those who have smaller monitors, and the curves of the characters are more easily recoginsable.‎ Szhaider 22:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh, there are plenty of things that don't work on a standard Windows set up on Wikipedia (media and international support are just two of these), but that doesn't mean that Wikipedia should be designed because font technologies are deficient - especially when it is a minor point such as this. And again, if a person's screen is too small to read text properly, they should use their browsers increase font size features. If a person doesn't have their system optimised for Urdu, they either don't need it or will go out looking for a solution if a large deficiency is found.
And please, don't tell me that the tags are useless. I've done extensive work with internationalisation technologies and they do make a difference. They are often used by browsers to assign specific font fall-backs for certain script. For example, a browser (maybe not yours) will render 'ur' tagged text in Nastaliq but 'ar' tagged text as Naskh.
Browsers and technologies work in different ways. Just because yours works one way, doesn't mean your changes are beneficial for people whose browsers are set up correctly. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 23:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I do not know about other languages but for Arabic and Urdu, these tags make no difference. Szhaider 23:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
You fail to comprehend that people's browsers/operating environments may (and WILL) behave differently to yous. If you fail to understand the significance of HTML attributes designed to enhance multi-lingual computing, that really isn't my problem. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 21:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
And you have failed to accept that you do not know anything about Urdu. See other articles about Pakistani peronalities before reverting again. Szhaider 23:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

This is so ridiculous. What in the world does Iqbal have to do with the Hindi language? Sure, he wasn't a Pakistani, but by that same reasoning wasn't an (Republic of) Indian either. On this English page, his name should be written in his mother-tongue, that of his ethno-linguistic group, and/or the tongue of political or personal significance to his life... which Urdu definitely qualifies for, and which Hindi doesn't. lol 69.158.64.239 22:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, all. I just finished reading a book on the Sepoy incident of 1857 published by the Pakistan Historical Society, titled The Great Revolution of 1857. The author, Syed Moinul Haq refers to the inhabitants of the British Indian empire during 1857 as "Hind-Pakistanis". Why don't we do the same?! That way no one will be offended by the terms "India" or "Indian"!! It will also relieve the pesky anxieties of actually having to differentiate between the temporally-dependent socio-political semantics of "India" and "Indian" viz. pre- and post-independent labels!! Oh Ruswa, you were right: لطف ہے کون سی کہانی میں / آپ بیتی کہو یہ جگ بیتی ـ Sarayuparin 05:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indian Philosophers?

OK! I accept he died before creation of Pakistan but he should be considered Muslim Philosopher rather than Indian philosopher. He promoted Islamic philosophy not Indian philosophy. You decide to remove this category or not; its up to you. I won't touch it. A whole section of this great project called wikipedia is suffering and one man cannot do anything. Szhaider 03:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

By your own admission, Iqbal was an Indian who contributed in philosophy (Islamic or otherwise) - that makes him an Indian philosopher. Kumarilabhatta 04:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Further, Indian philosophy is not any monolithic entity, which excludes non-Hindu/post-shad-darshan philosophies. Kumarilabhatta 04:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Whatever. I made my point. I already knew your answer. Szhaider 04:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Well then why bother asking? Do everyone a favour, and stop your POV trolling. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 08:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I would ask the same favour from you. You started POV trolling. Szhaider 12:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Telugu and Kannada

Don't want to run into any war but adding scripts of Telugu and Kannada is too much informationa and most importantly irrelevent information. I added the word Persian (Urdu and Persian are same for his name) because he wrote his poetry in persian too and he is highly revered in Iran. Hindi is partly acceptible provided the fact he died before the creation of Pakistan although Hindi was not official language at that time.

In simple words Telugu and Kannada should be removed. Only relevent transliterations should be added to‎ English Wikipedia.

Szhaider 16:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


Interestingly enough, the edit was made by a person who first removed Hindi becoz Iqbal had supposedly had no connection with it. Then he dug up a comment of mine to stick up the Kannada and Telegu, which frankly I don't even know if they're correct. Rama's arrow 16:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Rama's Arrow, you are making these edits and reverting "vandalism", yet you give no explanation. What was the reason for removing Telugu and Kannada? 130.63.176.145 17:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Madhhab

I could not find what madhhab he has, please add it to the intro and infobox. --Striver 13:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Criticism

Does anyone else find parts of the "criticism" ridiculous? V.S. Naipul does not like Muslims in South Asia, and the book that is referenced is actually about different parts of the Islamic world that in his opinion should not have become Muslim (Pakistan, Iran, Indonesia) He may be a notable author, but is his criticism of Iqbal, which, by his views of Asian Muslims, is predictable, really necessary in this article. Unless I am reading the sources incorrectly, he is the only person who has this criticism. Does that mean that anytime Naipul criticizes a historical figure, we need to add it to that person's wikipedia article? Allama Iqbal was a historical figure, an idealist, who supported a renaissance for Muslims in India, the problems that took place in Pakistan after its creation were due to various political reasons and should not be a criticism of his ideas. Fkh82 00:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] India (disambiguation) Link

In the first sentence I corrected the word which describes his nationality from Indian to Indian. Please change it back if this is somehow incorrect, though if it's not the main page also needs to be updated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ARC Gritt (talk • contribs) 00:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

In that case he should be called British Indian, if not Pakistani.

I honestly fail to see the logic in calling him Indian. Its beyond be. But I better not even question the person who did that as I will get banned again, for questioning the thought processes of an Indian. Unre4L 00:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe Indian then, but I definately don't think it should be Indian. :P ARC Gritt 02:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Lol. Calling him an Indian (subcontinent) is ridiculous. Why not call him Earthian and get it over with. It should be Pakistani. There is no denying the logic behind it. Please someone, help sort out this really easy logical reasoning. I am not editing the page, because I know a certain mod has the ban button read for me. Unre4L 04:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't agree with this anymore.Call him a "south Asian" poet.it's that simple considering the fact that niether India nor Pakistan existed in his days.I guess the countless attempts to rip the Pakistani people off their heritage goes far beyond than just the Indus.I just happen to wonder,but is there any ending to this agenda?But since it's already been tagged as part of the Pakistan project,I guess there's nothing much more to say.Nadirali 05:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)Nadirali

[edit] Vandalism

The entire page was deleted and replaced with "first vandal, woot," or something along those lines. The page has since been restored, although I didn't do so.

it's happened again

[edit] Kashmiri

I changed Indian to Kashmiri as he was Kashmiri, and Indian implies that he was from Republic of India. Please dont change without a proper argument. Unre4L 17:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see this discussion on Indian nationality. Rama's arrow 17:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] persondata

can someone create the persondata? 70.104.16.75 20:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline

It is small and will not compromise the length of the article. Will provide good reference to those who might lost in details. I added it long time ago. And we should not consider it repetition. Anyway, I will not stress on it, If you think its important leave it otherwise delete it. --Falcon007 18:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I created a similar timeline for Sir Syed too, but it also got lost. Timeline is important to remember important dates in easy accessable way. We should either incorporate them within the articles in a separate sections or create sub pages to present them. --Falcon007 18:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copy Edit Second Para Lead

I've copy edited the second paragraph in the lead, made some stylistic changes and removed redundancies. The changes are explained in the edit summaries. Here is the original version:

“ After studying in England and Germany, Iqbal established a law practice, but he primarily concentrated on religious and philosophical subjects, writing scholarly works on politics, economics, history, philosophy and religion. He is best known for his poetic works, which include the Tarana-e-Hind, Asrar-e-Khudi, in honour of which he was knighted by George V, Rumuz-i-Bekhudi, and the Bang-i-Dara. Iqbal was also the author of many political, philosophical and historical commentaries. He is known as Iqbal-e-Lahori (Persian: , Iqbal of Lahore) in Afghanistan and Iran where he is highly praised for his Persian works. ”

and, here is the final version:

“ After studying in England and Germany, Iqbal established a law practice, but concentrated primarily on writing scholarly works on politics, economics, history, philosophy and religion. He is best known for his poetic works, including Asrar-e-Khudi—which brought a knighthood— Rumuz-i-Bekhudi, and the Bang-i-Dara, with its enduring patriotic song Tarana-e-Hind. In Afghanistan and Iran, where he is known as Iqbal-e-Lahori (Persian: , Iqbal of Lahore), he is highly regarded for his Persian works. ”

Please let me know if you have any questions. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another biography

Add "The Ardent Pilgrim" by Iqbal Singh as another biography of Mohammed Iqbal. It was first printed in 1951 and was reprinted in 1997 (ISBN 0 19 563979 0). 209.73.210.21 19:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead Sentences

The first two sentences in the lead currently read:

Sir Muhammad Iqbāl (Urdu: محمد اقبال) born (November 9, 1877 – April 21, 1938) was an Indian Muslim poet, philosopher and politician, whose poetry in Persian and Urdu is regarded as among the greatest in modern times.[1] Also famous for his work on religious and political philosophy in Islam, he is credited with first proposing the idea of an independent state for Indian Muslims, which would inspire the creation of Pakistan.

I feel that the following is a better lead sentence:

Sir Muhammad Iqbāl (Urdu: محمد اقبال) born (November 9, 1877 – April 21, 1938) was a Muslim poet, philosopher and visionary of early 20th century India, whose poetry in Urdu and Persian is among the greatest of the modern era,[1] and whose vision of an independent state for the Muslims of India was to inspire the creation of Pakistan.

I'd like to know what other people think. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, I support the new version (except the disambig link in "India" which should link to Indian subcontinent). Thank you for your efforts for Pakistan related articles. Szhaider 06:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I strongly disagree - (1) his nationality was "Indian" - Britannica also describes him as such (2) he was also a politician (3) his work/life in the 1930s cannot be described as "early 20th century;" neither can his work prior to 1900. (4) "Muslim" - does anyone feel a need to introduce Dante as a Christian poet? Kahlil Gibran as a "Christian" poet? Henry Kissinger as a "Jewish" politician? Of course not. Rama's arrow 20:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I think he should be listed as a Kashmiri poet, as Rabindranath Tagore is listed as a Bengali poet. IP198 00:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

IP198 two points: 1. Rabindranath Tagore was a poet of Bengali (a regional) language. 2. Iqbal was not a poet of Kashmiri language. He was a poet of Urdu (national language of Pakistan) and Persian (national language of Persia aka Iran). Iqbal was also one of founding fathers of Pakistan. Szhaider 12:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
To: Rama's Arrow:
  • "Neither can his work prior to 1900!" What work did he do prior to 1900 (when he was 23 years old)? Here is the WP Time line of Iqbal's life. Please enlighten. You are probably right, early 20th century doesn't last until 1938 (and I was ambivalent about using that word), but that's an easy fix. I'll come up with an alternative soon.
  • As for "Muslim," I am happy to take out the word. I left it there because you had it there in the first place. However, the Encarta page on Iqbal begins with: "Sir Muhammad Iqbal (1877-1938), Muslim philosopher, poet, and political leader, born in Siālkot, India (now Pakistan)." (Islam was very much a part of Iqbal's life, politics, and philosophy, unlike Kissinger, who is a politician who happens to have been born Jewish.) Here is a long quote from Encarta:
“ Sir Muhammad Iqbal (1877-1938), Muslim philosopher, poet, and political leader, born in Siālkot, India (now Pakistan). In 1927 he was elected to the Punjab provincial legislature and in 1930 became president of the Muslim League. Initially a supporter of Hindu-Muslim unity in a single Indian state, Iqbal later became an advocate of Pakistani independence. In addition to his political activism, Iqbal was considered the foremost Muslim thinker of his day. His poetry and philosophy, written in Urdu and Persian, stress the rebirth of Islamic and spiritual redemption through self-development, moral integrity, and individual freedom. His many works include The Secrets of the Self (1915), a long poem; A Message from the East (1923); and The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam (1934). Although Iqbal did not live to see the creation of an independent Pakistan in 1947, he is nevertheless regarded as the symbolic father of that nation, where the date of his death, April 21, is a national holiday. ”
  • Finally, the word "politician." Encarta calls him a "political leader." Britannica calls him only a "philosopher and poet." Iqbal was not just a politician, unless we mean it extreme generalty; in which case, we can add all kinds of tautologies. He was a political leader or he was a visionary (those words convey some real information).

How about:

Sir Muhammad Iqbāl (Urdu: محمد اقبال) born (November 9, 1877 – April 21, 1938) was a Muslim poet, philosopher and political leader born in Sialkot, British India (now Pakistan), whose poetry in Urdu and Persian is among the greatest of the modern era,[1] and whose vision of an independent state for the Muslims of India was to inspire the creation of Pakistan.

Note, that from the Jinnah quick facts page, Encarta is comfortable using "British India" to describe a town. The second "India" has the India (dab) link. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


To Fowler:
  • I had read somewhere else that Iqbal had written the Tarana-e-Hind first in 1899, but that doesn't matter.
  • My first response is the same as that on Talk:Muhammad Ali Jinnah: there is no need for change.
  • British India is appropriate for territory and affairs of state - not for nationality. You will notice that I did not revert your addition of "British India" to Jinnah's infobox.
  • You are citing Encarta - [5] - where Sialkot is described as then an Indian town, now in Pakistan. "British India?" - not necessary.
  • Same thing here - [6], where Iqbal is an Indian and born in Sialkot, India (now in Pakistan).
  • You seem to be flip-flopping on which encyclopedia you want to imitate - the bottomline is (which both Britannica and Encarta confirm) that the current version of Iqbal's article on Wikipedia is correct in every way, shape and form and requires no change. Rama's arrow 16:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
To Rama's Arrow: Nope Taraana-i-Hindi was written and recited in 1904/05. I am in a hurry now, but let me just say for now, that I'm not flip-flopping so much as trying to get rid of statements involving "citizenship" or "identity." More later. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
PS To Rama's Arrow. Please also read the comments I wrote in the Word and Meanings section as well as the following section on the Saare Jahan Se Achcha talk page, to get an idea of what I am trying to accomplish. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
To Rama's Arrow, As you can see from the Encarta lead, "... Muslim poet, philosopher and political leader born in Sialkot, India, now Pakistan, ..." it doesn't explicitly say anything about nationality, letting the reader infer that from the details provided. As you say yourself, British India is "appropriate for territory," so saying "... Muslim poet, philosopher and political leader born in Sialkot, British India, now Pakistan," is appropriate. Like the Encarta lead, no statement is being made about nationality. I should also add that (although I am by no means advocating that anyone be called "British Indian") the actual passport from that time did say, "British Indian" (see [here). So, I think the lead sentence I am advocating:

Sir Muhammad Iqbāl (Urdu: محمد اقبال) born (November 9, 1877 – April 21, 1938) was a Muslim poet, philosopher and political leader born in Sialkot, British India, now Pakistan, whose poetry in Urdu and Persian is among the greatest of the modern era,[1] and whose vision of an independent state for the Muslims of India was to inspire the creation of Pakistan.

is entirely appropriate. It jibes with what Encarta is doing, it packs more information (up front) than the current version, and I think it flows better. The part about the scholar of Islam (like in the Encarta version) can be moved to a later sentence. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, I support this version. Szhaider 10:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
To F&F:
  • Yes you are flip-flopping to suit your points. Which encyclopedia does one try to copy or emulate? Neither - the examples of Britannica and Encarta are used to confirm the factual basis of the assertions made in this article, not to copy their example.
  • 'Passport the British Indian Passport translates to passport of British India, which is akin to the modern passport of the Republic of India. Passports are properties of state, so the cover has more to do with carrying the name of the state.
  • Nationality Fowler, I cannot respect any effort to "remove" mention of nationality - why is it necessary to do so? Is there any factual dispute about his nationality? No - it is "Indian." Removing the mention of his nationality is giving less data, creating more confusion in the mind of the readers. Iqbal is one of the founding fathers of Pakistan, but of Indian nationality.
  • The sentence you propose is awkward - "born in Sialkot, India, now Pakistan" is being pushed instead of just using the term "Indian Muslim," and being used between the description of him as a poet, philosopher, politician and what work he did. At the same time, this data is given in the infobox and again in Early life section. And if you mention where he was born within the first few words, why not mention where he died? And don't say this is ok becoz Encarta writes it thus - we are not to copy, and I can always say that Britannica uses "Indian poet" so we don't even need the term "Indian Muslim poet."
It is clear what you are trying to do - alleviate a specific personal/political concern by removing the term "Indian." However, we do not try to carry out or promote any particular interpretation or re-interpretations. The alterations you propose are creating more confusion than resolving any issue. Rama's arrow 11:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/u/h/Talk%7EMuhammad_Iqbal_34eb.html"