Like every human being and every scholar he was also fallible, so there is no need to defend each and every mistake he has done. The principle remains the same for him or for other kibaar ulema. We will accept, what is in accordance with Quran and Sunnah and we will reject what is not according to Quran and Sunnah. Following is an attempt to explain some of the points brother Salem has raised.
In his early years Iqbal was more inclined towards indian nationalism so it maybe that this writing was from those years.
Whether or not we can call someone a Kafir has been discussed on tti before and I find myself more in agreement with BrotherZak's following post:
http://www.turntoislam.com/forum/showpost.php?p=156138&postcount=113
So I would say, Hindus do shirk, instead of Hindus are Kafir (in agreement with the above post)
I agree with Shehzad, that he was indeed an admirer of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad before he made a claim of the prophethood. At that time, many other scholars admired him too. As far as using iqbal's poetry for one's advantage is concerned, who does not do that? Even those, who had issued fatwas of kufr against him have started quoting him.
I am not aware of that. He was a great admirer of Aurangzeb Alamgir. As far as poetic ispiration is concerned it is something completly different. He was an admirer of Goethe, Schiller and Shakespear too.
I am sure he was not a Sufi but he could admire the good works by Sufis. Just like I am not a Sufi and I don't agree with ignorant ideas like wahdat ul wajood, yet I can enjoy the poetry of Rumi and admire its poetic depth and wisdome. Light and darkness in its metaphoric sense have been used by Quran too (like noorun ala noor or zulumaatun ala zulumaat). I am sure, the way he uses those words is nothing more than that.
He was certainly not a sufi and I am sure he never fully subscribed to the thoughts of ibn arabi and company.
In the words of Dr. Israr Ahmad, who considers Iqbal to be his greatest teacher, he was one of the greatest visionaries and mufassir-e-quran. (even though he did not write a tafsir in a formal way )
Issueing Fatwas is not the only thing we need from our scholars. In his book "Reconstruction of religious thought in Islam" he recognizes the need for a new Ilm-e-kalaam and a new fiqh, which would be free of "arab-imperialistic" influences. To me, this is one of his greatest services. He was certainly not in favour of traditionalist mullahs (just recall his debates with Hussain Ahmad Madni ).
In his early years Iqbal was more inclined towards indian nationalism so it maybe that this writing was from those years.
Whether or not we can call someone a Kafir has been discussed on tti before and I find myself more in agreement with BrotherZak's following post:
http://www.turntoislam.com/forum/showpost.php?p=156138&postcount=113
So I would say, Hindus do shirk, instead of Hindus are Kafir (in agreement with the above post)
I agree with Shehzad, that he was indeed an admirer of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad before he made a claim of the prophethood. At that time, many other scholars admired him too. As far as using iqbal's poetry for one's advantage is concerned, who does not do that? Even those, who had issued fatwas of kufr against him have started quoting him.
I am not aware of that. He was a great admirer of Aurangzeb Alamgir. As far as poetic ispiration is concerned it is something completly different. He was an admirer of Goethe, Schiller and Shakespear too.
I am sure he was not a Sufi but he could admire the good works by Sufis. Just like I am not a Sufi and I don't agree with ignorant ideas like wahdat ul wajood, yet I can enjoy the poetry of Rumi and admire its poetic depth and wisdome. Light and darkness in its metaphoric sense have been used by Quran too (like noorun ala noor or zulumaatun ala zulumaat). I am sure, the way he uses those words is nothing more than that.
He was certainly not a sufi and I am sure he never fully subscribed to the thoughts of ibn arabi and company.
In the words of Dr. Israr Ahmad, who considers Iqbal to be his greatest teacher, he was one of the greatest visionaries and mufassir-e-quran. (even though he did not write a tafsir in a formal way )
Issueing Fatwas is not the only thing we need from our scholars. In his book "Reconstruction of religious thought in Islam" he recognizes the need for a new Ilm-e-kalaam and a new fiqh, which would be free of "arab-imperialistic" influences. To me, this is one of his greatest services. He was certainly not in favour of traditionalist mullahs (just recall his debates with Hussain Ahmad Madni ).