Reviews and author responses

77

Iqbals Concept of God, Salman Raschid, Oxford University Press, 2010 (ISBN: 978-0-19-547694-1), xxiii + 119 pp., $20.00 Reviewed by Minlib Dallh, O.P. Hartford Seminary, USA Salman Raschid takes on the giant task of pioneering a non-conformist and thought-provoking approach to Sir Muhammad Iqbals (d 1938) doctrine of God. In this small book the author does not simply challenge Iqbals views but deconstructs his theological and philosophical thought. The authors assessment of Iqbal as a philosopher reads like a taha fut of his philosophical legacy. He writes, I submit, on the basis of evidence presented here, that the claim that Iqbal is a major religious thinker cannot be vindicated. (p. xvi) Only readers who have a good knowledge of Hegel, Bergson, and Whitehead and are familiar with Iqbals celebrated book, The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, could really take advantage of this book. Iqbal, poet and philosopher, is a towering gure in modern Islamic thought. Fazlur Rahman calls him the most serious Muslim philosophical thinker of modern times (p. xv). On the website dedicated to Iqbal, one reads, Iqbal stands alone in the post classical period of Islamic philosophy as a reviver of the discipline within the Muslim world. And, Iqbal is the best articulated Muslim response to Modernity that the Islamic world has produced in the 20th century. Arguably, he is the pre-eminent Muslim poet, philosopher and statesman that South Asia has produced in the last century. Astutely, Raschid limits the scope of his herculean task almost exclusively, to an examination of Iqbals thought about God in what is, perhaps arguably, the most important and interesting chapter, from both the theological and philosophical point of view of The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam: Chapter 2, The Philosophical Test of the Revelations of Religious Experience (p. xvi). Readers familiar with the wide academic reception of Iqbals thought and legacy will be astonished by Raschids choice of word and tone, il n y va pas avec le dos de la cuiller. The author asserts that Iqbal misunderstood and distorted the philosophy of Hegel, Whitehead, and Bergson and his [Iqbal] case is a bold, but quite illegitimate, attempt to draw extravagant metaphysical conclusions (p. xvii). Certainly, Raschids bold claim and sweeping pronouncements will puzzle many readers. At the outset, it is clear that Hegelian metaphysics and epistemology, Bergsons doctrine of God, and Whiteheads The Concept of Nature have been primary inuences on Iqbal. This book starts with a cogent introduction, then an excellent sketch of Iqbals biography follows. In three
Conversations in Religion and Theology, 9:1 (2011) 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

78

Reviews and author responses

parts, the author submits the evidence of his argument. In Part One, Iqbal and the Western Tradition, Raschid critically examines Chapter 2 of The Reconstruction. First, the author scrutinizes Iqbals criticism of the scholastic cosmological, teleological, and ontological proofs for the existence of God. He concludes that Iqbals treatment of this difcult and complex problem is so supercial (perhaps because it is so brief) as to be almost cavalier. (p. 6) Second, the author attempts to make sense of Iqbals argument in the context of Hegels philosophy (p. 8). Hegels logical concept of Notion, the niteinnite relationship, the epistemological and metaphysical thesis of the unity of thought and being and the theological idea of the existence of God are the major themes of this chapter. Raschid quotes extensively both Iqbal and Hegel in order to prove that Iqbal is at best quasi-hegelian and at worse pseudo-hegelian. The author refers to seminal secondary sources on Hegel, such as J. Collins, J. N. Findlay, E. L. Fackenheim, and I. Soll, to sustain his argument. According to the author, Iqbal not only fails to understand Hegel, he also errs in trying to examine and interpret experience. He remarks that Iqbal tries to arrive at an Hegelian destination by proceeding along, . . . a distinctly un-Hegelian route (p. 19). Chapter 4 deals with Iqbals approach and criticism of Bergsonian philosophy in Time and Free Will, Creative Evolution and Introduction to Metaphysics. Once again the author points to distortions, inconsistencies, and confusions. He calls Iqbals argument a philosophical farrago (p. 32). Iqbal lacks original and independent argument and presents rather a BergsonianHegelian hybrid (p. 32). In his overall critique, Raschid presents the underlying unity of his arguments and concludes that Iqbals reading of Hegel, Bergson, and Whitehead was supercial, confused, and lacking in originality. At the end of Part One, readers are left with the sense that this Muslim intellectual giant missed all the marks. In Part Two, Raschid focuses on the nature and implications of Iqbals concept of God in the Quranic and mystical contexts. In Iqbal and the Quran the author examines how Iqbal relates western philosophical sources, particularly Whiteheads idea of nature and the Bergsonian theory of time to a set of Quranic verses. He remarks that Iqbals reading, on the one hand, misunderstands the nature and purpose of the Quranic revelation in a fundamental way (p. 50), and on the other it is neither necessary nor legitimate to foist a Bergsonian theory of time on [Q. 25:58 and 59 and Q. 54:49 and 50] (p. 51). Raschid goes further and examines Iqbals understanding of taqdir (destiny or to assigning a particular role to everything, whether quantitatively or qualitatively [p. 52]), the ultimate self, or his interpretation of Q. 24:35. As expected, the author nds Iqbals argument unsatisfactory. In Chapter 7, Raschid turns to al-Ghazali and Abul Kalam Azad to probe the nature and the sources of human knowledge of God. He
2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Reviews and author responses

79

asserts that reason, revelation, and religious experience are the three main sources of human knowledge of God. He considers both al-Ghazali and Azad as two orthodox Muslims traditional teachers who can serve as corrective references to Iqbal. Interestingly enough, for the rst time Raschid has a positive evaluation of Iqbal He [Iqbal] makes some interesting observations on the nature of mystical experience and also accepts its cognitive validity (p. 57). He insists, however, that Iqbals concept of God is a nite (panentheistic) one, and is arrived at largely by a supercial and uncritical reading of western science and philosophy (p. xvii). Iqbals nite deity is paradoxically close to the pantheistic Su concept of wahdat al-wujud but wholly un-Quranic and oblivious of the tafsir literature. In Chapter 8, Raschid explains the paradox and Iqbals panentheism. Previously, the author has relied upon the authority of al-Ghazali and Abul Kalam Azad, two orthodox and traditional Muslim teachers, to explain Muslim theism, likewise, he cites Isa Nuruddin (F. Schuon) and Abubakr Sirajuddin (M. Lings), two prominent modern Muslim scholars, to shed light on Muslim pantheism: he discusses Schuons and Lings effort to assert the importance and universality of Ibn Arabis wahdat al-wujud. He defends al-Ghazalis orthodoxy and believes that Lings confuses mystical experience and interpretation. This important issue is discussed in Chapter 10. The author defends W. T. Staces positions in Mysticism and Philosophy against Bruce Garsides critique of Stace. But, he does not miss the occasion to critically assess Staces arguments and point to its incoherence and inconsistencies. The author concludes that Lings and Stace committed the kind of logical error usually described as a category mistake (p. 98). Raschids deconstruction of Iqbals concept of God concludes with two short chapters under the heading, Beyond Iqbal: The Nature of the Problem of God. First, the author takes on the paramount difculty of explaining the nature of God in terms of transcendence and immanence (Chapter 11); second, he deals with the sources of human knowledge of God: revelation, religious experience, and reason (Chapter 12). The innite and absolute transcendent God of the Quran is wholly other and yet reveals himself with anthropomorphic images. He sees and hears, he has hands, he is established on the throne etc . . . Gods absolute transcendence and immanence remains the greatest theological conundrum of monotheistic faith traditions, a circle impossible to square. I doubt that Raschid has put the matter to rest. In this last part, the author, rst, reviews the analogy theory of Thomas Aquinas and returns to the proof of the existence of God by scholastic philosophy to conclude that both approaches fail to uphold the absolute transcendence of the Quranic God. He asserts that in both cases God is put in the same logical category as world, and is
2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

80

Reviews and author responses

therefore a nite entity (p. 109). A similar critique is addressed to Iqbals nite and panentheistic God. In the last chapter, the author focuses on revelation, religious experience, and the nature of our knowledge of God. He distinguishes between Gods Being and Gods Self disclosure, and notes that Gods Self disclosure (revelation) must correspond to the process of human understanding (p. 110). He agrees that a religious experience is one of the authentic modes of Gods Self disclosure (p. 112). According to Raschid, a mystical experience is not an experience of Gods Being but an experience of Gods Self disclosure to humans. The last two chapters are unfortunately too brief to offer but a tentative and schematic adumbration of a comprehensive theory of Gods Self revelation (p. 111). The unknowable God remains wholly transcendent to human understanding. Gods Self disclosure and the varieties of human mystical experience are authentic sources of human knowledge of God. Even though Raschids argument is solid, well documented, and relies on numerous primary and secondary texts, the book is too brief and limited in scope to successfully debunk the opinion that Iqbal is a serious religious thinker and a seminal modern Muslim philosopher. Readers would have appreciated a lengthier background literature on the books rst and secondary sources. All in all, this books critical assessment and at times provocative tone contribute to curtail the excessive adulatory and uncritical attitude of Iqbals admirers. Ironically, Raschids taha fut of Iqbals doctrine of God testies to his persistent relevance in the twenty-rst century and connects his legacy to three important western thinkers, Hegel, Whitehead, and Bergson.

Response to Minlib Dallh By Salman Raschid Retired British psychiatrist, Academic Scholar in Philosophy and Religion, UK
The super- essential nature of God is not a subject for speech or thought or even contemplation, for it is far removed from all that exists and more than unknowable, being founded upon the uncircumscribed might of the celestial spirits incomprehensible and ineffable to all forever. There is no name whereby it can be named, neither in this age nor in the age to come, nor word found in the soul and uttered by the tongue, nor contact whether sensible or intellectual, nor yet any image which may afford any knowledge of its subject, if this be not that perfect incomprehensibility which one acknowledges in denying all that can be named. None can properly name its essence or nature if he be truly seeking the truth that is above all truth.
2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Reviews and author responses

81

St. Gregory Palamas as quoted by Vladimir Lossky in Essai sur la Theologie Mystique de lEglise dOrient. Paris 1944 (E.T 1957 The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church. Chapter 2 The Divine Darkness). I am most grateful to Friar Minlib Dallh for his scrupulous review composed in such a dignied and graceful style. Iqbals Stature as a Muslim Thinker (Poet and Philosopher) There is clearly a broad consensus about Iqbals stature as a major visionary religious and mystical poet, perhaps even one of genius. He is also a considerable thinker (philosopher) in the broad sense; however, my main contention here is that he cannot be regarded as a major philosopher in the technical sense. To the best of my knowledge his philosophy (and knowledge of Hegel, Bergson, and Whitehead) was almost entirely self-taught. As regards Dallhs reference to the Iqbal website, it may well be true that Iqbal is the best articulated Muslim response to modernity that the Islamic world has produced in the 20th century (p. 1); however, the statement (website) that Iqbal stands alone in the post classical period of Islamic philosophy as a reviver of the discipline within the Muslim world (p. 1) is inaccurate and misleading. Two comments are called for 1. Iqbal is not a continuator of the classical phase of Islamic philosophy: therefore, he cannot be its reviver. 2. We need also, in this context, to consider several major gures in the Shia school e.g. Mulla Sadra (d 1641) and S. A. Fardid (twentieth century) (in relation to contemporary modern Western philosophy, particularly Martin Heidegger). Regarding Raschids bold claim and sweeping pronouncements (p. 1) all my claims against Iqbal are supported by carefully considered arguments (and my case against Iqbal is a piece of technical analytic philosophy). Dallh himself concedes this in his concluding paragraph Raschids argument is solid, well documented and relies on numerous primary and secondary texts (p. 3). Then what is the issue? Possibly that the book is too brief and limited in scope ; (I have stated, and explained, this myself in the opening Introduction and Summary). Additionally Readers would have appreciated a lengthier background literature on the books rst and secondary sources (p. 3). My response: the Bibliography lists 96 items. The total number of books (and journal articles) consulted was considerably greater but I used the strict criterion of listing only works actually quoted in my text. Readers may also consult (1) The bibliography appended to Iqbal Singh Seveas recent Oxford doctoral dissertation on Iqbal: being published as Contributions on Islamic Political Language; Muhammad Iqbal and the Debates on Nationalism (Cambridge University Press, forthcoming). (2) The
2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

82

Reviews and author responses

Iqbal website. (3) The comprehensive bibliography in A. Schimmels Gabriels Wing (Leiden 1963): pp. 388414. Dallhs Comments on the Concluding (Part III) of the Book Dallh observes Gods absolute transcendence and immanence remains the greatest theological conundrum of monotheistic faith traditions (p. 2). I heartily endorse this view. Indeed this conceptual polarity (transcendence/immanence) appears even in non-theistic traditions a striking instance is its occurrence in the context of Chinese (Confucian) philosophy. I recall the valiant (but, in my opinion, unsuccessful) attempt made by Harvard Professor of Chinese Philosophy (Wei-ming Tu) to specify quite precisely the notion of transcendence (in the Chinese context) in the course of a lecture in 1981/1982 at the Center for the Study of World Religions (and subsequently published in the Harvard Divinity Bulletin). As Dallh notes, quite correctly, the last two chapters are too brief, and offer only a tentative and schematic adumbration of a comprehensive theory of Gods Self revelation (p. 111). My response is as follows: rst, the research work, upon which this book (initially an academic dissertation) was based, was conducted thirty to forty years ago. Consequently, I have had much time, and opportunity, for further study, reection, and discussion. I am aware that there have been major developments in the area of the Philosophy of God over this period: two notable instances are the Death of God movement and the impact of Martin Heidegger on Christian theology, and I shall deal with this latter topic below. (A most illuminating account of such recent currents will be found in Don Cupitts The Sea of Faith, London 1984.) I ought to add that my own studies over this considerable period of time have suggested certain specic afnities (in my views) with the thinking of the following three major gures Moses Maimonides, Karl Barth, and Martin Heidegger. The Relevance of Heidegger Martin Heidegger is very important for Christian theology (George Pattison, personal communication 2009); but then, he must be equally important for Jewish and Islamic theology. One notable development that deserves wide recognition (discussion and debate) is the recent, and ongoing, work of the distinguished British theologian philosopher George Pattison, who occupies the Lady Margaret Chair of Divinity at Oxford. He is an accomplished Germanic scholar, who authored a superb commentary on Heidegger (The Later Heidegger in the Routledge Guide Book series,
2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Reviews and author responses

83

London 2000). Pattison has been instrumental in establishing (in 2008) the Oxford Centre for Theology and Modern European Thought. Pattisons The End of Theology And the Task of Thinking about God, SCM Press, London 1998 (note the Heidegger inspired title). This deeply thoughtful, and thought-provoking, work is an essential preliminary to his two larger works: Thinking About God in an Age of Technology Oxford University Press 2005; God and Being An enquiry Oxford University Press 2011 One major conclusion reached by Pattison (in the concluding subsection the failure of ontology of the rst chapter of The End of Theology) is best stated in the authors inimitably eloquent style:
The result is not simply to conrm theologys dethronement as the Queen of the sciences; it is to declare an intellectual republic in which there is no sovereign science to proclaim the end of theology is simply to declare that, whatever we may mean by the term today, theology can no longer make good the claim implied by its own name that is the claim to speak truthfully about what is Really Real. (p. 28)

Concluding Comment Iqbal, poet and philosopher, is a towering gure in modern Islamic Thought (p. 1 Dallh) and this Muslim intellectual giant (p. 2) These are fairly standard Muslim opinions which I personally do not share, for reasons already stated. What then, on my analysis, is the explanation for the marked discrepancy between the usual Muslim scholarly opinions and my own reservations? I believe the answer lies in the catastrophic decline of Muslim culture over approximately the past 300 years, following a 1000-year period during which Islamic civilization was at its zenith, and recognized by historians as the worlds leading civilization (as we have been reminded recently, more than once, by Bernard Lewis). There is a human need (in all cultures) for great gures, exemplary heroes etc. and if such great personages are non-existent there will be, in consequence, a sharp tendency to inate relatively minor gures to an imagined (or fantasied) stature of greatness. (I recall now that the last major Muslim contribution to world civilization was Ibn Khalduns Prolegomena, in the 14 C.) Current Projects One major book I am working on now is entitled Ghazalis Concept of God, commissioned by my previous publishers. The outline sketch of my philosophy of God (Iqbal: Part III. Chapters 11 and 12) will be developed further in this work, including the reference to major past gures (Maimonides, Barth, and Heidegger).
2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

84

Reviews and author responses

I am also engaged on a smaller project Religion and Politics: the Concept of the Islamic State. The proper point of departure here is Iqbal, particularly his challenging insights in Chapter VI of The Reconstruction (The Principle of Movement in the Structure of Islam). Further Reading Muhsin Mahdi (d 2007) is the most distinguished Muslim philosopher of the late twentieth century. The following two books are noteworthy: Alfarabi and the Foundation of Islamic Political Philosophy. Muhsin S. Mahdi. The University of Chicago Press, 2001. The Political Aspects of Islamic Philosophy Essays in honor of Muhsin S. Mahdi Editor Charles E. Butterworth. Harvard University Press, 1992. The following two books, probably not widely known, should be of interest to readers in the eld of contemporary modern philosophy of religion. The rst one listed (Fergus Kerr) is by a Dominican monk and the second one (Andrew Shanks) by an Anglican priest. Theology after Wittgenstein by Fergus Kerr, Cambridge University Press, 1997 God & Modernity by Andrew Shanks, Routledge, 2000

2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.