Muhammad Iqbal
November 09, 1877 /April 21,1938
Sialkot British India now in Pakistan,
Sir Muhammad Iqbal (Urdu: (اقبال محمد ) born (November 9, 1877 – April 21, 1938) was a Muslim poet, philosopher and politician born in Sialkot , British India (now in Pakistan), whose poetry in Urdu and Persian is considered to be among the greatest of the modern era, and whose vision of an independent state for the Muslims of British India was to inspire the creation of Pakistan. He is commonly referred to as Allama Iqbal (علامہ اقبال, Allama lit. Scholar
Sheikh Muhammad Iqbal was born in Sialkot, Punjab, British India (now part of Pakistan); the eldest of five siblings in a Kashmiri family. It is believed that Iqbal's family were originally Hindu Brahmins, but became Muslim following his ancestor Sahaj Ram Sapru's conversion to Islam, although this version is disputed by some scholars. Iqbal's father Shaikh Nur Muhammad was a prosperous tailor, well-known for his devotion to Islam, and the family raised their children with deep religious grounding.
The boy was educated initially by tutors in languages and writing, history, poetry and religion. His potential as a poet and writer was recognised by one of his tutors, Sayyid Mir Hassan, and Iqbal would continue to study under him at the Scotch Mission College in Sialkot. The student became proficient in several languages and the skill of writing prose and poetry, and graduated in 1892. Following custom, at the age of 15 Iqbal's family arranged for him to be married to Karim Bibi, the daughter of an affluent Gujrati physician. The couple had two children: a daughter, Mi'raj Begam (born 1895) and a son, Aftab (born 1899). Iqbal's third son died soon after birth. The husband and wife were unhappy in their marriage and eventually divorced in 1916.
He was a Muslim poet, philosopher and politician born in, whose poetry in Urdu and Persian is considered to be among the greatest of the modern era, and whose vision of an independent state for the Muslims of British India was to inspire the creation of Pakistan. He is commonly referred to as Allama Iqbal (علامہ اقبال, Allama lit. Scholar.)
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-e-Bekhud i, and the Bang-e-Dara, with its enduring patriotic song Tarana-e-Hind. In Afghanistan and Iran, where he is known as Iqbāl-e Lāhorī (اقبال لاهوری Iqbal of Lahore), he is highly regarded for his Persian works.
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 encouraged the creation of a "state in northwestern India for Indian Muslims" in his 1930 presidential address. Iqbal encouraged and worked closely with Muhammad Ali Jinnah, and he is known as Muffakir-e-Pakistan ("The Thinker of Pakistan"), Shair-e-Mashriq ("The Poet of the East"), and Hakeem-ul-Ummat ("The Sage of Ummah"). He is officially recognised as the "national poet" in Pakistan. The anniversary of his birth (یوم ولادت محمد اقبال - Yōm-e Welādat-e Muḥammad Iqbāl) on November 9 is a holiday in Pakistan.
Iqbal entered the government college in lahore where he studied philosophy, English literature and Arabic and obtained a bachelor of Arts degree, graduating cum laude, He won a gold medal for topping his examination in philosophy. While studying for his masters degree, Iqbal came under the wing of sir Thomas Arnold, a scholar of Islam and modern philosophy at the college. Arnold exposed the young man to Western culture and ideas, and served as a bridge for Iqbal between the ideas of East and West. Iqbal was appointed to a readership in Arabic at the Oriental college in Lahore, and he published his first book in Urdu, The Knowledge of Economics in 1903. In 1905 Iqbal published the patriotic song, Tarana-e-Hind (Song of India).
At Sir Thomas's encouragement, Iqbal travelled to and spend many years studying in Europe. He obtained a Bachelor of Arts degree from Trinity College at Cambridge in 1907, while simultaneously studying law at Lincoln’s Inn, from where he qualified as a barrister in 1908. Iqbal also met a Muslim student, Atiyah Faizi in 1907, and had a close relationship with her. In Europe, he started writing his poetry in Persian as well. 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. It was while in England that he first participated in politics. Following the formation of the All india-muslim in 1906, Iqbal was elected to the executive committee of its British chapter in 1908. Together with two other politicians, Syed Hassan BigramiSyed and Syed Ameer Ali, Iqbal sat on the subcommittee which drafted the constitution of the League. In 1907, Iqbal travelled to Germany to pursue a doctorate from the Faculty of Philosophy of the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität at Munich. Working under the supervision of Friedrich Hommel, Iqbal published a thesis titled: The Development of Metaphysics in Persia.
Literary career
Upon his return to India in 1908, Iqbal took upassistant professorship at the Government College in Lahore, but for financial reasons he relinquished it within a year to practise law. During this period, Iqbal's personal life was in turmoil. he divorced Karim Bibi in 1916, but provided financial support to her and their children for the rest of his life.While maintaining his legal practise, Iqbal began concentrating on spiritual and religious subjects, and publishing poetry and literary works. He became active in the Anjuman-e-Himayat-e-Islam, a congress of Muslim intellectuals, writers and poets as well as politicians, and in 1919 became the general secretary of the organisation. Iqbal's thoughts in his work primarily focused on the spiritual direction and development of human society, centred around experiences from his travel and stay in Western Europe and the Middle East. He was profoundly influenced by Western philosophers such as Friedrich Nietzsche, Henri Bergson and Goethe, and soon became a strong critic of Western society's separation of religion from state and what he perceived as its obsession with materialist pursuits.
The poetry and philosophy of Mawlana Rumi bore the deepest influence on Iqbal's mind. Deeply grounded in religion since childhood, Iqbal would begin intensely concentrating on the study of Islam, the culture and history of Islamic civilization and its political future, and embrace Rumi as "his guide." Iqbal would feature Rumi in the role of a guide in many of his poems, and his works focused on reminding his readers of the past glories of Islamic civilization, and delivering a message of a pure, spiritual focus on Islam as a source for socio-political liberation and greatness. Iqbal denounced political divisions within and amongst Muslim nations, and frequently alluded to and spoke in terms of the global Muslim community, or the Ummah.
Political career
While dividing his time between law and poetry, Iqbal had remained active in the Muslim League. He supported Indian involvement in World War I, as well as the Khilafat movement and remained in close touch with Muslim political leaders such as Maulana Mohammad Ali and Muhammad Ali Jinnah. He was a critic of the mainstream Indian National Congress, which he regarded as dominated by Hindus and was disappointed with the League when during the 1920s, it was absorbed in factional divides between the pro-British group led by Sir Muhammad Shafi and the centrist group led by Jinnah.
In November 1926, with the encouragement of friends and supporters, Iqbal contested for a seat in the Punjab LegislativeAssembly from the Muslim district of Lahore, and defeated his opponent by a margin of 3,177 votes. He supported the constitutional proposals presented by Jinnah with the aim of guaranteeing Muslim political rights and influence in a coalition with the Congress, and worked with the Aga Khan and other Muslim leaders to mend the factional divisions and achieve unity inthe Muslim League,
"I would like to see the Punjab, North-West Frontier Province, Sind and Baluchistan amalgamated into a single state. Self-government within the British Empire, or without the British Empire, the formation of a consolidated
Northwest Indian Muslim state appears to me to be the final destiny of the Muslims, at least of Northwest India."
In his speech, Iqbal emphasised that unlike Christianity, Islam came with "legal concepts" with "civic significance," with its "religious ideals" considered as inseparable from social order: "therefore, the construction of a policy on national lines, if it means a displacement of the Islamic principle of solidarity, is simply unthinkable to a Muslim." Iqbal thus stressed not only the need for the political unity of Muslim communities, but the undesirability of blending the Muslim population into a wider society not based on Islamic principles. He thus became the first politician to articulate what would become known as the Two-Nation Theory — that Muslims are a distinct nation and thus deserve political independence from other regions and communities of India. However, he would not elucidate or specify if his ideal Islamic state would construe a theocracy, even as he rejected secularism and nationalism. The latter part of Iqbal's life was concentrated on political activity. He would travel across Europe and West Asia to garner political and financial support for the League, and he reiterated his ideas in his 1932 address, and during the Third Round-Table Conference, he opposed the Congress and proposals for transfer of power without considerable autonomy or independence for Muslim provinces. He would serve as president of the Punjab Muslim League, and would deliver speeches and publish articles in an attempt to rally Muslims across India as a single political entity. Iqbal consistently criticised feudal classes in Punjab as well as Muslim politicians averse to the League.
Revival of Islamic polity
Iqbal's second book in English, the Reconstruction of Religious Though in Islam, is a collection of his six lectures which he delivered at Madras, Hyderabad and Aligarh; first published as a collection in Lahore, in 1930. These lectures dwell on the role of Islam as a religion as well as a political and legal philosophy in the modern age. In these lectures Iqbal firmly rejects the political attitudes and conduct of Muslim politicians, whom he saw as morally-misguided, attached to power and without any standing with Muslim masses. Iqbal expressed fears that not only would secularism weaken the spiritual foundations of Islam and Muslim society, but that India's Hindu-majority population would crowd out Muslim heritage, culture and political influence. In his travels to Egypt, Afghanistan, Iran and Turkey, he promoted ideas of greater Islamic political co-operation and unity, calling for the shedding of nationalist differences. He also speculated on different political arrangements to guarantee Muslim political power; in a dialogue with Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, Iqbal expressed his desire to see Indian provinces as autonomous units under the direct control of the British government and with no central Indian government. He envisaged autonomous Muslim provinces in India. Under one Indian union he feared for Muslims, who would suffer in many respects especially with regard to their existentially separate entity as Muslims. Sir Muhammad Iqbal was elected president of the Muslim League in 1930 at its session in Allahabad, in the United Provinces as well as for the session in Lahore in 1932. In his presidential address on December 29, 1930, Iqbal outlined a vision of an independent state for Muslim-majority provinces in northwestern India:
When Iqbal deeply understood the psyche of the Muslim community that it was not ready to live under democratic system of rule in Hindu-majority country, he entered practical politics in 1926 and was elected as a member of Punjab Legislative Council. He became a committed pan- Islamist for Muslim separatism and got national stature in Muslim politics only when Jinnah took self-political exile in London. In the absence of any Muslim leader of Jinnah's political brilliance Iqbal was elected to preside over the AIML session at Allahabad in 1930. This session of Muslim League proved to be an end of an era when Indian National Congress (INC) under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi made sincere efforts for Hindu-Muslim unity. Iqbal's on-off interpretation of nationalism set aside the Hindu-Muslim unity effort of the Indian National Congress. "Z.A.Suleri has rightly pointed out that the share of Iqbal in shaping the destiny of Indian Muslims was tremendous. As a matter of fact the entire Muslim intelligentsia who demanded Pakistan was inspired by Iqbal"1 ( The Cambridge History of India: Vol . VI, Page 810).
In his presidential address Iqbal demanded a consolidated state exclusively for Muslims. This communal and separatist demand gave him the status of a most important Muslim political thinker of Indian sub-continent, though politics was never his cup of tea. His conversion from an Indian nationalist poet-philosopher to a narrow communal interpreter of socio-political scenario of his time permanently divided the two major religious communities of this land. It was contrary to his earlier stand in 1900, when he composed his most popular song referred to muslim middle class and feudal section in the community always suffered from a fear complex of Hindu domination over them in British India. They continuously remained in search of a vent for their political frustration. The period when freedom movement under Indian National Congress got momentum Iqbal created a vent to this frustration in his presidential narrative in the Allahabad session of Muslim League by expanding the two-nation theory for its logical conclusion. Satisfying the group in the community that was more interested for sharing power than for spiritual elevation he could successfully create a mad-rage of the Muslims against the Indian National Congress that was regarded by him as an organisation fighting for 'Hindu India'.
1qbal introduced religion in politics and gave intellectual interpretation to it. "As a Muslim Iqbal could not accept separation of religion and politics. According to him the foundations of politics must be found in religion. Politics divorced from Din (Islamic faith) amounted to a Machiavelian ethical system"(Iqbal And Foundation of Pakistan nationalism: Manzoor H.Khatana, 1992, Lahore, page 109-110).The session of the League, which he presided – gave him the status of a pioneer Muslim thinker, who aroused the Muslims against the challenge of democracy. His contribution to arouse the collective communal consciousness of Indo-Pakistani Muslims reached to such a height that the spirituality in Islam became subservient to the political concept of the faith. He prescribed the two-nation theory as the only political solution for the Muslims to get rid of the lurking majority-Hindu-rule and thereby became founder of communal politics in India. Contrary to the pluralistic character of Indian society, which is a melting pot of various cultural and ethnic groups, Iqbal's thesis made Muslim communalism a reality in India.
Giving ideological basis for Muslim State Iqbal said: "A community which is inspired by feelings of ill-will towards other communities is low and ignoble. I entertain the highest respect for the customs, laws, religious and social institutions of other communities.. Yet I love the communal group, which is the source of my life and my behaviour; and which has formed me what I am by giving me its religion, its literature, its thought, its culture, and thereby recreating its whole past as a living operative factor, in my present consciousness. I therefore demand formation of a consolidated Muslim State in best interest of India and Islam" (The Cambridge History of India: Vol. VI, Page 809). He added, "The question of Muslim poverty could be solved only by the law of Islam which is impossible to be enforced without a free Muslim State or States". "A separate federation of Muslim provinces is the only course by which we can secure a peaceful India and save Muslims from the domination of non-Muslims" (Ibid. Page 810.). Had Iqbal been alive he could have seen how peaceful India remained after formation of a separate Muslim State of Pakistan.
Iqbql's vision for political supremacy of Muslims not only strengthened the centuries-old movement for communal separatism launched by political Islamists in India, it actually gave political ideology to Pakistan movement. The two-nation theory could ignite the imagination of Indian Muslims only when Iqbal enunciated it in his presidential address of Muslim League session. A Pakistani writer questioned him - "Did he (Iqbal) not adopt the very nationalism (akin to tribalism), which the Prophet of Islam had come to destroy?"( Iqbal and Foundation of Pakistan:Manzoor H.Khatana, 1992, Lahore, page iii)?
The presidential address of Iqbal in the above mentioned session of All India Muslim League not only turned the course of Indian history but permanently prevented the Indian Muslims from connecting with Indian nationalism based on cultural and religious diversity of this land. He blocked them from striving for a pluralistic Indian society with bondage of cultural Indianism. His address was the motherboard for Muslim national movement, which justified creation ,of 'Muslim India within India'.
"Unlike Jinnah, Iqbal was consistently committed to separatist tendencies and was unwilling to yield to the Congress for a greater Muslim cause" (Iqbal And Foundation of Pakistan nationalism: Manzoor H.Khatana, 1992, Lahore, page 261). During I936-37 Iqbal wrote "eight letters to Jinnah emphasising the partition of India into two states" (The Oxford Encyclopaedia of the Modern Islamic World, 1995, Vol. 2, page 224) and convinced him with his communal and separatist politics that united Hindu-Muslim nation was not a reality. In one of his letters he strongly opposed atheist socialism of Nehru. When Jinnah failed to bargain for AIML as exclusive representative body of Muslims against Congress insistence on secularism, he adopted the separatist communal politics of Iqbal.
Iqbal died in 1938 but he successfully converted Jinnah, from ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity to a communal Muslim leader. Latter Jinnah adopted a resolution for Pakistan movement in Lahore session of the League in 1940 and made Hindu-Muslim divide a political ideology for Indian Muslims.
If we look back to the post-Mogul history of India we find that all the political Islamists since the downfall of Mogul Empire claimed themselves as custodian of Muslim society. Iqbal while consolidating their thinking in his presidential address of Muslim League accelerated the process of Islamic activism by making spiritual aspect of Islam as subservient to political power. The on going struggle for retention of religious identity by the Muslims is only the off shoot of the same religio-political agenda expanded by Iqbal and accepted by all in post-partition India. It remained a recurring theme of academic debate, which however visibly impaired the fundamental commitment of Indian Muslims to their cultural bondage with this country. He carried forward the cultural and social legacy of Islamic India and gave political ideology for Muslim separatism. His "most enduring legacy is not his 'reconstruction of Islamic thought' (title of a book written by him) but his idea of an autonomous homeland for Indian Muslims"2 (The Muslim Almanac - Edited by Azim A. Nanji, 1996, page 67).
People are born Hindus or Muslims by accident or conviction might be a debatable issue but the humanistic convictions of intellectuals are never shaded by religious obsession. Intellectual community might have wondered over the intellectual duplicity of Iqbal when his humanistic conviction that 'religion does not teach animosity' got diluted. Iqbal's separatist and communal ideology that the Hindus and the Muslims cannot live together was an intellectual irony. But is it not more ironical that hardly any Muslim criticised him to a level it deserves? Even though his two-nation theory gave ideological boost to Pakistan movement, Indian Muslims still revere him.
The main contribution of Iqbal in the political context of Islam was that he was instrumental in bringing about intellectual orientation of communal renaissance in the Muslim community of Indian sub-sub-continent. He separated nationalism from patriotism and thereby created an intellectual division between the two though both are two sides of the same coin. His concept of Muslim nationalism however, meant political unity of Muslims in Indian sub-continent under a common geographical boundary. He never thought about the Indian society as a whole with majority of non-Muslims. Contrary to the ushering of modern worldview, Iqbal also regarded the medieval social and political order as only option for the Muslims.
"Iqbal held that nationalism implies the Indian Muslims to leave aside their faith, their identity in the nationality of other Indian nations or Indianism" (Secularisation of Muslim Behaviour: Moin Shakir, 1973, Page 25). He declared that "the formation of the consolidated Muslim state is in the best interest of India" (Secularisation of Muslim Behaviour: Moin Shakir, 1973, Page 25). He was not ready to understand that Indian nationalism does not mean domination of Hinduism over other religion. "It is also wrong to characterise Indian Nationalism as an instrument of Hindu domination" 3
Iqbal was against secularism. For him "Islam is only an effort to realise the spiritual in a human organisation"(Iqbal And Foundation of Pakistan nationalism: Manzoor H.Khatana, 1992, Lahore, page -110). "Iqbal emerged from his Europeon stay as a champion of Islam. His early Indian nationalism seemed to have given way to his newly found Islamic universalism"4
Even with his western education Iqbal's political outlook remained completely modeled with Islamic concept of governance. Like Sir Sayed Ahmad, Iqbal also created a wedge between Hindus and Muslims. In fact Sir Sayed preached no politics to the Muslims and vehemently opposed their joining Indian National Congress, Iqbal mesmerised them to jump in communal politics against majority community.
The history of Muslim politics in post-colonial India as we see today is deeply rooted to the political philosophy of Iqbal formulated in Allahabad session of All India Muslim League. Even though Islam failed to unify the Arab world, the birthplace of this religion, Iqbal mesmerised the Muslim mass through political interpretation of Islam, which hardly had any spiritual base. The political deprivation of Muslims as they feel today is the legacy of Iqbal they have been going on even after partition of the country.
The political frustration and mistrust of Muslims a against the ruling group has not allowed the community to be the part of the national mainstream. Sharp decline in their share of government job from over 60 percent in the pre-British era to 34 percent in the British period and further decline in it in post-colonial India (India and Pakistan – Unending Conflict by Prakash Chander, 2003, Page 37) might have been the cause of concern to the community. The decline is not due to any anti-Muslim policy of the government but it is all due to religious obsession of the larger section of the community towards government sponsored secular education. If they want to compete with non-Muslims, they must transform the curriculum of madrasas befitting to the modern world order.
Relationship with Muhammad Ali Jinnah.
Ideologically separated from Congress Muslim leaders, Iqbal had also been disillusioned with the politicians of the Muslim League owing to the factional conflict that plagued the League in the 1920s. Discontent with factional leaders like Sir Muhammad Shafi and Sir Fazl-ur-Rahman, Iqbal came to believe that only Muhammad Ali Jinnah was a political leader capable of preserving this unity and fulfilling the League's objectives on Muslim political empowerment. Building a strong, personal correspondence with Jinnah, Iqbal was an influential force on convincing Jinnah to end his self-imposed exile in London, return to India and take charge of the League. Iqbal firmly believed that Jinnah was the only leader capable of drawing Indian Muslims to the League and maintaining party unity before the British and the Congress:
"I know you are a busy man but I do hope you won't mind my writing to you often, as you are the only Muslim in India today to whom the community has right to look up for safe guidance through the storm which is coming to North-West India and, perhaps, to the whole of India."
There were significant differences between the two men- while Iqbal believed that Islam was the source of government and society, Jinnah was a believer in secular government and had laid out a secular vision for Pakistan where religion would have "nothing to do with the business of the state." Iqbal had backed the Khilafat struggle; Jinnah had dismissed it as "religious frenzy." And while Iqbal espoused the idea of partitioning Muslim-majority provinces in 1930, Jinnah would continue to hold talks with the Congress through the decade and only officially embraced the goal of Pakistan in 1940. Some historians postulate that Jinnah always remained hopeful for an agreement with the Congress and never fully desired the partition of India. Iqbal's close correspondence with Jinnah is speculated by some historians as having been responsible for Jinnah's embrace of the idea of Pakistan. Iqbal elucidated to Jinnah his vision of a separate Muslim state in a letter sent on June 21, 1937:
"A separate federation of Muslim Provinces, reformed on the lines I have suggested above, is the only course by which we can secure a peaceful India and save Muslims from the domination of Non-Muslims. Why should not the Muslims of North-West India and Bengal be considered as nations entitled to self-determination just as other nations in India and outside India are."
Iqbal, serving as president of the Punjab Muslim League, criticised Jinnah's political actions, including a political agreement with Punjabi leader Sir Sikandar Hyat Khan, whom Iqbal saw as a representative of feudal classes and not committed to Islam as the core political philosophy. Nevertheless, Iqbal worked constantly to encourage Muslim leaders and masses to support Jinnah and the League. Speaking about the political future of Muslims in India, Iqbal said:
"There is only one way out. Muslims should strengthen Jinnah's hands. They should join the Muslim League. Indian question, as is now being solved, can be countered by our united front against both the Hindus and the English. Without it, our demands are not going to be accepted. People say our demands smack of communalism. This is sheer propaganda. These demands relate to the defence of our national existence.... The united front can be formed under the leadership of the Muslim League. And the Muslim League can succeed only on account of Jinnah. Now none but Jinnah is capable of leading the Muslims."
In his views on Muslim political future, Iqbal was at odds with Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi, who had opposed the partition of India. Maududi had however, been closer to Iqbal's poetic-philosophy of an ideal Islamic state which would reject secularism and nationalism. After the creation of Pakistan, nine years after Iqbal's death, Jinnah and other League politicians would publicly credit Iqbal as one of the visionaries and founders of the state.
Muhammad Iqbal contributed greatly to Islamic revivalism and to the establishment of Pakistan as an Islamic state. He may be considered the most important Muslim thinker of the twentieth century. His most influential work is The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam.
Born in Sialkot, India, under British colonial rule, Iqbal studied literature, law, and philosophy at the Government College at Lahore, Cambridge University, and the University of Munich. He wrote originally in Urdu, then in Farsi in order to reach a wider Muslim audience, and was (and still is) celebrated for his poetry. Iqbal's conceptual goal was to analyze the reasons for the decay of Muslim culture and provide the tools by which Muslims may reclaim their faith. In his view, taqlid (imitation) on the part of the theologians and the spread of pantheisti and ascetic Sufism eventually led to the reification of Muslim thought and concealed the dynamism and activism of the Qurʾanic vision. He called for the renewal of Muslim thought and Muslim institutions through the exercise of ijtihad and the establishment of democratic societies through the process of ijma (consensus). The necessity for Muslims to live by Islamic law led him to call for a separate jurisdiction for Muslim Indians, a concept that the Muslim League in India adopted and that eventually led to the creation of Pakistan. Though Iqbal did not live to see the birth of Pakistan, he is considered by the Pakistanis as the father of their country. The purpose of the Islamic state was to allow the Muslims to create the social and political ideals that the true understanding of the Qurʾanic spirit would lead them to actualize.
In methodology and content, Iqbal draws in his writings on his encyclopdia knowledge of both Islamic and Western thought. A true humanist, he rebuts the claims of Orientalists on the backwardness of Islam without reverting to similar attacks on Christian and Western thought. As he criticizes the Muslims for failing to live up to the ideals of Islam, he also condemns various aspects of Western thought, especially the secularism of the West and its materialist and nationalist ideology that led to colonialism and racism. He rejects the culturally centered views of Western thinkers such as georg Wilhelm friedrich hegel and Auguste Comte on the basis that they lead to a fatalistic and deterministic understanding of man's evolution, denying human freedom and creativity. Instead, he insists on the unity of a humanity derived from a single creator expressed in the diversity of human societies engaged in similar attempts at actualizing their divine gifts; thus, he regards all cultures as genuine and equal contributors to human civilization when they try to remain in touch with the divine inspiration that lies at their heart.
Death
The Mausoleum of Iqbal , next to Badshahi Masjid, Lahore, Pakistan
In 1933, after returning from a trip to Spain and Afghanistan, Iqbal's health deteriorated. He spent his final years working to establish the Idara Dar-ul-Islam, an institution where studies in classical Islam and contemporary social science would be subsidised, and advocating the demand for an independent Muslim state. Iqbal ceased practising law in 1934 and he was granted pension by the Nawab of Bhopal. After suffering for months from a series of protracted illnesses, Iqbal died in Lahore in 1938. His tomb is located in the space between the entrance of the Badshahi Mosque and the Lahore Fort, and an official guard is maintained there by the Government of Pakista
Iqbal is commemorated widely in Pakistan, where he is regarded as the ideological founder of the state. His Tarana-e-Hind is a song that is widely used in India as a patriotic song speaking of communal harmony. His birthday is annually commemorated in Pakistan as Iqbal Day and is a national holiday. For a long time, Iqbal's actual date of birth remained disputed, with many believing February 23 to be the date of Iqbal's birth. On February 1, 1974 a Pakistani government committee officially declared Iqbal's date of birth to be November 9. Iqbal is the namesake of many public institutions, including the Allama Iqbal Open University and the Allama Iqbal International Airport in Lahore — the second-busiest airport in the nation. Government and public organizations have sponsored the establishment of colleges and schools dedicated to Iqbal, and have established the Iqbal Academy to research, teach and preserve the works, literature and philosophy of Iqbal. His son Javid Iqbal has served as a justice on the Supreme Court of Pakistan
Conclusion
1. 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.
2.He was a critic of the mainstream Indian National Congress, which he regarded as dominated by Hindus and was disappointed with the League when during the 1920s, it was absorbed in factional divides between the pro-British group led by Sir Muhammad Shafi and the centrist group led by Jinnah.
3.1qbal introduced religion in politics and gave intellectual interpretation to it. "As a Muslim Iqbal could not accept separation of religion and politics. According to him the foundations of politics must be found inreligion
4.He never thought about the Indian society as a whole with majority of non-Muslims. Contrary to the ushering of modern worldview, Iqbal also regarded the medieval social and political order as only option for the Muslims.
5.In his speech, Iqbal emphasised that unlike Christianity, Islam came with "legal concepts" with "civic significance," with its "religious ideals
References
1.Malik, Hafeez, ed. Iqbal, Poet-Philosopher of Pakistan. New York: Columbia University Press, 1971.
2.Vahid, Syed Abdul. Iqbal: His Art and Thought. London: Murray, 1959.
3.Muhammad Iqbal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
4.The Cambridge history of India: Vol.VI Page 810).
5. The Muslim Almanac-Edited By AzimA. Nanji1996. Page.67
6.Secularisation of Muslim Behaviour: Moin Shakir, 1973, Page 25).
7.(Iqbal And Foundation of Pakistan nationalism: Manzoor H.Khatana, 1992, Lahore, page -119).
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Friday, January 18, 2008
Cicero-politic and Social Science
Cicero’s vision for the Republic was not simply the maintenance of the status quo. Nor was it a straightforward desire to revitalise what many, such as Sallust, term the ‘moral degradation’ of the republican system. Cicero envisioned a Rome ruled by a selfless nobility of successful individuals determining the fate of the nation via consensus in the Senate. Cicero’s country and equestrian background resulted in a broader outlook, not marred by self-interest to the same extent as the patricians' of Rome.
Cicero aspired to a republican system dominated by a ruling aristocratic class of men, “who so conducted themselves as to win for their policy the approval of all good men”. Further, he sought a concordia ordinum, an alliance between the senators and the equites. This ‘harmony between the social classes’, “which he later developed into a consensus omnium bonorum to include tota Italia (all citizens of Italy), demonstrated Cicero’s foresight as a statesman. He understood that fundamental change to the organization and the distribution of power within the Republic was required to secure its future. However, Cicero was also far too idealistic, believing that ‘the best men’ would institute large-scale reforms which were contrary to their interests as the ruling oligarchy. Cicero's guiding principle throughout his political career was:
That “some sort of free-state” is the necessary condition of a noble and honourable existence; and that it is the worst calamity for a people to permanently renounce this ideal and to substitute for it the slave’s ideal of a good master.
(this quote comes from James Leigh Strachan-Davidson - 1894 - Rome only the section "some sort of free state" is cicero. the rest is Strachan-Davidson.)p. 427)
Links with the equestrian class, combined with his status as a novus homo meant that Cicero was isolated from the optimates. Thus, it is not surprising that Cicero envisioned a “selfless nobility of successful individuals” instead of the current system dominated by patricians. The fact remains that those who sat in the Senate had appropriated huge profits by exploiting the provinces. Repeatedly, the oligarchy had proved to be short-sighted, reactionary and “operating with restricted and outmoded institutions that could no longer cope with the vast territories containing multifarious populations that was Rome at this point of its history” The repeated failings of the oligarchy were not only due to the leading patricians like, Crassus and Hortensius, but also to the influx of conservative equites into the Senate’s ranks.
The combination of the Roman governing system, presently used by the oligarchy to selfishly maximize economic exploitation, and the introduction of the business minded equites, only resulted in an increase of the plundering of resources within the Empire. The large-scale extortion destabilized the political system further, which was continuously under pressure by both foreign wars and from the populares. Moreover, this period of Roman history was marked by constant in-fighting between the senators and the equites over political power and control of the courts. The problem arose because Sulla originally enfranchised the equites, but then, these privileges were soon removed after he stepped down from office. Cicero, as an eques, naturally backed their claims to participate in the legal process; moreover the constant conflict was incompatible with his vision of a concordia ordinum. Furthermore, the conflict between the two classes showed no signs of a feasible solution in the short term. The ruling class for over a century had showed nothing of ‘selfless service’ to the Republic and through their actions only undermined its stability, contributing to the creation of a society ripe for revolution.
The establishment of individual power bases both within Rome and in the provinces undermined Cicero’s guiding principle of a free state, and thus the Roman Republic itself. This factionalised the Senate into cliques, which constantly engaged each other for political advantage. These cliques were the optimates, led by such figures as Cato, and in later years Pompey, and the populares, lead by such men as Julius Caesar and Crassus. It is important to note that the although the optimates were generally republicans there were instances of leaders of the optimates with distinctly dictatorial ways. Caesar, Crassus and Pompey were at one time the head of the First Triumvirate which directly conflicted with the republican model as it did not comply with the system of holding a consulship for one year only. Cicero’s vision for the Republic could not succeed if the populares maintained their position of power. Cicero did not envisage wide spread reform, but a return to the “golden age” of the Republic. Despite Cicero’s attempts to court Pompey over to the republican side, he failed to secure either Pompey’s genuine support or peace for Rome.
After the civil war, Cicero recognised that the end of the Republic was almost certain. He stated that “the Republic, the Senate, the law courts are mere ciphers and that not one of us has any constitutional position at all.” The civil war had destroyed the Republic. It wreaked destruction and decimated resources throughout the Roman Empire. Julius Caesar’s victory had been absolute. Caesar’s assassination failed to reinstate the Republic, despite further attacks on the Romans’ freedom by “Caesar’s own henchman, Mark Antony.” Furthermore, his death only highlighted the stability of ‘one man rule’ by the ensuing chaos and further civil wars that broke out with Caesar’s murderers, Brutus and Cassius, and finally between his own supporters, Mark Antony and Octavian.
Cicero remained the ”Republic's last true friend” as he spoke out for his own ideals and that of the libertas (freedom) the Romans had enjoyed for centuries. Cicero’s vision had some fundamental flaws. It harked back to a ‘golden age’ that may never have existed. Cicero's idea of the concordia ordinum was too idealistic. Thirdly, he and all his contemporaries were unable to realise that Rome had grown far too large to be governed by institutions that were originally created for governing a small town. Furthermore, the Republic had reached such a state of disrepair that regardless of Cicero’s talents and passion, Rome lacked “persons loyal to [the Republic] to trust with armies.” Cicero lacked the political power, nor had he any military skill or resources, to command true power to enforce his ideal. To enforce republican values and institutions were also ipso facto contrary to republican values. He also failed to a certain extent to recognize the real power structures that operated in Rome, as anybody does who is enmeshed in the politics of his own time.
Works
Cicero was declared a “righteous pagan” by the early Catholic Church, and therefore many of his works were deemed worthy of preservation. Saint Augustine and others quoted liberally from his works “On The Republic” and “On The Laws,” and it is due to this that we are able to recreate much of the work from the surviving fragments. Cicero also articulated an early, abstract conceptualisation of rights, based on ancient law and custom.
Cicero aspired to a republican system dominated by a ruling aristocratic class of men, “who so conducted themselves as to win for their policy the approval of all good men”. Further, he sought a concordia ordinum, an alliance between the senators and the equites. This ‘harmony between the social classes’, “which he later developed into a consensus omnium bonorum to include tota Italia (all citizens of Italy), demonstrated Cicero’s foresight as a statesman. He understood that fundamental change to the organization and the distribution of power within the Republic was required to secure its future. However, Cicero was also far too idealistic, believing that ‘the best men’ would institute large-scale reforms which were contrary to their interests as the ruling oligarchy. Cicero's guiding principle throughout his political career was:
That “some sort of free-state” is the necessary condition of a noble and honourable existence; and that it is the worst calamity for a people to permanently renounce this ideal and to substitute for it the slave’s ideal of a good master.
(this quote comes from James Leigh Strachan-Davidson - 1894 - Rome only the section "some sort of free state" is cicero. the rest is Strachan-Davidson.)p. 427)
Links with the equestrian class, combined with his status as a novus homo meant that Cicero was isolated from the optimates. Thus, it is not surprising that Cicero envisioned a “selfless nobility of successful individuals” instead of the current system dominated by patricians. The fact remains that those who sat in the Senate had appropriated huge profits by exploiting the provinces. Repeatedly, the oligarchy had proved to be short-sighted, reactionary and “operating with restricted and outmoded institutions that could no longer cope with the vast territories containing multifarious populations that was Rome at this point of its history” The repeated failings of the oligarchy were not only due to the leading patricians like, Crassus and Hortensius, but also to the influx of conservative equites into the Senate’s ranks.
The combination of the Roman governing system, presently used by the oligarchy to selfishly maximize economic exploitation, and the introduction of the business minded equites, only resulted in an increase of the plundering of resources within the Empire. The large-scale extortion destabilized the political system further, which was continuously under pressure by both foreign wars and from the populares. Moreover, this period of Roman history was marked by constant in-fighting between the senators and the equites over political power and control of the courts. The problem arose because Sulla originally enfranchised the equites, but then, these privileges were soon removed after he stepped down from office. Cicero, as an eques, naturally backed their claims to participate in the legal process; moreover the constant conflict was incompatible with his vision of a concordia ordinum. Furthermore, the conflict between the two classes showed no signs of a feasible solution in the short term. The ruling class for over a century had showed nothing of ‘selfless service’ to the Republic and through their actions only undermined its stability, contributing to the creation of a society ripe for revolution.
The establishment of individual power bases both within Rome and in the provinces undermined Cicero’s guiding principle of a free state, and thus the Roman Republic itself. This factionalised the Senate into cliques, which constantly engaged each other for political advantage. These cliques were the optimates, led by such figures as Cato, and in later years Pompey, and the populares, lead by such men as Julius Caesar and Crassus. It is important to note that the although the optimates were generally republicans there were instances of leaders of the optimates with distinctly dictatorial ways. Caesar, Crassus and Pompey were at one time the head of the First Triumvirate which directly conflicted with the republican model as it did not comply with the system of holding a consulship for one year only. Cicero’s vision for the Republic could not succeed if the populares maintained their position of power. Cicero did not envisage wide spread reform, but a return to the “golden age” of the Republic. Despite Cicero’s attempts to court Pompey over to the republican side, he failed to secure either Pompey’s genuine support or peace for Rome.
After the civil war, Cicero recognised that the end of the Republic was almost certain. He stated that “the Republic, the Senate, the law courts are mere ciphers and that not one of us has any constitutional position at all.” The civil war had destroyed the Republic. It wreaked destruction and decimated resources throughout the Roman Empire. Julius Caesar’s victory had been absolute. Caesar’s assassination failed to reinstate the Republic, despite further attacks on the Romans’ freedom by “Caesar’s own henchman, Mark Antony.” Furthermore, his death only highlighted the stability of ‘one man rule’ by the ensuing chaos and further civil wars that broke out with Caesar’s murderers, Brutus and Cassius, and finally between his own supporters, Mark Antony and Octavian.
Cicero remained the ”Republic's last true friend” as he spoke out for his own ideals and that of the libertas (freedom) the Romans had enjoyed for centuries. Cicero’s vision had some fundamental flaws. It harked back to a ‘golden age’ that may never have existed. Cicero's idea of the concordia ordinum was too idealistic. Thirdly, he and all his contemporaries were unable to realise that Rome had grown far too large to be governed by institutions that were originally created for governing a small town. Furthermore, the Republic had reached such a state of disrepair that regardless of Cicero’s talents and passion, Rome lacked “persons loyal to [the Republic] to trust with armies.” Cicero lacked the political power, nor had he any military skill or resources, to command true power to enforce his ideal. To enforce republican values and institutions were also ipso facto contrary to republican values. He also failed to a certain extent to recognize the real power structures that operated in Rome, as anybody does who is enmeshed in the politics of his own time.
Works
Cicero was declared a “righteous pagan” by the early Catholic Church, and therefore many of his works were deemed worthy of preservation. Saint Augustine and others quoted liberally from his works “On The Republic” and “On The Laws,” and it is due to this that we are able to recreate much of the work from the surviving fragments. Cicero also articulated an early, abstract conceptualisation of rights, based on ancient law and custom.
cicere-theory of nature law and natural equality
Classical natural law teaching recognized rights only as they were concomitants of one's position in society. Thus, one's rights and responsibilities were seen in terms of the duties one owed to others through society and the rights of one's class. These duties and responsibilities were dictated by natural law. Natural law or justice was defined "as the habit of giving to everyone what is due to him according to nature."
1. Leo Strauss recognizes three different ways in which natural right
2. was understood by classical thinkers. We have dealt with two: Socratic-Platonic and Aristotelian.
3. The third is Thomistic. We shall examine that in subsequent parts. In this part we shall examine Cicero's and the Stoics' distinctive contribution to the notion of natural law or natural right. Strauss takes the position that Cicero and the Stoics represent a return to the Socratic-Platonic. Strauss notes that this is due to the close relationship between "stoicism and cynicism, and cynicism was originated by a Socratic.
4. Cynicism taught that the "wise man should be completely self-sufficing.... Everything except for moral character is a matter of indifference. [Thus], [t]he protest of the Cynic against social convention was a doctrine of the return to nature in the most nihilist sense of the term. The chief practical importance of the Cynic School lay in the fact that it was a matrix from which Stoicism emerged.
5. Cynicism emphasized the necessity of the cultivation of moral character, but everything beside this, family, property, citizenship, learning, marriage, and other expressions of society, was indifferent. All who cultivated moral character and wisdom were "citizens of the world," but this was as a result of the positive spin placed on it by the later development of Stoicism. The Stoics, and Cicero in particular, developed natural law more completely than either Plato or Aristotle. They did so, moreover, in a different time than Plato and Aristotle. They did so at a time when the city-state was on the wane. What was needed was a concept of natural law that was "suprasocietal" or even "supranational." Stoicism, in distinction from Cynicism, developed within the bosom of the City of Rome, which became the Roman Empire. Universal natural law became identified with Roman law.
Russell Kirk explains the Ciceronian concept of natural law:
[H]uman laws are only copies of eternal laws. Those eternal laws are peculiar to man, for only man, on earth, is a rational being. The test of validity for the state's laws is their conformity to reason.... Learned men know that "Law is the highest reason, implanted in Nature, which commands what ought to be done and forbids the opposite. This reason, when firmly fixed and fully developed in the human mind, is Law. And so they believe that Law is intelligence, whose natural function it is to command right conduct and forbid wrongdoing. They think that this quality has derived its name in Greek from the idea of granting to every man his own and in our language I believe it has been named from the idea of choosing. For as they have attributed the idea of fairness to the word law, so we have given it that of selection, though both ideas properly belong to Law. Now if this is correct, as I think it to be in general, then the origin of Justice is to be found in Law; for Law is a natural force; it is the mind and reason of the intelligent man, the standard by which Justice and Injustice are measured." Law, then, at base is a knowledge of the ethical norms for the human being.
6. Thus, natural law forms the basis in creation for our intuitions of right and wrong, and is the context for our ability to reason. Additionally, according to Cicero, the ability to discern the natural law is not limited to one nation: True law is right reason in agreement with Nature...it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting... we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. And there will not be different laws at Rome and at Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and for all times, and there will be one master and one ruler, that is, God, over us all, for He is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he will suffer the worst penalties, even if he escapes what is commonly considered punishment.
7. Kirk points out that the natural law, conceived as a natural moral order rather than a natural physical order, was the "moral imagination," enabling man, through the exercise of reason, to apply other laws humanely.
8. The natural law is to be distinguished from that found in individual nations and cities: For Justice is one; it binds all human society and is based on one law, which is right reason applied to command and prohibition.... But if the principles of Justice were founded on the decrees of peoples, the edicts of princes, or the decisions of judges, then Justice would sanction robbery and adultery and forgery of wills, in case these acts were approved by the votes or decrees of the populace.... But in fact we can perceive the difference between good laws and bad by referring them to no other standard than Nature; indeed, it is not merely Justice and Injustice which are distinguished by Nature, but also and without exception things which are honourable and dishonourable.
9. The teaching on natural law found in Cicero provides us with an insight into the view of liberty or individual rights held by the Stoics. Since natural law governs all, all the positions of men are derived from it. The one who rebel against its dispositions "suffer the worst penalties, even if he escapes what is commonly considered punishment.
10. As a result, The Roman People as a corporate body and the individual citizen possessed Liberty, freedom from involuntary servitude and freedom to exercise specific rights and to assume specific duties. Under this ideal of Liberty the Roman People, as a corporate entity, was its own master, free from internal domination by a monarch or by a political faction and free from subjection to any foreign power; the Roman People was thus free to exercise its sovereignty, free to determine its destiny, free to follow those laws and customs which represented the Roman way of life. As an individual, the Roman was free from the impositions of slavery; as a citizen he was free from arbitrary exactions of fellow citizens, including magistrates. He was free to enjoy a variety of rights: free to elect his own occupation, free to marry the woman of his choice, free to own slaves and to dominate his wife and children. As a citizen, he was free to participate in the assembly, free to vote, free to hold public office, free to serve in the a rmy.
11. The freedom that the Romans enjoyed was freedom to be judged equally under the Law. Thus, the Law that dominated Roman society was the matrix within which any freedoms were enjoyed. Thus, J. Rufus Fears writes: For the Roman of the republican epoch, Liberty was entirely consistent with the dictates of the Law and custom of the commonwealth of the Roman People. The necessary prerequisite of Liberty was the renouncement of self-willed actions. Consequently, genuine Liberty could be enjoyed only under the Law. The freedoms, personal and private, which constituted Libertas, were conceived of as the rights not of the isolated individual but of the citizen within the organized community of the Roman state. The state, the laws, and the customs and traditions of the Roman People were central to the realization of Liberty.
12. Therefore, under Roman Law "it is only in duty that the individual acquires his substantive freedom.... In short, the Liberty of the individual received its deepest meaning only within the larger context of the community as a whole.
13. Roman Liberty, especially after the end of the republic, was thus an elaborate myth constructed "to justify and to rationalize the institutions and policies of a commonwealth based fully upon a concept of collective political authority."14 Fears points out that "with Hegel the Roman could have agreed that it is only in duty that the individual acquires his substantive freedom.
15. All of this is in keeping with Rushdoony's evaluation that for all of Cicero's, the Stoics', and the Romans' speaking of the universality of natural law, natural law for the Romans was "the central and most sacred community," Rome.
16. Thus, "man's basic problem was not sin, but lack of political order.
17. However, the order in the world was derivative of the natural order of reason and law which was superior to God and man. As Cicero states, "Law is the highest reason, implanted in Nature.... This reason, when firmly fixed and fully developed in the human mind, is Law.... Law is intelligence.... The origin of Justice is to be found in Law, for Law is natural force.
18. Thus, "this order, which is basic to both divine society and human society, makes them one world.
19. That being the case, there is no preservation of individual rights against the order imposed by nature, worked out in history through the state.
20. As we have seen, then, freedom is defined as those who live according to the "right" as it is defined by natural law. In the order prescribed by natural law in the Roman system, there is no true freedom and therefore no rights of individuals in terms of a demand that natural law or the state must respect.
Conclusion
Rushdoony remarks that "Cicero's state was as all-absorbing and total as Caesar's; the difference rested in the source of power. For Cicero, it was reason, and for Caesar, the army and raw power."21 The freedom of man for Cicero and the Romans consisted of freedom internal to man. The outward man, and his actions, were severely curtailed by the requirement of total allegiance to the state. Natural law was the source of the unlimited power of the state, and indeed, became identical to it for the purpose of ruling. Thus, for Cicero, natural good must be diluted by merely conventional right, resulting in the identification of the state with that which is "political good."22 At this point natural law fails to act as a "brake" on the latitude afforded the government. Its latitude thus failing to be limited, Cicero's Republic is as all-encompassing as Caesar's dictatorship.
1. Leo Strauss recognizes three different ways in which natural right
2. was understood by classical thinkers. We have dealt with two: Socratic-Platonic and Aristotelian.
3. The third is Thomistic. We shall examine that in subsequent parts. In this part we shall examine Cicero's and the Stoics' distinctive contribution to the notion of natural law or natural right. Strauss takes the position that Cicero and the Stoics represent a return to the Socratic-Platonic. Strauss notes that this is due to the close relationship between "stoicism and cynicism, and cynicism was originated by a Socratic.
4. Cynicism taught that the "wise man should be completely self-sufficing.... Everything except for moral character is a matter of indifference. [Thus], [t]he protest of the Cynic against social convention was a doctrine of the return to nature in the most nihilist sense of the term. The chief practical importance of the Cynic School lay in the fact that it was a matrix from which Stoicism emerged.
5. Cynicism emphasized the necessity of the cultivation of moral character, but everything beside this, family, property, citizenship, learning, marriage, and other expressions of society, was indifferent. All who cultivated moral character and wisdom were "citizens of the world," but this was as a result of the positive spin placed on it by the later development of Stoicism. The Stoics, and Cicero in particular, developed natural law more completely than either Plato or Aristotle. They did so, moreover, in a different time than Plato and Aristotle. They did so at a time when the city-state was on the wane. What was needed was a concept of natural law that was "suprasocietal" or even "supranational." Stoicism, in distinction from Cynicism, developed within the bosom of the City of Rome, which became the Roman Empire. Universal natural law became identified with Roman law.
Russell Kirk explains the Ciceronian concept of natural law:
[H]uman laws are only copies of eternal laws. Those eternal laws are peculiar to man, for only man, on earth, is a rational being. The test of validity for the state's laws is their conformity to reason.... Learned men know that "Law is the highest reason, implanted in Nature, which commands what ought to be done and forbids the opposite. This reason, when firmly fixed and fully developed in the human mind, is Law. And so they believe that Law is intelligence, whose natural function it is to command right conduct and forbid wrongdoing. They think that this quality has derived its name in Greek from the idea of granting to every man his own and in our language I believe it has been named from the idea of choosing. For as they have attributed the idea of fairness to the word law, so we have given it that of selection, though both ideas properly belong to Law. Now if this is correct, as I think it to be in general, then the origin of Justice is to be found in Law; for Law is a natural force; it is the mind and reason of the intelligent man, the standard by which Justice and Injustice are measured." Law, then, at base is a knowledge of the ethical norms for the human being.
6. Thus, natural law forms the basis in creation for our intuitions of right and wrong, and is the context for our ability to reason. Additionally, according to Cicero, the ability to discern the natural law is not limited to one nation: True law is right reason in agreement with Nature...it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting... we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. And there will not be different laws at Rome and at Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and for all times, and there will be one master and one ruler, that is, God, over us all, for He is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he will suffer the worst penalties, even if he escapes what is commonly considered punishment.
7. Kirk points out that the natural law, conceived as a natural moral order rather than a natural physical order, was the "moral imagination," enabling man, through the exercise of reason, to apply other laws humanely.
8. The natural law is to be distinguished from that found in individual nations and cities: For Justice is one; it binds all human society and is based on one law, which is right reason applied to command and prohibition.... But if the principles of Justice were founded on the decrees of peoples, the edicts of princes, or the decisions of judges, then Justice would sanction robbery and adultery and forgery of wills, in case these acts were approved by the votes or decrees of the populace.... But in fact we can perceive the difference between good laws and bad by referring them to no other standard than Nature; indeed, it is not merely Justice and Injustice which are distinguished by Nature, but also and without exception things which are honourable and dishonourable.
9. The teaching on natural law found in Cicero provides us with an insight into the view of liberty or individual rights held by the Stoics. Since natural law governs all, all the positions of men are derived from it. The one who rebel against its dispositions "suffer the worst penalties, even if he escapes what is commonly considered punishment.
10. As a result, The Roman People as a corporate body and the individual citizen possessed Liberty, freedom from involuntary servitude and freedom to exercise specific rights and to assume specific duties. Under this ideal of Liberty the Roman People, as a corporate entity, was its own master, free from internal domination by a monarch or by a political faction and free from subjection to any foreign power; the Roman People was thus free to exercise its sovereignty, free to determine its destiny, free to follow those laws and customs which represented the Roman way of life. As an individual, the Roman was free from the impositions of slavery; as a citizen he was free from arbitrary exactions of fellow citizens, including magistrates. He was free to enjoy a variety of rights: free to elect his own occupation, free to marry the woman of his choice, free to own slaves and to dominate his wife and children. As a citizen, he was free to participate in the assembly, free to vote, free to hold public office, free to serve in the a rmy.
11. The freedom that the Romans enjoyed was freedom to be judged equally under the Law. Thus, the Law that dominated Roman society was the matrix within which any freedoms were enjoyed. Thus, J. Rufus Fears writes: For the Roman of the republican epoch, Liberty was entirely consistent with the dictates of the Law and custom of the commonwealth of the Roman People. The necessary prerequisite of Liberty was the renouncement of self-willed actions. Consequently, genuine Liberty could be enjoyed only under the Law. The freedoms, personal and private, which constituted Libertas, were conceived of as the rights not of the isolated individual but of the citizen within the organized community of the Roman state. The state, the laws, and the customs and traditions of the Roman People were central to the realization of Liberty.
12. Therefore, under Roman Law "it is only in duty that the individual acquires his substantive freedom.... In short, the Liberty of the individual received its deepest meaning only within the larger context of the community as a whole.
13. Roman Liberty, especially after the end of the republic, was thus an elaborate myth constructed "to justify and to rationalize the institutions and policies of a commonwealth based fully upon a concept of collective political authority."14 Fears points out that "with Hegel the Roman could have agreed that it is only in duty that the individual acquires his substantive freedom.
15. All of this is in keeping with Rushdoony's evaluation that for all of Cicero's, the Stoics', and the Romans' speaking of the universality of natural law, natural law for the Romans was "the central and most sacred community," Rome.
16. Thus, "man's basic problem was not sin, but lack of political order.
17. However, the order in the world was derivative of the natural order of reason and law which was superior to God and man. As Cicero states, "Law is the highest reason, implanted in Nature.... This reason, when firmly fixed and fully developed in the human mind, is Law.... Law is intelligence.... The origin of Justice is to be found in Law, for Law is natural force.
18. Thus, "this order, which is basic to both divine society and human society, makes them one world.
19. That being the case, there is no preservation of individual rights against the order imposed by nature, worked out in history through the state.
20. As we have seen, then, freedom is defined as those who live according to the "right" as it is defined by natural law. In the order prescribed by natural law in the Roman system, there is no true freedom and therefore no rights of individuals in terms of a demand that natural law or the state must respect.
Conclusion
Rushdoony remarks that "Cicero's state was as all-absorbing and total as Caesar's; the difference rested in the source of power. For Cicero, it was reason, and for Caesar, the army and raw power."21 The freedom of man for Cicero and the Romans consisted of freedom internal to man. The outward man, and his actions, were severely curtailed by the requirement of total allegiance to the state. Natural law was the source of the unlimited power of the state, and indeed, became identical to it for the purpose of ruling. Thus, for Cicero, natural good must be diluted by merely conventional right, resulting in the identification of the state with that which is "political good."22 At this point natural law fails to act as a "brake" on the latitude afforded the government. Its latitude thus failing to be limited, Cicero's Republic is as all-encompassing as Caesar's dictatorship.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
The Basics of Chemical and Biological Weapons
Like a nuclear bomb, a chemical or biological weapon is a weapon of mass destruction. An effective attack using a chemical or biological agent can easily kill thousands of people.
Chemical Weapons
A chemical weapon is any weapon that uses a manufactured chemical to kill people. The first chemical weapon used effectively in battle was chlorine gas, which burns and destroys lung tissue. Chlorine is not an exotic chemical. Most municipal water systems use it today to kill bacteria. It is easy to manufacture from common table salt. In World War I, the German army released tons of the gas to create a cloud that the wind carried toward the enemy.
Modern chemical weapons tend to focus on agents with much greater killing power, meaning that it takes a lot less of the chemical to kill the same number of people. Many of them use the sorts of chemicals found in insecticides. When you spray your lawn or garden with a chemical to control aphids, you are, in essence, waging a chemical war on aphids.
Many of us tend to imagine a chemical weapon as a bomb or missile that releases highly toxic chemicals over a city. (For example, the movie "The Rock" featured a scenario in which terrorists tried to launch a missile loaded with the chemical VX, a nerve toxin.) But in 1995, the group Aum Shinrikyo released sarin gas, a nerve gas, in the Tokyo subway. Thousands were wounded and 12 people were killed. No giant bombs or missiles were involved -- the terrorists used small exploding cannisters to release the gas in the subway.
Biological Weapons
A biological weapon uses a bacteria or virus, or in some cases toxins that come directly from bacteria, to kill people. If you were to dump a load of manure or human waste into a town's well, that would be a simple form or biological warfare -- human and animal manure contain bacteria that are deadly in a variety of ways. In the 19th century, American Indians were infected with smallpox through donated blankets.
A modern biological weapon would use a strain of bacteria or a virus that would kill thousands of people. Tom Clancy has explored the idea of biological terrorism in two books: "Executive Orders" and "Rainbow Six." In both books, the source of infection is the Ebola virus. In these plot lines, the infection is spread through small aerosol cans (like those used by insecticide products to create "bug bombs") released at conventions, or through misting systems used to cool sports venues.
Chemical Weapons
A chemical weapon is any weapon that uses a manufactured chemical to kill people. The first chemical weapon used effectively in battle was chlorine gas, which burns and destroys lung tissue. Chlorine is not an exotic chemical. Most municipal water systems use it today to kill bacteria. It is easy to manufacture from common table salt. In World War I, the German army released tons of the gas to create a cloud that the wind carried toward the enemy.
Modern chemical weapons tend to focus on agents with much greater killing power, meaning that it takes a lot less of the chemical to kill the same number of people. Many of them use the sorts of chemicals found in insecticides. When you spray your lawn or garden with a chemical to control aphids, you are, in essence, waging a chemical war on aphids.
Many of us tend to imagine a chemical weapon as a bomb or missile that releases highly toxic chemicals over a city. (For example, the movie "The Rock" featured a scenario in which terrorists tried to launch a missile loaded with the chemical VX, a nerve toxin.) But in 1995, the group Aum Shinrikyo released sarin gas, a nerve gas, in the Tokyo subway. Thousands were wounded and 12 people were killed. No giant bombs or missiles were involved -- the terrorists used small exploding cannisters to release the gas in the subway.
Biological Weapons
A biological weapon uses a bacteria or virus, or in some cases toxins that come directly from bacteria, to kill people. If you were to dump a load of manure or human waste into a town's well, that would be a simple form or biological warfare -- human and animal manure contain bacteria that are deadly in a variety of ways. In the 19th century, American Indians were infected with smallpox through donated blankets.
A modern biological weapon would use a strain of bacteria or a virus that would kill thousands of people. Tom Clancy has explored the idea of biological terrorism in two books: "Executive Orders" and "Rainbow Six." In both books, the source of infection is the Ebola virus. In these plot lines, the infection is spread through small aerosol cans (like those used by insecticide products to create "bug bombs") released at conventions, or through misting systems used to cool sports venues.
Constructivism
is a perspective in philosophy that views all of our knowledge as "constructed", under the assumption that it does not necessarily reflect any external "transcendent" realities; it is contingent on convention, human perception, and social experience.
Constructivism criticizes essentialism, whether it is in the form of medieval realism, classical rationalism, or empiricism.[citation needed] Constructionism and constructivism are often used interchangeably. It is believed by constructivists that representations of physical and biological reality, including race, sexuality, and gender are socially constructed (Hegel, Garns, and Marx were among the first to suggest such an ambitious expansion of social determinism).
• Greek philosophers as Heraclitus (Everything flows, nothing stands still), Protagoras saying « Man is the measure of all things », Aristotle.
• After the Renaissance and the enlightenment, with the phenomenology and the event, Kant gives a decisive contradiction to Cartesians’ epistemology that has grown since Descartes despite Giambattista Vico calls in “La scienza nuova” (the new science) in 1708 reminding that “the norm of the truth is to have made it”.
Constructivist trends
Cultural constructivism
Cultural constructivism asserts that knowledge and reality are a product of their cultural context, meaning that two independent cultures will likely form different observational methodologies. For instance, Western cultures generally rely on objects for scientific descriptions; by contrast, Native American culture relies on events for descriptions. These are two distinct ways of constructing reality based on external artifacts.
Radical constructivism
Ernst von Glasersfeld is a prominent proponent of radical constructivism, which claims that knowledge is the self-organized cognitive process of the human brain. That is, the process of constructing knowledge regulates itself, and since knowledge is a construct rather than a compilation of empirical data, it is impossible to know the extent to which knowledge reflects an ontological reality.
Critical constructivism
A series of articles published in the journal Critical Inquiry (1991) served as a manifesto for the movement of critical constructivism in various disciplines, including the natural sciences. Not only truth and reality, but also "evidence", "document", "experience", "fact", "proof", and other central categories of empirical research (in physics, biology, statistics, history, law, etc.) reveal their contingent character as a social and ideological construction. Thus, a “realist” or “rationalist” interpretation is subjected to criticism.
While recognizing the constructedness of reality, many representatives of this critical paradigm deny philosophy the task of the creative construction of reality. They eagerly criticize realistic judgments, but they do not move beyond analytic procedures based on subtle tautologies. They thus remain in the critical paradigm and consider it to be a standard of scientific philosophy per se.
Constructivism criticizes essentialism, whether it is in the form of medieval realism, classical rationalism, or empiricism.[citation needed] Constructionism and constructivism are often used interchangeably. It is believed by constructivists that representations of physical and biological reality, including race, sexuality, and gender are socially constructed (Hegel, Garns, and Marx were among the first to suggest such an ambitious expansion of social determinism).
• Greek philosophers as Heraclitus (Everything flows, nothing stands still), Protagoras saying « Man is the measure of all things », Aristotle.
• After the Renaissance and the enlightenment, with the phenomenology and the event, Kant gives a decisive contradiction to Cartesians’ epistemology that has grown since Descartes despite Giambattista Vico calls in “La scienza nuova” (the new science) in 1708 reminding that “the norm of the truth is to have made it”.
Constructivist trends
Cultural constructivism
Cultural constructivism asserts that knowledge and reality are a product of their cultural context, meaning that two independent cultures will likely form different observational methodologies. For instance, Western cultures generally rely on objects for scientific descriptions; by contrast, Native American culture relies on events for descriptions. These are two distinct ways of constructing reality based on external artifacts.
Radical constructivism
Ernst von Glasersfeld is a prominent proponent of radical constructivism, which claims that knowledge is the self-organized cognitive process of the human brain. That is, the process of constructing knowledge regulates itself, and since knowledge is a construct rather than a compilation of empirical data, it is impossible to know the extent to which knowledge reflects an ontological reality.
Critical constructivism
A series of articles published in the journal Critical Inquiry (1991) served as a manifesto for the movement of critical constructivism in various disciplines, including the natural sciences. Not only truth and reality, but also "evidence", "document", "experience", "fact", "proof", and other central categories of empirical research (in physics, biology, statistics, history, law, etc.) reveal their contingent character as a social and ideological construction. Thus, a “realist” or “rationalist” interpretation is subjected to criticism.
While recognizing the constructedness of reality, many representatives of this critical paradigm deny philosophy the task of the creative construction of reality. They eagerly criticize realistic judgments, but they do not move beyond analytic procedures based on subtle tautologies. They thus remain in the critical paradigm and consider it to be a standard of scientific philosophy per se.
Feminism theory in international relations
is a broad term given to works of those scholars who have sought to bring a concern with gender into the academic study of international politics.
In terms of international relations (IR) theory it is important to understand that feminism is derived from the school of thought known as reflectionism. One of the most influential works in feminist IR is Cynthia Enloe's Bananas, Beaches and Bases (Pandora Press 1990). This text sought to chart the many different roles that women play in international politics - as plantation sector workers, diplomatic wives, sex workers on military bases etc. The important point of this work was to emphasize how when we look at international politics from the perspective of women we are forced to reconsider what we think international politics is 'all about'. However, it would be a mistake to think that feminist IR was solely a matter of identifying how many groups of women are positioned in the international political system. From its inception, feminist IR has always shown a strong concern with thinking about men and, in particular, masculinities. Indeed, many IR feminists argue that the discipline is inherently masculine in nature. For example, in her article "Sex and Death in the Rational World of Defense Intellectuals" Signs (1988), Carol Cohn identified how a highly masculinised culture within the defense establishment contributed to the divorcing of war from human emotion.
What is evident, therefore, is that a feminist IR involves looking at how international politics effects and is affected by both men and women and also at how the core concepts that are employed within the discipline of IR (e.g. war, security, etc.) are themselves throughly gendered. It should also be noted that feminist IR has not only concerned itself with the traditional focus of IR on states, wars, diplomacy and security - feminist IR scholars have also emphasized the importance of looking at how gender shapes the current global political economy. In this sense, there is no clear cut division between feminists working in IR and those working in the area of International Political Economy (IPE).
Feminist IR emerged largely from the late 1980s onwards. The end of the Cold War and the re-evaluation of traditional IR theory during the 1990s opened up a space for gendering International Relations. Because feminist IR is linked broadly to the critical project in IR, by and large most feminist scholarship has sought to problematise the politics of knowledge construction within the discipline - often by adopting methodologies of deconstructivism associated with postmodernism/poststructuralism. It should be noted however, that the growing influence of feminist and women-centric approaches within the international policy communities (for example at the World Bank and the United Nations) is more reflective of the liberal feminist emphasis on equality of opportunity for women
Criticisms
By focusing on 'traditional' women’s roles (as victims or being used by men), feminist IR may exclude those women participating as diplomats or soldiers as well as ignoring men's issue such as why it is generally men are forced to fight in wars. Furthermore, as with criticisms with feminism in general, feminism almost always treats women as the subject of analysis at the exclusion of men—whether as agents or victims. In defence, some feminisms do consider men—though it still often makes the assumption that due to patriarchy, a certain, rational man is privileged. This may result in a confirmation bias.
In terms of international relations (IR) theory it is important to understand that feminism is derived from the school of thought known as reflectionism. One of the most influential works in feminist IR is Cynthia Enloe's Bananas, Beaches and Bases (Pandora Press 1990). This text sought to chart the many different roles that women play in international politics - as plantation sector workers, diplomatic wives, sex workers on military bases etc. The important point of this work was to emphasize how when we look at international politics from the perspective of women we are forced to reconsider what we think international politics is 'all about'. However, it would be a mistake to think that feminist IR was solely a matter of identifying how many groups of women are positioned in the international political system. From its inception, feminist IR has always shown a strong concern with thinking about men and, in particular, masculinities. Indeed, many IR feminists argue that the discipline is inherently masculine in nature. For example, in her article "Sex and Death in the Rational World of Defense Intellectuals" Signs (1988), Carol Cohn identified how a highly masculinised culture within the defense establishment contributed to the divorcing of war from human emotion.
What is evident, therefore, is that a feminist IR involves looking at how international politics effects and is affected by both men and women and also at how the core concepts that are employed within the discipline of IR (e.g. war, security, etc.) are themselves throughly gendered. It should also be noted that feminist IR has not only concerned itself with the traditional focus of IR on states, wars, diplomacy and security - feminist IR scholars have also emphasized the importance of looking at how gender shapes the current global political economy. In this sense, there is no clear cut division between feminists working in IR and those working in the area of International Political Economy (IPE).
Feminist IR emerged largely from the late 1980s onwards. The end of the Cold War and the re-evaluation of traditional IR theory during the 1990s opened up a space for gendering International Relations. Because feminist IR is linked broadly to the critical project in IR, by and large most feminist scholarship has sought to problematise the politics of knowledge construction within the discipline - often by adopting methodologies of deconstructivism associated with postmodernism/poststructuralism. It should be noted however, that the growing influence of feminist and women-centric approaches within the international policy communities (for example at the World Bank and the United Nations) is more reflective of the liberal feminist emphasis on equality of opportunity for women
Criticisms
By focusing on 'traditional' women’s roles (as victims or being used by men), feminist IR may exclude those women participating as diplomats or soldiers as well as ignoring men's issue such as why it is generally men are forced to fight in wars. Furthermore, as with criticisms with feminism in general, feminism almost always treats women as the subject of analysis at the exclusion of men—whether as agents or victims. In defence, some feminisms do consider men—though it still often makes the assumption that due to patriarchy, a certain, rational man is privileged. This may result in a confirmation bias.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
