In the thirties the Aligarh Muslim University thought of introducing a new faculty of Islamic studies. Aftab Ahmad Khan, Chancellor of the University wrote to Iqbal seeking his advice. Iqbal wrote a long letter to him which is a very important document. Some of the extracts are:
Our first and foremost object should be to create Ulema of proper qualities who could fulfil the spiritual needs of the community. Please note that along with the change in the outlook of the people their spiritual requirements also undergo a change. The change in the status of the individual, his freedom of thought and expression, and the unimaginable advancement made by the physical sciences, have completely revolutionized modern life. As a result the kind of ‘Ilm i Kalam and the theological understanding which was considered sufficient to satisfy the heart of a Muslim of the Middle Ages, does not satisfy him any more. This is not being stated with the intention to injure the spirit of religion; but in order to rediscover the depths of creative and original thinking (Ijtihad), and to emphasize that it is essential to reconstruct our religious thought… Like many other matters, Sir Syed Ahmad Khan’s far sightedness made him also look into this problem. As you may know, he laid the foundations of his rationalism on the philosophical doctrines of an ancient and bygone age for the resolution of this problem… I am afraid, I do not agree with your proposed curriculum of Islamic studies. In my view the revival of the faculty of Islamic studies on the old lines would be totally useless. As for the spiritual value of the ancient theology, one can say that it is based on antiquated ideas, and as for its educational significance, it is irrelevant in the face of the emerging new problems or the new presentation of the old problems. What is needed today is to apply one’s mind in a new direction and to exert for the construction of a new theology and a new ‘Ilm i Kalam. It is evident that this job can be accomplished only by those who are competent to do it. But how to create such Ulema? My suggestion is that if you desire to keep the conservative element of our society satisfied, then you may start with the faculty of Islamic studies on the old lines. But your ultimate objective should be to gradually bring forward a group of such Ulema who are themselves capable of independent and creative thinking (Ijtihad i Fikr) in accordance with my proposed scheme… In my view the dissemination of modern religious ideas is necessary for the modern Muslim nations. A struggle has already commenced in the Islamic world between the old and new methods of education as well as between the upholders of spiritual freedom and those monopolizing religious power. This movement of independence of human thought is even influencing a conservative country like Afghanistan. You may have read the speech of the Amir of Afghanistan in which he has attempted to control the powers of the Ulema. The emergence of numerous such movements in the other parts of the Muslim world makes one arrive at the same conclusion. Therefore in your capacity as the Head of a Muslim university, it is your duty to step forward in this new field with courage.

Iqbal’s Vision of Modern Islam
Iqbal does not define Islam as a theologian but as a philosopher. Thus, in his perception, Islam as a religion and as a culture, is humanistic and egalitarian. Any interpretation of Islam which sanctifies feudalism and discriminates between man and man, is not acceptable to Iqbal. He claimed that humanism was a product of Islamic culture and was a gift of Islam to the West. Iqbal realised that modern Islam requires ‘emancipation’ from the medieval fancies of theologians and jurists, and proclaimed: “Spiritually we are living in a prison house of thoughts and emotions which during the course of centuries we have weaved round ourselves”. For this reason he rejected the dynastic/hereditary Caliphate, Imamate or Sultanate as the outmoded forms of government which the Muslims evolved.

Iqbal’s View of the “Public Sphere”
For assessing Iqbal’s views on managing the “Public Sphere” it may be useful to discuss the two varieties of secularism which the Western civilization has developed as an essential part of its political ideology. Irrespective of historical background of the development of this concept, secularism adopted by capitalistic democracies is based on the principle of the state being neutral in matters of religion. It is also stated to be a guarantee of equality of all citizens regardless of their spiritual background as the state is governed exclusively under man-made laws (not connected with any religion) and these laws are uniformly applicable to all citizens. Also, it is a guarantee of acceptance not just tolerance of minorities, religions and cultures. The other variety of secularism was evolved by socialist countries, which meant a ‘state without religion’ or the ‘imposition of atheism on citizens as a state policy’. After the collapse of the Soviet Union this form of secularism has ceased to exist, and at present the Russian Federation and the other former socialist countries have adopted the capitalist version of this doctrine.
Iqbal, as a deeply religious man, advanced the argument that the discoveries of modern physics, particularly regarding matter and nature, are very revealing for the materialists and the secularists. His argument proceeds like this:
The ultimate reality, according to the Qur’an, is spiritual and its life consists in its temporal activities. The spirit finds its opportunities in the natural, material and the secular. All that is secular is therefore sacred in the roots of its being. The greatest service that modern thought has rendered to Islam and as a matter of fact to all religions, consists in its criticism of what we call material or natural, a criticism which discloses that the merely material has no substance until we discover it rooted in the spirit. There is no such thing as a profane world. All this immensity of matter constitutes a scope for the self realization of the spirit. All is holy ground. In Iqbalian terms, secularism is rooted in the spirit. Therefore, there is no justification in regarding secularism as anti-God. If secularism means guaranteeing the rights of “religious freedom” and “equality of all citizens” by the state, then certainly it cannot be opposed to Islam. Iqbal’s Islamic state is expected to have “mixed” laws. Islamic laws would apply only to the Muslim citizens whereas the minorities would have the freedom to be governed under their own personal religious or customary codes of law. As for the third category i.e. man-made laws, these would be applicable uniformly to all the citizens in the best interests of the state. In this background the discussion of accepting or rejecting secularism is not at all relevant to the state in Islam, which is admittedly not a theocracy.
However, it would be useful in this regard to examine the “settlements” that have been experimented during the last century or so. Before the fall of Soviet Communism both the capitalist and communist worlds tended to write religion out of their scenarios of the future. Today, projections of a simply secular future seem less persuasive. The shift in perception is probably mainly due to what is called militant Islam, beginning with the Iranian Revolution and climaxing in the destruction of the World Trade Centre in 2001. But one might argue that this perception is just catching up with the reality obscured by the expansion of Communism earlier in the twentieth century and by the influence, especially in the media and education, of a largely secularized Western-educated elite throughout that period. Probably between 4 and 5 billion of the world’s more than 6 billion people are directly involved with a religion today, and this picture seems unlikely to change a great deal during the rest of the twenty-first century. So during the lifetimes of all of us now alive we would do well to reckon seriously with religions as shapers of our world, for better or for worse. This does not mean that we have a purely religious world to deal with; rather it is simultaneously both religious and secular in complex ways. There are important issues between the religions; but there are also further, overlapping issues between each of the religions and the various secular understandings and forces.