as you label it on me ,Ad hominem: when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact or when used in certain kinds of moral and practical reasoning is necessary.

sometimes,it is important to elaborate the stature of the person who is censuring and refuting any personality who is one of very few most non controversial figure in our country.

criticize iqbal but on some solid ground.

bila wja izatein uchalnein ki koi tuk nahi bnti.

Did you refute the claims made by Nisar by putting forth arguments? No! Because you started bashing Nisar's personality

you can term him as "diehard pessimist and a helpless rejectionist " as the member termed.

At last my thought found some appropriate title in English

one who always spread negativity and pessimism.did you ever hear something positive and admirable from that guy.

when last time nisar was happy with Pakistan,Muslims and our society? after all we are not bad as much he convey and portray.

koi tau achai ho gy hmary mein bhi mairy dost

phir burai hi kiu

For the sake of argument suppose he is pessimistic. So the pessimistic can't bring forth any logical arguments?

iqbal's poetry and philosophy is the answer of nisar's criticism itself.

yai aisy hi hy k mein keh du k Shakespeare aur keats fazul poets hein aur unki poetry mein romaniat k siwa koi paigham nahi milta aur jinsiat ko hawa di gye hein wgaira wgaira..



i stated why nisar do not like iqbal and Islamic figures.and why he censured him

my dear you can easily know his intentions.

nisar is a secular guy who does not believe in religion much so has problems

agar iqbal ny bhi pyar muhabat aur jinsiat ki baat ki hoty apny poetry mein tau nisar bhai ko koi aitraz nahi hony wala tha..phir wo shair e dunia bhi kehlaty tau koi aitraz na hota

yes they can..no one objected..but at what cost??

to malign downgrade and belittle some personality upon whom the nation has consensus.

is it enough to say that iqbal's concepts are useless without any logic and argument.

wesy bhi hmary tarekh rahi hy kisi insan ko bhi non controversial nahi rehny dia.

Haha. Some people never learn. So the secular individual is deemed unfit to criticise?

And how can a self contradictory philosophy of Iqbal answer his criticism?

[QUOTE=RAO RAMEEZ;780216]There are certain things in Islam which apparently are seen not holding logical grounds, so what will you do? You will start refuting Islam?
Islamic teachings as a whole present a set of idealistic conditions which you can only strive to achieve but can't achieve wholly solely...
Do you think if we divide ourselves among Punjabi,Sindhi,Barelvi,Deobandi then even one city let alone a province can survive?
Every ideology holds in it some "idealistic" notions, it does n't means we should start abusing that ideology?


Where did I say that his ideology was against Islam. Pan Islamism is an entirely different concept altogether. And in the contemporary day of Nationalism and Nation State it doesn't hold any logical grounds. For just small glimpses, see the wonderful brotherly relationship of Pak-Afghanistan among each other. Similarly Iran-Saudis and so on. Muslim World and their Pan Islamism has failed miserably all across the world. The only thing can hold true is one's own national interest and national ideology. This is what I actually meant and I guess I've very clearly explained that.

__________________
“Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and right doing, there is a field. I will meet you there.” Rumi

Very much true. Actually this confusion about Ummah thingy is the main source of much of the terrorism and extremism in the Muslim world, and the reason why Pakistan has been sheltering all the deranged terrorists on her soil. Muslims, the bulk of them, are consistently refusing to accept the realities of the modern world composed of nation states with their clashing interests and continue to live in pre-modern world when nation states simply did not exist. In fact, this particular disease exists more with Pakistani Muslims then anywhere else. Arabs don't consider us anything more than slaves and are a bend upon licking their feet and happy in our state. What a pathetic little castle of Islam this country is. And Iqbal has been used (or misused) to support this skewed worldview. This is one of the most irreconcilable contradictions in his poetry which only serves to confuse the people.

And speaking of comparison between Ghalib and Iqbal, I stand firm on the fact (and it is a fact) that Ghalib is far superior to Iqbal. Take a look at their body of work. Ghalib has a much limited oeuvre and yet he has enriched Urdu language more than Iqbal, or any other poet for that matter. No wonder Iqbal is more popular among the kids and the young impressionable people while Ghalib enjoys incontestable popularity among the older people and those with proper understanding of literature and poetry. The problems of existence (and this is what makes a poet great, in addition to the beauty of language in which Ghalib is again head and shoulders above the others) dealt with in the poetry of Ghalib can hardly be found in any other Urdu poet. And he managed to do this in his little dewan. I rest my case.

Having said that, I would agree with Buddha that Hassan Nisar perhaps went overboard with criticism. He uses rhetoric because rhetoric is what works in this country where reason and logic is held in no regard anyways. To get attention from the masses, you have to resort to rhetoric and Hassan Nisar uses it very well to shut the mouths of the likes of Orya Maqbool Jan, Ansar Abbasi and in case of this video, Zaid Hamid. It's like giving a taste of their own medicine to them and to be honest, I enjoy it.

I second all that you've said. And your response about why Hassan Nisar uses such bitter rhetoric at times by becoming too critical at times makes a lot of sense. Well said!

__________________
“Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and right doing, there is a field. I will meet you there.” Rumi

I meant something different. I didn't said Pan-Islamism is right wrong or is failure or not. I was sticking on the topic that "If some philosopher is proven wrong" it doesn't mean we start saying that he was just a mediocre man...

Pan-Islamism at that time was working as a "hope". Iqbal was looking that despite of millions of Muslims existing in the whole world, the Muslims of sub-continent are facing turmoil in the same era...At that time there were no strong states among Muslims (how he was supposed to present Nation-state theory then?),instead in the whole nation there was no leader to take care of it. Leaders were either absent or were busy in their own territories...Only hope was that some strong Muslim state rise and fight for the freedom of whole nation...
Now a days, somewhat stable and independent states are present so the situation has changed...

Well, it's not justice to compare a Modern Theory with a theory present 100 years back...World politics have changed 1000s of time after that...And the pace was much faster in the years came after Iqbal...

__________________
If I am what I have and if I lose what I have, who then am I?