Sayyid Jamaluddin Asad Abadi
Pacifist
Abadi who is arguably the most influential Iranian thinker of all time
and certainly of the modern times.
His seminal thinking on the modernisation of the Islamic societies and
the ways to face down the threat of imperialism influenced and shaped
debate across the Islamic countries and is still considered a prime
source of debate and action.
Interestingly, this fascinating and mysterious character is better known
in the Islamic world as Sayyid Jamal al-Din Muhammad al-Afghani. As the
article says, he was deliberately vague about his ethnic and religious
origins.
If anyone has other interesting sources on him, especially in Persian,
kindly post. (I have read the article by Iraj Bashiri the Bahai writer,
already.)
==================================================================
Sayyid Jamal al-Din Muhammad b. Safdar al-Afghani (1838-1897)
Sayyid Jamal al-Din Afghani is considered to be the founding father of
Islamic modernism. His place of birth, which has become a source of
long-standing controversy, is not known, but he received his early
education in various religious schools near Kabul, Afghanistan and
Qazwin and Tehran, Iran. At the age of seventeen or eighteen, he went to
India (1855/6) to continue his studies. During his stay in India until
1882, Afghani became closely acquainted with the positivistic ideas of
Sayyid Ahmad Khan and wrote his famous The Truth about the Neichari Sect
and an Explanation of the Necharis (Hakikat-i Madhhab-i Naychari wa
Bayan-i Hal-i Naychariyan), first published in 1881 in Hyderabad, in
rejection of S. A. Khan and his followers. The book was later translated
by Muhammad ‘Abduh into Arabic and published as The Refutation of the
Materialists (al-Radd ‘ala al-dahriyyin) in Beirut, 1886.
In 1870, he traveled to Egypt and Istanbul where he received a warm
welcome from Ottoman officials and intellectuals who were instrumental
in the creation of the Tanzimat reforms. Afghani went to Egypt for the
second time and stayed there for the next eight years (1871-9) during
which time he began to spread his philosophical and political ideas
through his classes and public lectures.
At the beginning of 1883, Afghani spent a short time in London and then
went to Paris. In Paris, Afghani begun to publish his famous journal
al-‘Urwat al-wuthqa’ (“The Firmest Robe” – a title taken from the
Qur’an) with the close collaboration of his friend and student Muhammad
‘Abduh whom he had invited from Lebanon to Paris. Due to a number of
difficulties, al-‘Urwah was discontinued in September 1884 after
eighteen issues. Through his essays and especially his polemic against
Ernest Renan, a French historian, philosopher and positivist, Afghani
established considerable fame for himself in the Parisian intellectual
circles.
In 1886, he was invited by Shah Nasir al-Din to Iran and offered the
position of special adviser to the Shah, which he accepted. Afghani,
however, was critical of Shah’s policies on the question of political
participation. This difference of opinion forced Afghani to leave Iran
for Russia (1886 to 1889). In 1889 on his way to Paris, Afghani met Shah
Nasir al-Din in Munich and was offered the position of grand vizier. But
Afghani’s unabated criticisms of the rule and conduct of the Shah led to
his eventual deportation from Iran in the winter of 1891. Afghani was
later implicated in the murder of Shah Nasir al-Din in 1896.
Afghani spent the last part of his life in Istanbul under the patronage
and, later, surveillance of Sultan ‘Abd al-Hamid II. The demands for
Afghani’s extradition by the Iranian officials for his alleged
involvement in the assassination of Shah Nasir al-Din were rejected by
‘Abd al-Hamid who, most probably, collaborated with Afghani for the
implementation of his political program of pan-Islamism or Islamic unity
(ittihad-i islam). To this end, Afghani sent a number of letters to
various Islamic countries and leaders to mobilize and unite them against
the British rule while at the same time trying to establish the
foundations of a mutual rapprochement between the Sunnis and the
Shi`ites. According to some historians, ‘Abd al-Hamid grew suspicious of
Afghani’s meetings with some Arab leaders and the British officials in
Istanbul and did not permit him to leave the country. Afghani died of
cancer in March 9, 1897 and was buried in Istanbul.
Afghani’s career as a thinker and activist has had a deep impact on the
Islamic world and continues to be a source of inspiration and
controversy for many today. Afghani’s project of Islamic modernism that
he developed in his lectures, polemics, short essays, and newspaper
columns was based on the idea of finding a modus vivendi between
traditional Islamic culture and the philosophical and scientific
challenges of the modern West. It would not be wrong to say that Afghani
took a middle position between blind Westernization and its wholesale
rejection by the traditional ‘ulama’. His basic assumption was shared by
the whole generation of the 19th century Muslim thinkers and activists:
modern Western science and technology are essentially separable from the
ethos and manners of European nations and can and should be acquired by
the Islamic world without necessarily accepting the theological and
philosophical consequences emerging from their application in the
Western context. As we shall see below, Afghani’s views on science
should be understood in the light of this general program of Islamic
‘reform’ or renewal (islah or tajdid).
Afghani, unlike many of the revivalist thinkers of his generation, was
well versed in traditional Islamic philosophy (hikmah), and considered
philosophy essential for the revival of Islamic civilization. This is
clearly reflected in his various lectures and particularly in The
Refutation of the Materialists. In fact, Afghani’s philosophical
arguments against the naturalists and materialists derive their force
from his philosophical training. As we see in his lecture “The Benefits
of Philosophy”, Afghani’s vision of a ‘modern Islamic philosophy’ was
closely tied to his confidence in the recent advancements made in the
fields of science and technology. Unlike traditional theology (kalam),
philosophy should articulate a cosmology based on the findings of modern
science. These and similar ideas expressed by Afghani have been used by
his critics and enemies to label him as a heretic. His role in the
revival of the study of Islamic philosophy in the Arab and Indian
worlds, however, remains unmistakable.
Afghani’s political program of pan-Islamism (ittihad-i islam) sought to
mobilize Muslim nations to fight against Western imperialism and gain
military power through modern technology. Afghani’s call for the
independence of individual Muslim nations has been a key factor in the
development of the so-called “Islamic nationalism” and influenced such
Muslim figures as Muhammad Iqbal, Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Abu’l Kalam
Azad in the Indian subcontinent and Namik Kemal, Said Nursi and Mehmet
Akif Ersoy in the Ottoman Turkey. Later in the 20th century, Afghani
became a major source of inspiration for such revivalist movements as
the Muslim Brethren of Egypt and the Jama`at-i Islami of Pakistan. In
many ways, Afghani continues to be hailed by various Islamic activist
groups as an important example of the activist-scholar type in the
Islamic world. Afghani had also a deep impact on many Egyptian thinkers
including Muhammad ‘Abduh, Rashid Rida, ‘Ali ‘Abd al-Raziq, Qasim Amin,
Lutfi al-Sayyid and Osman Amin.
Before delving into Afghani’s ideas on science, a word should be said
about a long-standing controversy surrounding Afghani’s ethnic origin
and religious (madhhab) identity. One end of the controversy pertains to
his being an Iranian or Afghan, and the other to his being Shi`ite or
Sunni. Some have even claimed that Afghani was born into a Turkish
speaking Azari family in Hamadan. Curiously enough, the root of the
debate goes back to Afghani himself for he was acutely aware of the
impact that his ethnic origin and religious position would have on both
the Sunni and Shi`ite worlds. As a matter of expedience, if not anything
else, Afghani seems to have been willingly and deliberately ambiguous
about both issues to ensure the reception of his ideas in the Islamic
world. Be that as it may, Afghani’s influence on the Islamic world as a
whole has not been marred by the ways he has been portrayed up to our
own day.
As a public intellectual and activist, Afghani articulated and expressed
most of his ideas through his lectures and wrote very little. He
published only two books in his lifetime. One is a history of
Afghanistan and the other his famous refutation of naturalism and
materialism, which he singled out as the most urgent threat to humanity
in general and to the Islamic world in particular. It is worth noting
that Afghani’s only published book of intellectual substance is directly
related to the question of religion and science. Although very short,
Afghani’s letter to Ernest Renan in response to his celebrated lecture
at Sorbonne given in 1883, in which Renan openly attacked Islam as an
obstacle to philosophy and science, is another important document for
the understanding of Afghani’s position on Islam and modern science.
In The Refutation of the Materialists, Afghani gives a scathing
criticism of the naturalist/materialist position from the scientific,
philosophical, ethical, and social points of view. He identifies the
materialists as the epitome of evil intent on destroying human
civilization. He traces the history of modern materialism to the Greek
materialists, among whom he mentions Democritus, Epicurus, and Diogenes
the Cynic. This short historical survey is followed by a scientific and
philosophical criticism of Darwin and his evolutionary theory. Afghani
rejects the idea of chance in nature and accuses the materialists of
attributing “perception and intelligence” to atoms (i.e., matter) in and
of themselves. He rejects totally the idea of universe as a
self-regulating structure without a higher intelligence operating on it.
This is without doubt the most philosophical section of the treatise.
Afghani then moves to his social and ethical criticism of the
materialists. According to him, the materialists are intent to undermine
the very foundations of human society. They try to destroy the “castle
of happiness” based on the six pillars of religion. These six pillars
are divided into three beliefs and three qualities. The first belief is
that man is a terrestrial angel, i.e., he is God’s vicegerent on earth.
The second belief is that one’s community is the noblest one both in the
sense of belonging to the human world against the animal and plant
kingdoms, and in the sense of belonging to the best human and religious
society. This inherent exclusivism, for Afghani, is the most important
motive for the global race of goodness, which lies at the heart of all
world civilizations. The third belief or doctrine that religion teaches
is that man is destined to reach the highest world, i.e., his innate
ability to transcend the merely material and realize the spiritual
within himself.
In addition, religion inculcates three ethical qualities in its
followers. The first quality is what Afghani calls “modesty” (haya’),
that is, the modesty of the soul to commit sin against God and his
fellowmen. The nobility of the soul increases in proportion to the
degree of its modesty. Afghani considers this quality to be the most
essential element for the ethical and social regulation of society. The
second quality is trustworthiness, which underlies the very fabric of a
society. The survival of human civilization is contingent upon mutual
respect and trust, without which no society can have political stability
and economic prosperity. The third quality promulgated by religion is
truthfulness and honesty, which, for Afghani, is the foundation of
social life and solidarity.
Through these six pillars, Afghani establishes religion as the
foundation of civilization and denounces materialism as the enemy of
religion and human society. To stress this central point, Afghani
mentions the Batinis and the Babis as followers of
naturalism/materialism in the Islamic world. He also mentions Rousseau
and Voltaire as modern materialists and uses a very strong language in
condemning their “sensualism” and anti-moralism. He even goes so far as
to classify socialists, communists and nihilists as nothing other than
mere variations of materialism in the ethical sense of the term. He
holds the materialists responsible for the destruction of such great
nations in history as the Persian, Roman, and Ottoman Empires. Since the
materialist does not recognize any reality other than gross matter and
‘sensuality’, he paves the way for the reign of passions and desires. In
this sense, the materialist is immersed in the worst kind of
metaphysical and ethical mistake and cannot be trusted even on a purely
human level.
In the last part of the treatise, Afghani turns to religion and, among
religions, to Islam as the only way to salvation for humanity. He
compares Islam to other world religions and asserts its superiority,
implying that Islam is the only religion to cope with the challenges of
the modern world. It is worth noting that Afghani concludes his treatise
with a short statement that has become the hallmark of Islamic
modernism:
If someone says: If the Islamic world is as you say, then why are the
Muslims in such a sad condition? I will answer: When they were [truly]
Muslims, they were what they were and the world bears witness to their
excellence. As for the present, I will content myself with this holy
text: “Verily, God does not change the state of a people until they
change themselves inwardly”. (Keddie, An Islamic Response to
Imperialism, p. 173)
As already mentioned, Afghani’s main target in the Refutation was Sayyid
Ahmad Khan and his followers in India. It is not difficult to see from
Afghani’s tone how serious he took the imminent danger of
naturalism/materialism for the future of the Islamic world. In this
sense, Afghani’s excessively polemical discourse against the
materialists is of particular significance for its attempt to draw the
attention of Muslim intellectuals to the philosophical and ethical
challenges emanating from the encounter of the Islamic world with the
modern Weltanschauung.
When we turn to Afghani’s famous response to Renan, however, we
encounter a completely different perspective, tone, and language. As was
mentioned earlier, Ernest Renan, in his lecture “Islam and Science”
given at Sorbonne and published in the Journal des Débats, March 29,
1883, attacked Islam and Arabs as innately incapable of doing philosophy
and producing science. Renan’s quasi-racist attack was a result of his
general typology of religion and provoked a number of responses and
apologies by Muslim intellectuals, including the one by Namik Kemal, the
famous Ottoman writer, poet and activist.
Afghani’s language remains apologetic throughout his letter to the
Journal des Débats. On the question of religion being an obstacle for
the development of science and philosophy, Afghani basically agrees with
Renan that all religions are intolerant in one way or another and that
they suppress the “free investigation” of scientific and philosophical
truth. Even though Afghani asserts that religions have played a vital
role in bringing humanity from “barbarism” and myths to the level of
advanced civilizations, both Islam and Christianity have turned against
the free use of reason and thus stifled scientific progress at some
point in their history. Here Afghani seems to forgo his essential
distinction between revelation and its unfolding in history, viz., the
distinction between Islam and Muslims. With the rise of the
Enlightenment, European nations have freed themselves from the tutelage
of Christianity, that is, religion, and carried out stunning
advancements in all fields of knowledge. Afghani is convinced that there
is no reason for us not to hope for a similar thing happening in the
Islamic world:
“If it is true that the Muslim religion is an obstacle to the
development of sciences, can one affirm that this obstacle will not
disappear someday? How does the Muslim religion differ on this point
from other religions? All religions are intolerant, each one in its way.
The Christian religion, I mean the society that follows its inspirations
and its teachings and is formed in its image, has emerged from the first
period to which I have just alluded; thenceforth free and independent,
it seems to advance rapidly on the road of progress and science, whereas
Muslim society has not yet freed itself from the tutelage of religion.
Realizing, however, that the Christian religion preceded the Muslim
religion in the world by many centuries, I cannot keep from hoping that
Muhammadan society will succeed someday in breaking its bonds and
marching resolutely in the path of civilization after the manner of
Western society…No I cannot admit that this hope be denied to Islam.”
(“Answer of Jamal al-Din to Renan Journal des Debats, May 18, 1883 in N.
R. Keddie, An Islamic Response to Imperialism, p. 183)
As for Renan’s claim that the Muslim Arabs are innately incapable of
philosophical thinking, Afghani gives some examples to refute the charge
and repeats his earlier claim that the Arabs became pioneers in the
history of philosophy and sciences only after they had accepted Islam.
Strangely enough, however, Afghani concludes his letter by creating a
very sharp contrast between religion and philosophy and establishes this
as a general rule of history – an assertion that Renan himself states
many times. The claims of religion and philosophy, Afghani argues, are
irreconcilable, and this is true across the religious boundaries whether
we are talking about Islam, Christianity or Hinduism. Religious faith is
based on dogma whereas philosophy demands free investigation, not
bounded or aided by the revelation, to find the truth. The clash between
the two, says Afghani, is an ineluctable part of human history.
Religions, by whatever names they are called, all resemble each other.
No agreement and no reconciliation are possible between these religions
and philosophy. Religion imposes on man its faith and its belief whereas
philosophy frees him of it totally or in part. … Whenever religion will
have the upper hand, it will eliminate philosophy; and the contrary
happens when it is philosophy that reigns as sovereign mistress. So long
as humanity exists, the struggle will not cease between dogma and free
investigation, between religion and philosophy: a desperate struggle in
which, I fear, the triumph will not be for free thought, because the
masses dislike reason, and its teachings are only understood by some
intelligences of the elite, and because, also, science, however
beautiful it is, does not completely satisfy humanity, which thirsts for
the ideal and which likes to exist in dark and distant regions that the
philosophers and scholars can neither perceive nor explore. (Keddie, p.
187)
This somewhat abrupt and surprising end leaves a number of issues in
obscurity, to say the least, as far as Afghani’s position on the
relation between religion, philosophy and, by derivation, science is
concerned. It is, however, indicative of the general mood of the 19th
century Muslim intellectuals concerning modern science and philosophy.
Afghani, like many of his colleagues and contemporaries, was touched by
the sheer power and supremacy of Western powers that were increasing
their encroachment upon the Islamic world. The European countries were
prosperous and powerful because of their scientific and technological
superiority, and this was the most important conclusion for the
activist-intellectuals of the 19th century. Since Western power thrives
on modern science and technology, reasoned Afghani and others, it had to
be possessed by Muslim countries deliberately and urgently. As we see in
the case of the Ottoman Empire, this was considered to be the only way
to stop the further decline and disintegration of the dar al-islam.
This view, which is still held by many today, can be recognized
throughout Afghani’s political and intellectual career as far as modern
Western science is concerned. Moreover, this conviction was supplemented
by the presumed objectivity of modern physical sciences – a point of
view fully developed later by the generation of Muslim intellectuals
deeply influenced by Afghani including Muhammad ‘Abduh, Rashid Rida, M.
‘Abd al-Raziq, Said Nursi and others.
Afghani’s Major Works
Al-Ta’liqat ‘ala sharh al-Dawwani li’l-‘aqa’id al-‘adudiyyah (Cairo,
1968). Afghani’s glosses over Dawwani’s commentary on the famous kalam
book of ’Adud al-Din al-‘Iji called al-‘aqa’id al-‘adudiyyah.
Risalat al-waridat fi sirr al-tajalliyat (Cairo, 1968). A work dictated
by Afghani to his student M. ‘Abduh when he was in Egypt.
Tatimmat al-bayan (Cairo, 1879). A political, social and cultural
history of Afghanistan.
Hakikat-i Madhhab-i Naychari wa Bayan-i Hal-i Naychariyan. First
published in Haydarabad-Deccan, 1298/1881, this is Afghani’s most
important intellectual work that he published during his lifetime. It is
a scathing criticism and total rejection of naturalism which Afghani
also calls ‘materialism’. The book has been translated into Arabic by M.
‘Abduh as al-Radd ‘ala al-dahriyyin (The Refutation of the
Materialists).
Khatirat Jamal al-Din al-Afghani al-Husayni (Beirut, 1931). A book
compiled by the Lebanese journalist Muhammad Pasha al-Mahzumi. Mahzumi
was present in most of Afghani’s talks in the last part of his life and
developed his conversations in to the present book. The book contains
important information about Afghani’s life and ideas.
Ibrahim Kalin
http://www.cis-ca.org/voices/a/afghni-mn.htm
May 29, 2003
Selected Bibliography
Afshar, Iraj and Mahdawi, Asghar, Majmu’a-yi asnad wa madariki chap
nashuda dar bara-yi Sayyid Jamal al-Din mashhur be-Afghani (Tehran:
Tehran University Press, 1963)
Enayat, Hamid, Modern Islamic Political Thought (Austin: The University
of Texas Press, 1982)
Gibb, H. A. R., Modern Trends in Islam (Chicago: Chicago University
Press, 1947)
Hourani, Albert, Arabic Thought in the Liberal Age: 1789-1939
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982)
Keddie, Nikki, An Islamic Response to Imperialism: Political and
Religious Writings of Sayyid Jamal al-Din “al-Afghani” (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1983)
--------, Sayyid Jamal al-Din Afghani: A Political Biography (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1972)
Kedourie, Elie, Afghani and ‘Abduh: An Essay on Religious Unbelief and
Political Activism in Modern Islam (London, 1966)
Qudsi-zadah, Albert, Sayyid Jamal al-Din al-Afghani: An Annotated
Bibliography (Leiden: Brill, 1970)
Siddiqi, Mazheruddin, Modern Reformist Thought in the Muslim World
(Islamabad: Islamic Research Institute, 1982)
Smith, W. Cantwell, Islam in Modern History (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1957)
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Freethought110
and saw through the nonsense of the baha'i cult better than any of his
contemporaries.
"Pacifist" <mushr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<aa0393d2bbdbe4e1f2d...@mygate.mailgate.org>...
> by Muhammad ?Abduh into Arabic and published as The Refutation of the
> Materialists (al-Radd ?ala al-dahriyyin) in Beirut, 1886.
>
> In 1870, he traveled to Egypt and Istanbul where he received a warm
> welcome from Ottoman officials and intellectuals who were instrumental
> in the creation of the Tanzimat reforms. Afghani went to Egypt for the
> second time and stayed there for the next eight years (1871-9) during
> which time he began to spread his philosophical and political ideas
> through his classes and public lectures.
>
> At the beginning of 1883, Afghani spent a short time in London and then
> went to Paris. In Paris, Afghani begun to publish his famous journal
> al-?Urwat al-wuthqa? (?The Firmest Robe? ? a title taken from the
> Qur?an) with the close collaboration of his friend and student Muhammad
> ?Abduh whom he had invited from Lebanon to Paris. Due to a number of
> difficulties, al-?Urwah was discontinued in September 1884 after
> eighteen issues. Through his essays and especially his polemic against
> Ernest Renan, a French historian, philosopher and positivist, Afghani
> established considerable fame for himself in the Parisian intellectual
> circles.
>
> In 1886, he was invited by Shah Nasir al-Din to Iran and offered the
> position of special adviser to the Shah, which he accepted. Afghani,
> however, was critical of Shah?s policies on the question of political
> participation. This difference of opinion forced Afghani to leave Iran
> for Russia (1886 to 1889). In 1889 on his way to Paris, Afghani met Shah
> Nasir al-Din in Munich and was offered the position of grand vizier. But
> Afghani?s unabated criticisms of the rule and conduct of the Shah led to
> his eventual deportation from Iran in the winter of 1891. Afghani was
> later implicated in the murder of Shah Nasir al-Din in 1896.
>
> Afghani spent the last part of his life in Istanbul under the patronage
> and, later, surveillance of Sultan ?Abd al-Hamid II. The demands for
> Afghani?s extradition by the Iranian officials for his alleged
> involvement in the assassination of Shah Nasir al-Din were rejected by
> ?Abd al-Hamid who, most probably, collaborated with Afghani for the
> implementation of his political program of pan-Islamism or Islamic unity
> (ittihad-i islam). To this end, Afghani sent a number of letters to
> various Islamic countries and leaders to mobilize and unite them against
> the British rule while at the same time trying to establish the
> foundations of a mutual rapprochement between the Sunnis and the
> Shi`ites. According to some historians, ?Abd al-Hamid grew suspicious of
> Afghani?s meetings with some Arab leaders and the British officials in
> Istanbul and did not permit him to leave the country. Afghani died of
> cancer in March 9, 1897 and was buried in Istanbul.
>
> Afghani?s career as a thinker and activist has had a deep impact on the
> Islamic world and continues to be a source of inspiration and
> controversy for many today. Afghani?s project of Islamic modernism that
> he developed in his lectures, polemics, short essays, and newspaper
> columns was based on the idea of finding a modus vivendi between
> traditional Islamic culture and the philosophical and scientific
> challenges of the modern West. It would not be wrong to say that Afghani
> took a middle position between blind Westernization and its wholesale
> rejection by the traditional ?ulama?. His basic assumption was shared by
> the whole generation of the 19th century Muslim thinkers and activists:
> modern Western science and technology are essentially separable from the
> ethos and manners of European nations and can and should be acquired by
> the Islamic world without necessarily accepting the theological and
> philosophical consequences emerging from their application in the
> Western context. As we shall see below, Afghani?s views on science
> should be understood in the light of this general program of Islamic
> ?reform? or renewal (islah or tajdid).
>
> Afghani, unlike many of the revivalist thinkers of his generation, was
> well versed in traditional Islamic philosophy (hikmah), and considered
> philosophy essential for the revival of Islamic civilization. This is
> clearly reflected in his various lectures and particularly in The
> Refutation of the Materialists. In fact, Afghani?s philosophical
> arguments against the naturalists and materialists derive their force
> from his philosophical training. As we see in his lecture ?The Benefits
> of Philosophy?, Afghani?s vision of a ?modern Islamic philosophy? was
> closely tied to his confidence in the recent advancements made in the
> fields of science and technology. Unlike traditional theology (kalam),
> philosophy should articulate a cosmology based on the findings of modern
> science. These and similar ideas expressed by Afghani have been used by
> his critics and enemies to label him as a heretic. His role in the
> revival of the study of Islamic philosophy in the Arab and Indian
> worlds, however, remains unmistakable.
>
> Afghani?s political program of pan-Islamism (ittihad-i islam) sought to
> mobilize Muslim nations to fight against Western imperialism and gain
> military power through modern technology. Afghani?s call for the
> independence of individual Muslim nations has been a key factor in the
> development of the so-called ?Islamic nationalism? and influenced such
> Muslim figures as Muhammad Iqbal, Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Abu?l Kalam
> Azad in the Indian subcontinent and Namik Kemal, Said Nursi and Mehmet
> Akif Ersoy in the Ottoman Turkey. Later in the 20th century, Afghani
> became a major source of inspiration for such revivalist movements as
> the Muslim Brethren of Egypt and the Jama`at-i Islami of Pakistan. In
> many ways, Afghani continues to be hailed by various Islamic activist
> groups as an important example of the activist-scholar type in the
> Islamic world. Afghani had also a deep impact on many Egyptian thinkers
> including Muhammad ?Abduh, Rashid Rida, ?Ali ?Abd al-Raziq, Qasim Amin,
> Lutfi al-Sayyid and Osman Amin.
>
> Before delving into Afghani?s ideas on science, a word should be said
> about a long-standing controversy surrounding Afghani?s ethnic origin
> and religious (madhhab) identity. One end of the controversy pertains to
> his being an Iranian or Afghan, and the other to his being Shi`ite or
> Sunni. Some have even claimed that Afghani was born into a Turkish
> speaking Azari family in Hamadan. Curiously enough, the root of the
> debate goes back to Afghani himself for he was acutely aware of the
> impact that his ethnic origin and religious position would have on both
> the Sunni and Shi`ite worlds. As a matter of expedience, if not anything
> else, Afghani seems to have been willingly and deliberately ambiguous
> about both issues to ensure the reception of his ideas in the Islamic
> world. Be that as it may, Afghani?s influence on the Islamic world as a
> whole has not been marred by the ways he has been portrayed up to our
> own day.
>
> As a public intellectual and activist, Afghani articulated and expressed
> most of his ideas through his lectures and wrote very little. He
> published only two books in his lifetime. One is a history of
> Afghanistan and the other his famous refutation of naturalism and
> materialism, which he singled out as the most urgent threat to humanity
> in general and to the Islamic world in particular. It is worth noting
> that Afghani?s only published book of intellectual substance is directly
> related to the question of religion and science. Although very short,
> Afghani?s letter to Ernest Renan in response to his celebrated lecture
> at Sorbonne given in 1883, in which Renan openly attacked Islam as an
> obstacle to philosophy and science, is another important document for
> the understanding of Afghani?s position on Islam and modern science.
>
> In The Refutation of the Materialists, Afghani gives a scathing
> criticism of the naturalist/materialist position from the scientific,
> philosophical, ethical, and social points of view. He identifies the
> materialists as the epitome of evil intent on destroying human
> civilization. He traces the history of modern materialism to the Greek
> materialists, among whom he mentions Democritus, Epicurus, and Diogenes
> the Cynic. This short historical survey is followed by a scientific and
> philosophical criticism of Darwin and his evolutionary theory. Afghani
> rejects the idea of chance in nature and accuses the materialists of
> attributing ?perception and intelligence? to atoms (i.e., matter) in and
> of themselves. He rejects totally the idea of universe as a
> self-regulating structure without a higher intelligence operating on it.
> This is without doubt the most philosophical section of the treatise.
>
> Afghani then moves to his social and ethical criticism of the
> materialists. According to him, the materialists are intent to undermine
> the very foundations of human society. They try to destroy the ?castle
> of happiness? based on the six pillars of religion. These six pillars
> are divided into three beliefs and three qualities. The first belief is
> that man is a terrestrial angel, i.e., he is God?s vicegerent on earth.
> The second belief is that one?s community is the noblest one both in the
> sense of belonging to the human world against the animal and plant
> kingdoms, and in the sense of belonging to the best human and religious
> society. This inherent exclusivism, for Afghani, is the most important
> motive for the global race of goodness, which lies at the heart of all
> world civilizations. The third belief or doctrine that religion teaches
> is that man is destined to reach the highest world, i.e., his innate
> ability to transcend the merely material and realize the spiritual
> within himself.
>
> In addition, religion inculcates three ethical qualities in its
> followers. The first quality is what Afghani calls ?modesty? (haya?),
> that is, the modesty of the soul to commit sin against God and his
> fellowmen. The nobility of the soul increases in proportion to the
> degree of its modesty. Afghani considers this quality to be the most
> essential element for the ethical and social regulation of society. The
> second quality is trustworthiness, which underlies the very fabric of a
> society. The survival of human civilization is contingent upon mutual
> respect and trust, without which no society can have political stability
> and economic prosperity. The third quality promulgated by religion is
> truthfulness and honesty, which, for Afghani, is the foundation of
> social life and solidarity.
>
> Through these six pillars, Afghani establishes religion as the
> foundation of civilization and denounces materialism as the enemy of
> religion and human society. To stress this central point, Afghani
> mentions the Batinis and the Babis as followers of
> naturalism/materialism in the Islamic world. He also mentions Rousseau
> and Voltaire as modern materialists and uses a very strong language in
> condemning their ?sensualism? and anti-moralism. He even goes so far as
> to classify socialists, communists and nihilists as nothing other than
> mere variations of materialism in the ethical sense of the term. He
> holds the materialists responsible for the destruction of such great
> nations in history as the Persian, Roman, and Ottoman Empires. Since the
> materialist does not recognize any reality other than gross matter and
> ?sensuality?, he paves the way for the reign of passions and desires. In
> this sense, the materialist is immersed in the worst kind of
> metaphysical and ethical mistake and cannot be trusted even on a purely
> human level.
>
> In the last part of the treatise, Afghani turns to religion and, among
> religions, to Islam as the only way to salvation for humanity. He
> compares Islam to other world religions and asserts its superiority,
> implying that Islam is the only religion to cope with the challenges of
> the modern world. It is worth noting that Afghani concludes his treatise
> with a short statement that has become the hallmark of Islamic
> modernism:
>
> If someone says: If the Islamic world is as you say, then why are the
> Muslims in such a sad condition? I will answer: When they were [truly]
> Muslims, they were what they were and the world bears witness to their
> excellence. As for the present, I will content myself with this holy
> text: ?Verily, God does not change the state of a people until they
> change themselves inwardly?. (Keddie, An Islamic Response to
> Imperialism, p. 173)
>
> As already mentioned, Afghani?s main target in the Refutation was Sayyid
> Ahmad Khan and his followers in India. It is not difficult to see from
> Afghani?s tone how serious he took the imminent danger of
> naturalism/materialism for the future of the Islamic world. In this
> sense, Afghani?s excessively polemical discourse against the
> materialists is of particular significance for its attempt to draw the
> attention of Muslim intellectuals to the philosophical and ethical
> challenges emanating from the encounter of the Islamic world with the
> modern Weltanschauung.
>
> When we turn to Afghani?s famous response to Renan, however, we
> encounter a completely different perspective, tone, and language. As was
> mentioned earlier, Ernest Renan, in his lecture ?Islam and Science?
> given at Sorbonne and published in the Journal des Débats, March 29,
> 1883, attacked Islam and Arabs as innately incapable of doing philosophy
> and producing science. Renan?s quasi-racist attack was a result of his
> general typology of religion and provoked a number of responses and
> apologies by Muslim intellectuals, including the one by Namik Kemal, the
> famous Ottoman writer, poet and activist.
>
> Afghani?s language remains apologetic throughout his letter to the
> Journal des Débats. On the question of religion being an obstacle for
> the development of science and philosophy, Afghani basically agrees with
> Renan that all religions are intolerant in one way or another and that
> they suppress the ?free investigation? of scientific and philosophical
> truth. Even though Afghani asserts that religions have played a vital
> role in bringing humanity from ?barbarism? and myths to the level of
> advanced civilizations, both Islam and Christianity have turned against
> the free use of reason and thus stifled scientific progress at some
> point in their history. Here Afghani seems to forgo his essential
> distinction between revelation and its unfolding in history, viz., the
> distinction between Islam and Muslims. With the rise of the
> Enlightenment, European nations have freed themselves from the tutelage
> of Christianity, that is, religion, and carried out stunning
> advancements in all fields of knowledge. Afghani is convinced that there
> is no reason for us not to hope for a similar thing happening in the
> Islamic world:
>
> ?If it is true that the Muslim religion is an obstacle to the
> development of sciences, can one affirm that this obstacle will not
> disappear someday? How does the Muslim religion differ on this point
> from other religions? All religions are intolerant, each one in its way.
> The Christian religion, I mean the society that follows its inspirations
> and its teachings and is formed in its image, has emerged from the first
> period to which I have just alluded; thenceforth free and independent,
> it seems to advance rapidly on the road of progress and science, whereas
> Muslim society has not yet freed itself from the tutelage of religion.
> Realizing, however, that the Christian religion preceded the Muslim
> religion in the world by many centuries, I cannot keep from hoping that
> Muhammadan society will succeed someday in breaking its bonds and
> marching resolutely in the path of civilization after the manner of
> Western society?No I cannot admit that this hope be denied to Islam.?
> (?Answer of Jamal al-Din to Renan Journal des Debats, May 18, 1883 in N.
> R. Keddie, An Islamic Response to Imperialism, p. 183)
>
> As for Renan?s claim that the Muslim Arabs are innately incapable of
> philosophical thinking, Afghani gives some examples to refute the charge
> and repeats his earlier claim that the Arabs became pioneers in the
> history of philosophy and sciences only after they had accepted Islam.
> Strangely enough, however, Afghani concludes his letter by creating a
> very sharp contrast between religion and philosophy and establishes this
> as a general rule of history ? an assertion that Renan himself states
> many times. The claims of religion and philosophy, Afghani argues, are
> irreconcilable, and this is true across the religious boundaries whether
> we are talking about Islam, Christianity or Hinduism. Religious faith is
> based on dogma whereas philosophy demands free investigation, not
> bounded or aided by the revelation, to find the truth. The clash between
> the two, says Afghani, is an ineluctable part of human history.
>
> Religions, by whatever names they are called, all resemble each other.
> No agreement and no reconciliation are possible between these religions
> and philosophy. Religion imposes on man its faith and its belief whereas
> philosophy frees him of it totally or in part. ? Whenever religion will
> have the upper hand, it will eliminate philosophy; and the contrary
> happens when it is philosophy that reigns as sovereign mistress. So long
> as humanity exists, the struggle will not cease between dogma and free
> investigation, between religion and philosophy: a desperate struggle in
> which, I fear, the triumph will not be for free thought, because the
> masses dislike reason, and its teachings are only understood by some
> intelligences of the elite, and because, also, science, however
> beautiful it is, does not completely satisfy humanity, which thirsts for
> the ideal and which likes to exist in dark and distant regions that the
> philosophers and scholars can neither perceive nor explore. (Keddie, p.
> 187)
>
> This somewhat abrupt and surprising end leaves a number of issues in
> obscurity, to say the least, as far as Afghani?s position on the
> relation between religion, philosophy and, by derivation, science is
> concerned. It is, however, indicative of the general mood of the 19th
> century Muslim intellectuals concerning modern science and philosophy.
> Afghani, like many of his colleagues and contemporaries, was touched by
> the sheer power and supremacy of Western powers that were increasing
> their encroachment upon the Islamic world. The European countries were
> prosperous and powerful because of their scientific and technological
> superiority, and this was the most important conclusion for the
> activist-intellectuals of the 19th century. Since Western power thrives
> on modern science and technology, reasoned Afghani and others, it had to
> be possessed by Muslim countries deliberately and urgently. As we see in
> the case of the Ottoman Empire, this was considered to be the only way
> to stop the further decline and disintegration of the dar al-islam.
>
> This view, which is still held by many today, can be recognized
> throughout Afghani?s political and intellectual career as far as modern
> Western science is concerned. Moreover, this conviction was supplemented
> by the presumed objectivity of modern physical sciences ? a point of
> view fully developed later by the generation of Muslim intellectuals
> deeply influenced by Afghani including Muhammad ?Abduh, Rashid Rida, M.
> ?Abd al-Raziq, Said Nursi and others.
>
>
>
> Afghani?s Major Works
> Al-Ta?liqat ?ala sharh al-Dawwani li?l-?aqa?id al-?adudiyyah (Cairo,
> 1968). Afghani?s glosses over Dawwani?s commentary on the famous kalam
> book of ?Adud al-Din al-?Iji called al-?aqa?id al-?adudiyyah.
>
> Risalat al-waridat fi sirr al-tajalliyat (Cairo, 1968). A work dictated
> by Afghani to his student M. ?Abduh when he was in Egypt.
>
> Tatimmat al-bayan (Cairo, 1879). A political, social and cultural
> history of Afghanistan.
>
> Hakikat-i Madhhab-i Naychari wa Bayan-i Hal-i Naychariyan. First
> published in Haydarabad-Deccan, 1298/1881, this is Afghani?s most
> important intellectual work that he published during his lifetime. It is
> a scathing criticism and total rejection of naturalism which Afghani
> also calls ?materialism?. The book has been translated into Arabic by M.
> ?Abduh as al-Radd ?ala al-dahriyyin (The Refutation of the
> Materialists).
>
> Khatirat Jamal al-Din al-Afghani al-Husayni (Beirut, 1931). A book
> compiled by the Lebanese journalist Muhammad Pasha al-Mahzumi. Mahzumi
> was present in most of Afghani?s talks in the last part of his life and
> developed his conversations in to the present book. The book contains
> important information about Afghani?s life and ideas.
>
>
>
> Ibrahim Kalin
>
> http://www.cis-ca.org/voices/a/afghni-mn.htm
>
> May 29, 2003
>
>
>
> Selected Bibliography
> Afshar, Iraj and Mahdawi, Asghar, Majmu?a-yi asnad wa madariki chap
> nashuda dar bara-yi Sayyid Jamal al-Din mashhur be-Afghani (Tehran:
> Tehran University Press, 1963)
>
> Enayat, Hamid, Modern Islamic Political Thought (Austin: The University
> of Texas Press, 1982)
>
> Gibb, H. A. R., Modern Trends in Islam (Chicago: Chicago University
> Press, 1947)
>
> Hourani, Albert, Arabic Thought in the Liberal Age: 1789-1939
> (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982)
>
> Keddie, Nikki, An Islamic Response to Imperialism: Political and
> Religious Writings of Sayyid Jamal al-Din ?al-Afghani? (Berkeley:
> University of California Press, 1983)
>
> --------, Sayyid Jamal al-Din Afghani: A Political Biography (Berkeley:
> University of California Press, 1972)
>
> Kedourie, Elie, Afghani and ?Abduh: An Essay on Religious Unbelief and
Pacifist
news:83b59396.03092...@posting.google.com
> A great man who understood perfectly the nature of Western imperialism
> and saw through the nonsense of the baha'i cult better than any of his
> contemporaries.
Dude,
Do you happen to have any more sources on him (that you can post here)?
Thanks.
P
Ala
seyyed jamal a deviated person, a free-masonary and rowshan-fekr
elteghati but time showed that seyyed was at least a century ahead of
his time. the religious movements of seyyed jamal, iqbal and shariati
is yet to materialize in islamic countries. sad enough, the islamic
revolution in iran which was started by the thinkings of shariati was
soon hijacked by the fascist reactionary mullas and this in turn lead
to the appearance of taleban and al-qaeda type movements which are
based on the zeal and follow no thinkings or logic.
islamic world is desperately in need of the new thinkings that seyyed
jamal started but instead we are getting idiots like khamenei, mesbah
yazdi, osama ben laden and mulla omar.
"Pacifist" <mushr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<aa0393d2bbdbe4e1f2d...@mygate.mailgate.org>...
> by Muhammad ?Abduh into Arabic and published as The Refutation of the
> Materialists (al-Radd ?ala al-dahriyyin) in Beirut, 1886.
>
> In 1870, he traveled to Egypt and Istanbul where he received a warm
> welcome from Ottoman officials and intellectuals who were instrumental
> in the creation of the Tanzimat reforms. Afghani went to Egypt for the
> second time and stayed there for the next eight years (1871-9) during
> which time he began to spread his philosophical and political ideas
> through his classes and public lectures.
>
> At the beginning of 1883, Afghani spent a short time in London and then
> went to Paris. In Paris, Afghani begun to publish his famous journal
> al-?Urwat al-wuthqa? (?The Firmest Robe? ? a title taken from the
> Qur?an) with the close collaboration of his friend and student Muhammad
> ?Abduh whom he had invited from Lebanon to Paris. Due to a number of
> difficulties, al-?Urwah was discontinued in September 1884 after
> eighteen issues. Through his essays and especially his polemic against
> Ernest Renan, a French historian, philosopher and positivist, Afghani
> established considerable fame for himself in the Parisian intellectual
> circles.
>
> In 1886, he was invited by Shah Nasir al-Din to Iran and offered the
> position of special adviser to the Shah, which he accepted. Afghani,
> however, was critical of Shah?s policies on the question of political
> participation. This difference of opinion forced Afghani to leave Iran
> for Russia (1886 to 1889). In 1889 on his way to Paris, Afghani met Shah
> Nasir al-Din in Munich and was offered the position of grand vizier. But
> Afghani?s unabated criticisms of the rule and conduct of the Shah led to
> his eventual deportation from Iran in the winter of 1891. Afghani was
> later implicated in the murder of Shah Nasir al-Din in 1896.
>
> Afghani spent the last part of his life in Istanbul under the patronage
> and, later, surveillance of Sultan ?Abd al-Hamid II. The demands for
> Afghani?s extradition by the Iranian officials for his alleged
> involvement in the assassination of Shah Nasir al-Din were rejected by
> ?Abd al-Hamid who, most probably, collaborated with Afghani for the
> implementation of his political program of pan-Islamism or Islamic unity
> (ittihad-i islam). To this end, Afghani sent a number of letters to
> various Islamic countries and leaders to mobilize and unite them against
> the British rule while at the same time trying to establish the
> foundations of a mutual rapprochement between the Sunnis and the
> Shi`ites. According to some historians, ?Abd al-Hamid grew suspicious of
> Afghani?s meetings with some Arab leaders and the British officials in
> Istanbul and did not permit him to leave the country. Afghani died of
> cancer in March 9, 1897 and was buried in Istanbul.
>
> Afghani?s career as a thinker and activist has had a deep impact on the
> Islamic world and continues to be a source of inspiration and
> controversy for many today. Afghani?s project of Islamic modernism that
> he developed in his lectures, polemics, short essays, and newspaper
> columns was based on the idea of finding a modus vivendi between
> traditional Islamic culture and the philosophical and scientific
> challenges of the modern West. It would not be wrong to say that Afghani
> took a middle position between blind Westernization and its wholesale
> rejection by the traditional ?ulama?. His basic assumption was shared by
> the whole generation of the 19th century Muslim thinkers and activists:
> modern Western science and technology are essentially separable from the
> ethos and manners of European nations and can and should be acquired by
> the Islamic world without necessarily accepting the theological and
> philosophical consequences emerging from their application in the
> Western context. As we shall see below, Afghani?s views on science
> should be understood in the light of this general program of Islamic
> ?reform? or renewal (islah or tajdid).
>
> Afghani, unlike many of the revivalist thinkers of his generation, was
> well versed in traditional Islamic philosophy (hikmah), and considered
> philosophy essential for the revival of Islamic civilization. This is
> clearly reflected in his various lectures and particularly in The
> Refutation of the Materialists. In fact, Afghani?s philosophical
> arguments against the naturalists and materialists derive their force
> from his philosophical training. As we see in his lecture ?The Benefits
> of Philosophy?, Afghani?s vision of a ?modern Islamic philosophy? was
> closely tied to his confidence in the recent advancements made in the
> fields of science and technology. Unlike traditional theology (kalam),
> philosophy should articulate a cosmology based on the findings of modern
> science. These and similar ideas expressed by Afghani have been used by
> his critics and enemies to label him as a heretic. His role in the
> revival of the study of Islamic philosophy in the Arab and Indian
> worlds, however, remains unmistakable.
>
> Afghani?s political program of pan-Islamism (ittihad-i islam) sought to
> mobilize Muslim nations to fight against Western imperialism and gain
> military power through modern technology. Afghani?s call for the
> independence of individual Muslim nations has been a key factor in the
> development of the so-called ?Islamic nationalism? and influenced such
> Muslim figures as Muhammad Iqbal, Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Abu?l Kalam
> Azad in the Indian subcontinent and Namik Kemal, Said Nursi and Mehmet
> Akif Ersoy in the Ottoman Turkey. Later in the 20th century, Afghani
> became a major source of inspiration for such revivalist movements as
> the Muslim Brethren of Egypt and the Jama`at-i Islami of Pakistan. In
> many ways, Afghani continues to be hailed by various Islamic activist
> groups as an important example of the activist-scholar type in the
> Islamic world. Afghani had also a deep impact on many Egyptian thinkers
> including Muhammad ?Abduh, Rashid Rida, ?Ali ?Abd al-Raziq, Qasim Amin,
> Lutfi al-Sayyid and Osman Amin.
>
> Before delving into Afghani?s ideas on science, a word should be said
> about a long-standing controversy surrounding Afghani?s ethnic origin
> and religious (madhhab) identity. One end of the controversy pertains to
> his being an Iranian or Afghan, and the other to his being Shi`ite or
> Sunni. Some have even claimed that Afghani was born into a Turkish
> speaking Azari family in Hamadan. Curiously enough, the root of the
> debate goes back to Afghani himself for he was acutely aware of the
> impact that his ethnic origin and religious position would have on both
> the Sunni and Shi`ite worlds. As a matter of expedience, if not anything
> else, Afghani seems to have been willingly and deliberately ambiguous
> about both issues to ensure the reception of his ideas in the Islamic
> world. Be that as it may, Afghani?s influence on the Islamic world as a
> whole has not been marred by the ways he has been portrayed up to our
> own day.
>
> As a public intellectual and activist, Afghani articulated and expressed
> most of his ideas through his lectures and wrote very little. He
> published only two books in his lifetime. One is a history of
> Afghanistan and the other his famous refutation of naturalism and
> materialism, which he singled out as the most urgent threat to humanity
> in general and to the Islamic world in particular. It is worth noting
> that Afghani?s only published book of intellectual substance is directly
> related to the question of religion and science. Although very short,
> Afghani?s letter to Ernest Renan in response to his celebrated lecture
> at Sorbonne given in 1883, in which Renan openly attacked Islam as an
> obstacle to philosophy and science, is another important document for
> the understanding of Afghani?s position on Islam and modern science.
>
> In The Refutation of the Materialists, Afghani gives a scathing
> criticism of the naturalist/materialist position from the scientific,
> philosophical, ethical, and social points of view. He identifies the
> materialists as the epitome of evil intent on destroying human
> civilization. He traces the history of modern materialism to the Greek
> materialists, among whom he mentions Democritus, Epicurus, and Diogenes
> the Cynic. This short historical survey is followed by a scientific and
> philosophical criticism of Darwin and his evolutionary theory. Afghani
> rejects the idea of chance in nature and accuses the materialists of
> attributing ?perception and intelligence? to atoms (i.e., matter) in and
> of themselves. He rejects totally the idea of universe as a
> self-regulating structure without a higher intelligence operating on it.
> This is without doubt the most philosophical section of the treatise.
>
> Afghani then moves to his social and ethical criticism of the
> materialists. According to him, the materialists are intent to undermine
> the very foundations of human society. They try to destroy the ?castle
> of happiness? based on the six pillars of religion. These six pillars
> are divided into three beliefs and three qualities. The first belief is
> that man is a terrestrial angel, i.e., he is God?s vicegerent on earth.
> The second belief is that one?s community is the noblest one both in the
> sense of belonging to the human world against the animal and plant
> kingdoms, and in the sense of belonging to the best human and religious
> society. This inherent exclusivism, for Afghani, is the most important
> motive for the global race of goodness, which lies at the heart of all
> world civilizations. The third belief or doctrine that religion teaches
> is that man is destined to reach the highest world, i.e., his innate
> ability to transcend the merely material and realize the spiritual
> within himself.
>
> In addition, religion inculcates three ethical qualities in its
> followers. The first quality is what Afghani calls ?modesty? (haya?),
> that is, the modesty of the soul to commit sin against God and his
> fellowmen. The nobility of the soul increases in proportion to the
> degree of its modesty. Afghani considers this quality to be the most
> essential element for the ethical and social regulation of society. The
> second quality is trustworthiness, which underlies the very fabric of a
> society. The survival of human civilization is contingent upon mutual
> respect and trust, without which no society can have political stability
> and economic prosperity. The third quality promulgated by religion is
> truthfulness and honesty, which, for Afghani, is the foundation of
> social life and solidarity.
>
> Through these six pillars, Afghani establishes religion as the
> foundation of civilization and denounces materialism as the enemy of
> religion and human society. To stress this central point, Afghani
> mentions the Batinis and the Babis as followers of
> naturalism/materialism in the Islamic world. He also mentions Rousseau
> and Voltaire as modern materialists and uses a very strong language in
> condemning their ?sensualism? and anti-moralism. He even goes so far as
> to classify socialists, communists and nihilists as nothing other than
> mere variations of materialism in the ethical sense of the term. He
> holds the materialists responsible for the destruction of such great
> nations in history as the Persian, Roman, and Ottoman Empires. Since the
> materialist does not recognize any reality other than gross matter and
> ?sensuality?, he paves the way for the reign of passions and desires. In
> this sense, the materialist is immersed in the worst kind of
> metaphysical and ethical mistake and cannot be trusted even on a purely
> human level.
>
> In the last part of the treatise, Afghani turns to religion and, among
> religions, to Islam as the only way to salvation for humanity. He
> compares Islam to other world religions and asserts its superiority,
> implying that Islam is the only religion to cope with the challenges of
> the modern world. It is worth noting that Afghani concludes his treatise
> with a short statement that has become the hallmark of Islamic
> modernism:
>
> If someone says: If the Islamic world is as you say, then why are the
> Muslims in such a sad condition? I will answer: When they were [truly]
> Muslims, they were what they were and the world bears witness to their
> excellence. As for the present, I will content myself with this holy
> text: ?Verily, God does not change the state of a people until they
> change themselves inwardly?. (Keddie, An Islamic Response to
> Imperialism, p. 173)
>
> As already mentioned, Afghani?s main target in the Refutation was Sayyid
> Ahmad Khan and his followers in India. It is not difficult to see from
> Afghani?s tone how serious he took the imminent danger of
> naturalism/materialism for the future of the Islamic world. In this
> sense, Afghani?s excessively polemical discourse against the
> materialists is of particular significance for its attempt to draw the
> attention of Muslim intellectuals to the philosophical and ethical
> challenges emanating from the encounter of the Islamic world with the
> modern Weltanschauung.
>
> When we turn to Afghani?s famous response to Renan, however, we
> encounter a completely different perspective, tone, and language. As was
> mentioned earlier, Ernest Renan, in his lecture ?Islam and Science?
> given at Sorbonne and published in the Journal des Débats, March 29,
> 1883, attacked Islam and Arabs as innately incapable of doing philosophy
> and producing science. Renan?s quasi-racist attack was a result of his
> general typology of religion and provoked a number of responses and
> apologies by Muslim intellectuals, including the one by Namik Kemal, the
> famous Ottoman writer, poet and activist.
>
> Afghani?s language remains apologetic throughout his letter to the
> Journal des Débats. On the question of religion being an obstacle for
> the development of science and philosophy, Afghani basically agrees with
> Renan that all religions are intolerant in one way or another and that
> they suppress the ?free investigation? of scientific and philosophical
> truth. Even though Afghani asserts that religions have played a vital
> role in bringing humanity from ?barbarism? and myths to the level of
> advanced civilizations, both Islam and Christianity have turned against
> the free use of reason and thus stifled scientific progress at some
> point in their history. Here Afghani seems to forgo his essential
> distinction between revelation and its unfolding in history, viz., the
> distinction between Islam and Muslims. With the rise of the
> Enlightenment, European nations have freed themselves from the tutelage
> of Christianity, that is, religion, and carried out stunning
> advancements in all fields of knowledge. Afghani is convinced that there
> is no reason for us not to hope for a similar thing happening in the
> Islamic world:
>
> ?If it is true that the Muslim religion is an obstacle to the
> development of sciences, can one affirm that this obstacle will not
> disappear someday? How does the Muslim religion differ on this point
> from other religions? All religions are intolerant, each one in its way.
> The Christian religion, I mean the society that follows its inspirations
> and its teachings and is formed in its image, has emerged from the first
> period to which I have just alluded; thenceforth free and independent,
> it seems to advance rapidly on the road of progress and science, whereas
> Muslim society has not yet freed itself from the tutelage of religion.
> Realizing, however, that the Christian religion preceded the Muslim
> religion in the world by many centuries, I cannot keep from hoping that
> Muhammadan society will succeed someday in breaking its bonds and
> marching resolutely in the path of civilization after the manner of
> Western society?No I cannot admit that this hope be denied to Islam.?
> (?Answer of Jamal al-Din to Renan Journal des Debats, May 18, 1883 in N.
> R. Keddie, An Islamic Response to Imperialism, p. 183)
>
> As for Renan?s claim that the Muslim Arabs are innately incapable of
> philosophical thinking, Afghani gives some examples to refute the charge
> and repeats his earlier claim that the Arabs became pioneers in the
> history of philosophy and sciences only after they had accepted Islam.
> Strangely enough, however, Afghani concludes his letter by creating a
> very sharp contrast between religion and philosophy and establishes this
> as a general rule of history ? an assertion that Renan himself states
> many times. The claims of religion and philosophy, Afghani argues, are
> irreconcilable, and this is true across the religious boundaries whether
> we are talking about Islam, Christianity or Hinduism. Religious faith is
> based on dogma whereas philosophy demands free investigation, not
> bounded or aided by the revelation, to find the truth. The clash between
> the two, says Afghani, is an ineluctable part of human history.
>
> Religions, by whatever names they are called, all resemble each other.
> No agreement and no reconciliation are possible between these religions
> and philosophy. Religion imposes on man its faith and its belief whereas
> philosophy frees him of it totally or in part. ? Whenever religion will
> have the upper hand, it will eliminate philosophy; and the contrary
> happens when it is philosophy that reigns as sovereign mistress. So long
> as humanity exists, the struggle will not cease between dogma and free
> investigation, between religion and philosophy: a desperate struggle in
> which, I fear, the triumph will not be for free thought, because the
> masses dislike reason, and its teachings are only understood by some
> intelligences of the elite, and because, also, science, however
> beautiful it is, does not completely satisfy humanity, which thirsts for
> the ideal and which likes to exist in dark and distant regions that the
> philosophers and scholars can neither perceive nor explore. (Keddie, p.
> 187)
>
> This somewhat abrupt and surprising end leaves a number of issues in
> obscurity, to say the least, as far as Afghani?s position on the
> relation between religion, philosophy and, by derivation, science is
> concerned. It is, however, indicative of the general mood of the 19th
> century Muslim intellectuals concerning modern science and philosophy.
> Afghani, like many of his colleagues and contemporaries, was touched by
> the sheer power and supremacy of Western powers that were increasing
> their encroachment upon the Islamic world. The European countries were
> prosperous and powerful because of their scientific and technological
> superiority, and this was the most important conclusion for the
> activist-intellectuals of the 19th century. Since Western power thrives
> on modern science and technology, reasoned Afghani and others, it had to
> be possessed by Muslim countries deliberately and urgently. As we see in
> the case of the Ottoman Empire, this was considered to be the only way
> to stop the further decline and disintegration of the dar al-islam.
>
> This view, which is still held by many today, can be recognized
> throughout Afghani?s political and intellectual career as far as modern
> Western science is concerned. Moreover, this conviction was supplemented
> by the presumed objectivity of modern physical sciences ? a point of
> view fully developed later by the generation of Muslim intellectuals
> deeply influenced by Afghani including Muhammad ?Abduh, Rashid Rida, M.
> ?Abd al-Raziq, Said Nursi and others.
>
>
>
> Afghani?s Major Works
> Al-Ta?liqat ?ala sharh al-Dawwani li?l-?aqa?id al-?adudiyyah (Cairo,
> 1968). Afghani?s glosses over Dawwani?s commentary on the famous kalam
> book of ?Adud al-Din al-?Iji called al-?aqa?id al-?adudiyyah.
>
> Risalat al-waridat fi sirr al-tajalliyat (Cairo, 1968). A work dictated
> by Afghani to his student M. ?Abduh when he was in Egypt.
>
> Tatimmat al-bayan (Cairo, 1879). A political, social and cultural
> history of Afghanistan.
>
> Hakikat-i Madhhab-i Naychari wa Bayan-i Hal-i Naychariyan. First
> published in Haydarabad-Deccan, 1298/1881, this is Afghani?s most
> important intellectual work that he published during his lifetime. It is
> a scathing criticism and total rejection of naturalism which Afghani
> also calls ?materialism?. The book has been translated into Arabic by M.
> ?Abduh as al-Radd ?ala al-dahriyyin (The Refutation of the
> Materialists).
>
> Khatirat Jamal al-Din al-Afghani al-Husayni (Beirut, 1931). A book
> compiled by the Lebanese journalist Muhammad Pasha al-Mahzumi. Mahzumi
> was present in most of Afghani?s talks in the last part of his life and
> developed his conversations in to the present book. The book contains
> important information about Afghani?s life and ideas.
>
>
>
> Ibrahim Kalin
>
> http://www.cis-ca.org/voices/a/afghni-mn.htm
>
> May 29, 2003
>
>
>
> Selected Bibliography
> Afshar, Iraj and Mahdawi, Asghar, Majmu?a-yi asnad wa madariki chap
> nashuda dar bara-yi Sayyid Jamal al-Din mashhur be-Afghani (Tehran:
> Tehran University Press, 1963)
>
> Enayat, Hamid, Modern Islamic Political Thought (Austin: The University
> of Texas Press, 1982)
>
> Gibb, H. A. R., Modern Trends in Islam (Chicago: Chicago University
> Press, 1947)
>
> Hourani, Albert, Arabic Thought in the Liberal Age: 1789-1939
> (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982)
>
> Keddie, Nikki, An Islamic Response to Imperialism: Political and
> Religious Writings of Sayyid Jamal al-Din ?al-Afghani? (Berkeley:
> University of California Press, 1983)
>
> --------, Sayyid Jamal al-Din Afghani: A Political Biography (Berkeley:
> University of California Press, 1972)
>
> Kedourie, Elie, Afghani and ?Abduh: An Essay on Religious Unbelief and
Pacifist
news:8bdf5883.03092...@posting.google.com
> Interesting enough, the mulla mafia in power in iran today consider
> seyyed jamal a deviated person,
There are many streets in Iran named after him, so he can't be that
despised by those in charge.
A stated in this article, he was considered by many to be a heretic even
in his own lifetime.
P
Ala
> "Ala" <ala...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:8bdf5883.03092...@posting.google.com
>
> > Interesting enough, the mulla mafia in power in iran today consider
> > seyyed jamal a deviated person,
>
> There are many streets in Iran named after him, so he can't be that
> despised by those in charge.
>
> A stated in this article, he was considered by many to be a heretic even
> in his own lifetime.
>
> P
why do u think Aghajari is in jail and his life seriousely threatened?
he just came out and repeated the same things after a centry and that
brought him a death penalty! the fact that his name is on a street
means nothing. shariati's name is also on a major street but his
ideas are considered threatening to the VF system and many of his
books are banned in iran. don't worry, in a few months time these
name will be permanently removed from all streets when our Talebans
amd mulla omars take over after the next majlis election (which is
boycotted by the majority of people b4 hands)
Freethought110
> "Freethought110" <freetho...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:83b59396.03092...@posting.google.com
>
> > A great man who understood perfectly the nature of Western imperialism
> > and saw through the nonsense of the baha'i cult better than any of his
> > contemporaries.
>
> Dude,
>
> Do you happen to have any more sources on him (that you can post here)?
The bibliography you posted at the bottom of the post is pretty much
what's out there that I know about. I would say among them, Nikki
Keddie's biography is probably the cream of the crop of studies.
However, also check out E.G. Browne's long introduction to his history
of the Constitutional Revolution where he mostly discusses Afghani and
his career. As for the baha'is: they absolutely detest Afghani, and no
love was lost on Afghani's side, either. If you want to see the kind
of nonsense these cultists have written about this great man see
baha'i apologist Hassan Balyuzi's *Baha'u'llah King of Glory* where an
entire appendix is devoted to disparaging Seyyed Jamaluddin. Another
baha'i apologist and once member of the baha'i politburo, the uhj (aka
*baytu'l-jahl-e asghar va baytu'l-zolm-e a'zam*) Taherzadeh also
discusses Afghani in his ridiculous four volume hagiography
*Revelation of Baha'u'llah*.
> Thanks.
ghabeli nadareh :)
Pacifist
Thanks for the heads up. I guess the Bahai's have a valid cause for
resenting the Sayyid as some prominent Bahai's abandoned the faith and
started
supporting him.
However, in fairness, Iraj Bashiri's short article on the him doesn't
seem
negative.
http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/bashiri/Afghani/Afghani.html
DariushA
EEEZZZZLAMIK "thinkers" flourished in their own
times?
I do not wonder at all.
But at times I wonder why always, otherwise seemingly
_normal_ people, like you submit your marbles to these
miserably failed characters now!
'Gar Asadi bood-o Asad-aabaadi dar aan Kharaab-Aabaad,
Tokhm-o tarak-ash ney bodi dar Timbuktu yaa Trinidad' :)
DariushA.
ala...@yahoo.com (Ala) wrote in message news:<8bdf5883.03092...@posting.google.com>...
Pacifist
> why do u think Aghajari is in jail and his life seriousely threatened?
> he just came out and repeated the same things after a centry and that
> brought him a death penalty!
Please back up your statement that Aghjari repeated what Asad Abadi
said.
Whilst there may be overlaps, I don't think that Aghjari is an
intellectual heir to Asad Abadi, IN GENERAL. For example, Asad Abadi
was an advocate of Shi'ism. I don't see that Aghajari has done anything
but mock and negate it.
> the fact that his name is on a street
> means nothing. shariati's name is also on a major street but his
> ideas are considered threatening to the VF system and many of his
> books are banned in iran.
In China they officially revere Mao but go against everything that he
stood for.
I don't think the current American administration's policies are much in
line with the ideas of the "Founding Fathers" either.
This is a phenomenon that is repeated across many nations and many
cultures. It's not specific to Iran that they put people on a pedestal
to keep them out of the way ;-)
More specifically, I don't mix up Shariati and Asad Abadi's cases. I am
not aware of any policy against Asad Abadi. Perhaps he is too far away
in time. Perhaps his pro-Shi'ism and anti Bahaism chime well with the
present establishment.
Anyway, he seems to have always been far more influential in
other Islamic countries (especially Egypt, but also Pakistan, Turkey,
Malaysia and the Sudan) than Iran. Hence he is less of an issue in Iran.
> don't worry, in a few months time these
> name will be permanently removed from all streets when our Talebans
> amd mulla omars take over after the next majlis election (which is
> boycotted by the majority of people b4 hands)
I don't think that faction are ideologically inclined. They are more
motivated by power and money.
They will pay lip service to everything and keep accumulating wealth and
power.
Yek Irani
I have a solution fo rthis battle. Let's put all the Islamists of left and
right in one big toilet so that Iranian people can poop on Khamanei and
Khatami and AghAjAri and AL Ahmad o Shariati and the rest of you tokhme
Arabs.
be omide nAnboodeeye tokhme Arab
yek irani
Ala
> FINE. But have you ever thought why none of these
> EEEZZZZLAMIK "thinkers" flourished in their own
> times?
>
> I do not wonder at all.
>
seyyed jamal's mistake was to turn to the kings for change. he would
go from one court to the other try to convince the rulers for the
change. he was killed in the process at the end. having him
addressed the people directly, he would have had much more success.
but, one should also take into account the huge gap between him and
the people at the top, not to mention the people. he could be easily
misunderstood and killed by the people like hallaj.
shariati, on the other hand, took his message to the people and was
very well receieved by the youth during his lifetime. he gained
significant fame right after his death to the extent that he was the
idealogical father of the iranian revolution. after 30 years, he is
more popular in the iranian universities than ever before. certainly
his message has very strong appeal not only to the iranian ppl but the
entire muslim world.
> But at times I wonder why always, otherwise seemingly
> _normal_ people, like you submit your marbles to these
> miserably failed characters now!
this forum is for discussion and i rather engage in civil discussions
with "miserably failed" characters rather than resort to profanity, as
you seem to do. i think by engaging in civil discussions, both sides
can elevate themselves. profanity just pushes both sides to lower
levels and has negative efefcts on the daily lives. i even try to
have civil discussions with alborz, whom i vehemently disagree on
most, if not all, political issues.
>
> 'Gar Asadi bood-o Asad-aabaadi dar aan Kharaab-Aabaad,
> Tokhm-o tarak-ash ney bodi dar Timbuktu yaa Trinidad' :)
>
> DariushA.
>
i certainly agree that there is no asadi in asad-abad. as a nation, we
have not understood ourselves and our past well enough to make a
decisive change in our future affairs. understanding ppl like asad
abadi is critical to our future because of what they thought at those
miserable times when we were failing so miserably at the hands of the
western powers.
NEMO418
> Thanks for the heads up.
No problem. I have held the person of Seyyed Jamaluddin
Asadabadi-Afghani as a very fascinating, intriguing and important
historical figure of the last two centuries. He was definitely a man
ahead of his times and clearly foresaw the imperliastic menace of the
West that we have experienced since his time. He was also a religious
progressive and a very, very learned and penetrating intellect. Some
say he had an uncanny photographic memory and had memorized tomes upon
tomes of books in every detail. He apparently held his own in
philosophical discussions in both an Eastern and a Western context and
also was fluent in several languages besides Arabic and Persian.
> I guess the Bahai's have a valid cause for
> resenting the Sayyid as some prominent Bahai's abandoned the faith and
> started
> supporting him.
I'm not aware of prominent baha'is supporting him. Could you cite any
sources for that? It was actually Mirza Agha Khan Kirmani and Shaykh
Ahmad Ruhi - both of whom were the sons-in-law of baha'u'llah's
sibling rival Mirza Yahya Subh-e-Azal, the actual authors of the Azali
apologetic work entitled *Hasht Bihisht* and thus very prominent
*Azali Babis* - who actively supported Seyyed Jamaluddin and were
executed because of it after Nasiruddin Shah's assassination. Of
course, there is a school of thought which has Mirza Hassan Shirazi
being a secret baha'i (the foremost marja' taqlid who passed the fatwa
against the tobacco regie) and he was on fairly good terms with
Afghani, according to Browne, and in fact it was the combined efforts
of Afghani and Ashtiyani together which convinced Mirza-ye Shirazi to
issue the fatwa.
> However, in fairness, Iraj Bashiri's short article on the him doesn't
> seem
> negative.
Is Bashiri a baha'i?
Pacifist
Bashiri is a Bahai, but don't involve me in correspondence with the uhj to
get proof :-)
When I said Bahais following Asad Abadi, I was indeed thinking of Kermani
and Ruhi. I know Azalis are not full Bahais but I thought they are more of
a sect of Bahaism (I stand corrected on this as I really dont know much
Bahaism). In fact (excuse my ignorance), my impression is that Babi, Azali
and Bahai adherents are on good terms rather than rivals. Is this mistaken?
I thought Mirza Agha Khan Kermani was beheaded by Muhammad Ali Shah (who was
then the governor of Azarbaijan and crown prince) on grounds of apostasy
rather than taking part in assassination. Aren't you confusing him with his
cousin Mirza Reza Kermani, the actual assassin? (Admittedly, Mirza Agha
Khan's beheading took place in 1896 which was the same year that
Nasseruddin was killed).
P
"NEMO418" <saosh...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:9185f7bd.03092...@posting.google.com...
Freethought110
> Hi,
>
> Bashiri is a Bahai, but don't involve me in correspondence with the uhj to
> get proof :-)
>
> When I said Bahais following Asad Abadi, I was indeed thinking of Kermani
> and Ruhi. I know Azalis are not full Bahais but I thought they are more of
> a sect of Bahaism (I stand corrected on this as I really dont know much
> Bahaism). In fact (excuse my ignorance), my impression is that Babi, Azali
> and Bahai adherents are on good terms rather than rivals. Is this mistaken?
Totally! The Azalis and baha'is are *bitter* rivals to the point of
murder and assassination (in Baghadad, Edirne and Akka respectively,
the murders being committed by baha'is against their numerically
weaker Azali rivals). But you've made an honest mistake. Both the
Azalis and baha'is can be considered as the two chief sects of
*Babism*. It all stems from the convoluted Babi doctrines of Seyyed
Ali Muhammad around the issue of leadership and struggles which came
about as a result in the 1850s. Seyyed-e Bab nominated Mirza Yahya
Nuri Subh-e-Azal as his successor before he was executed but also
spoke about a future Babi messiah, "Manyuzhiruh'Llah." After a dozen
claimants to the messianic office throughout the 1850s, Azal's older
borther, Mirza Husayn Ali baha, claimed to be this messiah and managed
to create the largest following and thus the single biggest schism in
Babism. However, Azal was Shirazi's successor and the nomination of
Azal by him is also undisputed. All of this, btw, reminds one of the
power struggles in Sufi orders over qotbiyyat, which is why both are
always highly sensitive when one draws the comparisons with Sufi power
struggles.
> I thought Mirza Agha Khan Kermani was beheaded by Muhammad Ali Shah (who was
> then the governor of Azarbaijan and crown prince) on grounds of apostasy
> rather than taking part in assassination.
Browne says his murder was due to his being part of the conspiracy to
kill the Shah. The apostacy charge was made post facto. He was killed
shortly *before* Nasiruddin Shah's assassination. Apparently he was
nabbed when he crossed the border into Iran.
DariushA
> Dari...@ix.netcom.com (DariushA) wrote in message news:<f20f0b81.03092...@posting.google.com>...
> > FINE. But have you ever thought why none of these
> > EEEZZZZLAMIK "thinkers" flourished in their own
> > times?
> >
> > I do not wonder at all.
> >
>
> seyyed jamal's mistake was to turn to the kings for change. he would
> go from one court to the other try to convince the rulers for the
> change. he was killed in the process at the end. having him
> addressed the people directly, he would have had much more success.
> but, one should also take into account the huge gap between him and
> the people at the top, not to mention the people. he could be easily
> misunderstood and killed by the people like hallaj.
Fine. You're saying he was void of vision.
> shariati, on the other hand, took his message to the people and was
> very well receieved by the youth during his lifetime. he gained
> significant fame right after his death to the extent that he was the
> idealogical father of the iranian revolution. after 30 years, he is
> more popular in the iranian universities than ever before. certainly
> his message has very strong appeal not only to the iranian ppl but the
> entire muslim world.
I cannot express my grip in the heart from what you
say about Shariati's followers. It is true!
I pity that. Shariati, IMO, was full of mental
deprivations and complexes. He simply clinged
to and reflected upon the same in others in
abundance around him. True and effective leaders
bring a cure than fortifying the symptoms like
he did.
>
> > But at times I wonder why always, otherwise seemingly
> > _normal_ people, like you submit your marbles to these
> > miserably failed characters now!
>
> this forum is for discussion and i rather engage in civil discussions
> with "miserably failed" characters rather than resort to profanity, as
> you seem to do. i think by engaging in civil discussions, both sides
> can elevate themselves. profanity just pushes both sides to lower
> levels and has negative efefcts on the daily lives. i even try to
> have civil discussions with alborz, whom i vehemently disagree on
> most, if not all, political issues.
Dare kooneto tcheft kon Ala. One can do and be more
OBSCENE without using a single loose word than you
can suck some Melli-Mazhabi Dicks. And you have.
Djaa-namaaz aab nakesh for me. :)
>
> >
> > 'Gar Asadi bood-o Asad-aabaadi dar aan Kharaab-Aabaad,
> > Tokhm-o tarak-ash ney bodi dar Timbuktu yaa Trinidad' :)
> >
> > DariushA.
> >
>
> i certainly agree that there is no asadi in asad-abad. as a nation, we
> have not understood ourselves and our past well enough to make a
> decisive change in our future affairs. understanding ppl like asad
> abadi is critical to our future because of what they thought at those
> miserable times when we were failing so miserably at the hands of the
> western powers.
Well it cannot ALL be the "western powers"!
I believe we have failed mainly for having had
an ancient culture battered by islam (among other.
Do not forget whom those "western powers" talked
to every time they wanted to create havoc and
purge any daring force against them in Iran. The
islamic clergy. Aakhoonds.
And BESIDES! What was so "western" about, say,
Naaseroddeen Shaah whose ministers were Aakhoonds
and corruption allover their faces?
And who was Asad-Aabaadi? Who was Shariati?
Clergies (and don't tell me Shariati has a picture
with a neck tie on! :)).
I think that should do it for islam and islamic
clergy meddling with Iranian daily affairs.
KAPUT! 'Dandaan_e Eslaam raa BEKESH aaghaa djaan'
That has been TOOOOOO costly for Iran.
Kick islam out of governance. Let moslems talk
to their gods directly - not through corrupt pimps
and MURDERER/LOOTERS like Aakhoonds.
'Ennaa Allaaha Basiron Bel Olaagh!' :)
DariushA.
Pacifist
Thanks for the clarification on Azali-Bahai distinction. Having been to
the birthplace of Baabism (Shiraz) twice this year, I noticed that
people generally refer to Bahais as Baabis. From what you say about
Bahais and Azalis being two factions of Baabis, I guess, they are
technically correct!
I suppose most new religions go through major schisms quite quickly and
the Baabi / Bahai's have been no exception. This splintering (also
highly visible among the revolutionary movements - wit the numerous
Trotskyist and Marxist factions) is only natural, because the idealist
malcontents who start the movements against the status quo, are unlikely
to get satisfied with the results of their efforts and will constantly
seek to re-define and refine the "True Path". Throw in the usual dose
of charlatanry and personal ambition, and you get a heady mixture
indeed. (Ever seen the Monthy Python's "Life of Brian"?)
What's intriguing is that frequently, the "true" supporters of the faith
lose out. In Christianity, the Paulines took over and distorted the
true message of the Jesus faction, as represented by Jesus's brother,
James.
The Shi'ite muslims, similarly belive Ali to be the true standard
bearer, but they have lost out, at least numerically.
A trivial observation for sure, but an interesting, yet tenuous
connection emerges!
Best,
P
Freethought110
Not trivial or tenuous. It is spot on correct. But I would say that
the Azali/baha'i split is more than just a merer factional split,
although it definitely began that way. For all practical purposes
Azali Babism and baha'ism are two totally different religions.
> Best,
>
> P
marabeboos
freetho...@yahoo.com (Freethought110) wrote in message news:<83b59396.03092...@posting.google.com>...
Pacifist
news:6c7b494a.0309...@posting.google.com
> Excellent discussion. Thank you Pacifist and Nima. Very informative.
Thanks but, to be fair, most of the information came from Mr. Hazini :-)
Freethought110
> "marabeboos" <marabeb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:6c7b494a.0309...@posting.google.com
>
> > Excellent discussion. Thank you Pacifist and Nima. Very informative.
>
> Thanks but, to be fair, most of the information came from Mr. Hazini :-)
Ekhtiyar darid! Most of the good information came from the post which
opened up this thread.
> Best,
>
> P