Jamal al-Afghani and his teachings are one of the main pillars on which modern mass-consumed (by Muslims) Islamic movements are constructed.
While there are those that say whether or not he was a freemason is not relevant to understanding his message, what becomes necessarily relevant is the motivations for his actions and teachings. The Ottomans judged him to be a dangerous munafiq, and essentially held him captive, others heralded him and his students as their saviors.
“He belongs to the select band of men who have wielded the greatest influence on the rising Muslim generations in the modern times” – Nadwi, At-Talib Blog
“Dr. Muhammad ‘Emarah, answered these contentions stating: “Those who question his race and religious orientation would like to, in light of these accusations, establish his dishonesty, for indeed, he has stated about himself that “I am Afghani.” And his words and writings illustrate that he was a sunni. Thus, the objective of behind these accusations is to destroy the man who is cherished by all.” – suhaibwebb.com
“The result was that this school impacted every Islamic reform effort at whose forefront was the Muslim Brotherhood lead by Imam Hassan al-Bana. [May Allah have mercy upon all of them].” – suhaibwebb.com
Whatever his admirers may say, the reality is that questioning his race and religious orientation is a necessary result of reading Afghani’s own words. To understand what he wrote one must first understand the context of the time and audience to which Afghani corresponded.
In the days before mass media and mass literacy in the Middle East, it was generally safe to correspond with high class Europeans and their magazines rather freely. As long as these works were not being translated back to Arabic, there was really no practical chance of one’s words coming back to bite the author. There is also much evidence indicated Jamal ad-Din interrupted numerous translations of his letters back to Arabic in his lifetime.
This was how orientalists such as Johann Ludwig Burckhardt were able to report on Muslim activities while assuming Muslim identities. As time went on and the success of impostors such as Burckhardt and “Ali Bey el Abbasi” gave the West new ways to manipulate and reform the religion. Hence much of ‘revivalist’ thought from Wahabis to the movements supported by al-Afghani’s thought were backed by the West, particularly, Western intellectuals.
The Prophet (S) said “You will follow the ways of those nations who were before you, span by span and cubit by cubit, so much so that even if they entered a hole of a mastigure (lizard) you would follow them.” We said “O Allah’s messenger (Do you mean) the Jews and the Christians?” He said “Whom else?”
So what did Jamal ad-Din al-Afghani write to the Europeans when he thought no one was ‘listening’? In a series of debates with Renan, Afghanis viewpoints became clear.
“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.”
“Wherever it has established itself, this religion has tried to stifle science and it has been marvelously served in its aims by despotism”
(“Answer of Jamal al-Din to Renan Journal des Debats, May 18, 1883 in N. R. Keddie, An Islamic Response to Imperialism, p. 183)
Much of this letter speaks for itself. I find the last line most interesting. For all the discussions in the excerpt about religion being an obstacle and an impediment to progress, the article concludes with the hope that western style civilization and abandonment of faith not be ‘denied to Islam’. Through this language, Islam is redefined from a faith to a political movement, just as he redefines Christianity to mean “the society that follows its inspirations and its teachings and is formed in its image”.
And this is how faith began to be separated from the religion.
When Al-Afghani could speak of ‘Islam’ as a society, with a determined focus on rules, laws and ‘advancement’, while being completely separated from matters of spiritual faith itself, the ability to fool Muslims looking for a ’cause’ fell well into his grasp.
However, correspondence with Westerners was not the only means by which Afghani made his intentions clear. Numerous evidences exist of his hostile attitude towards faith and tradition.
Further facts and excerpts:
in 1871 he left Istanbul for Cairo because he was accused of heresy by the Ottomans.
In Egypt, the writer Abbas Mahmud al Aqqad tells us Afghani had a reputation for heresy amongst ‘the divines’.
In Cairo, he mixed with dogma, writes his contemporary Abdull al-Nadim, who was not an enemy
“what gave rise to criticism . . . and some of his disciples became known for their heresy and for their great opposition to religion, either through misunderstanding or perverse teaching, so that many of the believers turned away from him” (ref: Muhammad Ahmad Khalafallah (1956), Abdullah al-Nadim wa mudhakkiratuhu al-siyasiyya (A.N . and his Political Memoirs) p 52, Cairo.
Shaikh Abd al Qadir al-Maghribi recounts a story Afghani used to tell which concerned a believer and an unbeliever. The believer would exhort the unbeliever to pray by telling him:
“Try to pray regularly for forty days, and see whether you can give up prayer afterwards” to which the unbeliever retorted “Give up praying for forty days, and see whether you can ever resume the practice afterwards” – (ref Abd al-Qadir Maghribi (1926), al Bayyinat Vol I, pp 48-49. Cairo)
His friend and protege, Adib Ishaq wrote that Afghani
“He became expert in the study of religion, wrote Selim al-Anhuri, “until this led him to atheism and belief in the eternity of the world. He claimed that vital atoms, found in the atmopshere, formed, by natural evolution the stars which we see and which reolve round one another through magnetism, and that the belief in an all knowing First cause was a natural delusion which arose when man was in a primitive stage of evolution and corresponded with the stage which his intellectual progress had reached”
Sheykh Mustafa Abd al Raziq was to become the head of Al-Azhar in 1945 – 1947. He reported that after his arrival in Paris 1883, Afghani suffered a change in belief:
“(He) Became a rebel against religion, and came to believe it was the enemy of science, reason and civilization so much so that he gladly and deferentially acquiesced in Renan’s attack on Islam” - ref: Rashid Rida (1923), al-Manar vol XXIV, p 311
Finally in private letters between Afghani and his student Abduh, his student writes
“We regulate our conduct according to your sound rule: we do not cut the head of religion except with the sword of religion (nahnu al-an ala sunnatika al qawima la naqta ra’s al-din illa bi-saif al-din) Therefore, if you were to see us now, you would see ascetics and worshippers [of God] kneeling and genuflecting, never disobeying what God commands and doing all that they are ordered to do. Ah! how constricted life would be without hope!” (ref Documents, published: Tehran , Plates 138-140) also (ref: Kedourie (1966), Afghani and Abduh, London).
Now knowing the desire of such individuals in attacking the faith of Islam, using the pretext of Islam, a universe of questions opens up to us.
At a minimum, ‘modern Muslims’ need to ask themselves: to what extent has this corruption and redefinition of social ‘Islam’ entered their own psyche and thought?
The fact that Jamal ad-Din Afghani, who was at least a heretic if not apostate, is a noted influence of the Muslim Brotherhood, Jamaat e Islami, Hizb ut-Tahrir, the Indian Khilafat Movement, and basically every political Islamic reform movement today requires a major reconsideration of the fundamentals of reform itself.
the truth on 
m.a.kidwai,CME/IND.RLY.(retd.) on 
If you ever dealt with the media before, you would realise that they often skew the truth. You say one thing, they write another. They will even change what you write and re-write to restructure your viewpoint. This happens on a regular basis.
So even if this letter be true, most of what Jamal wrote is not outside the fold of Islam.
So unless you can prove that this is clearly his true standpoint, I would not lodge it against him, as much of everything else weighs in heavily.
BismillahirRahmanirRahim
Salamu’alaykum,
Selective reading. It may be a vast media conspiracy thats a possibility. But, this was not the mass media of today and further much of Jamal ad-Din’s influence was post-humous. Therefore the motivation to show this particular viewpoint from Afghani in a large series of debates, on the part of the ‘media’ is sloppy at best.
It is also a necessity that if Jamal ad-Din Afghani found the letter was published with changes he would have noted in some fashion what was incorrect.
As far as what is outside the fold of Islam, one must recognize that when one’s understanding of Islam is based on the foundations such as these, then one is not really in a position to judge what is in or out of Islam.
I’ll be posting more information as well which only backs this up.
Assalamu Alaikum Yursil,
This is the first time I’m hearing of the man but like all ‘reformers’ who saw benefit in abandoning atleast some ties to traditional Islam, I don’t feel secure in accepting even ‘the good’ that he might have talked about. There are great figures completely within the fold of traditional Islam that we can imitate and derive inspiration from. Why even consider a potentially ‘controversial’ figure?
Leave what makes you doubt for what you’re sure of.
Wassalam
BismillahirRahmanirRahim
Salamu’alaykum Noufal,
I think that is a very good approach.
Hello I would like to invite you to visit our website : http://www.ikhwanweb.com/
IKhwanweb is the Muslim Brotherhood”s only official English web site. The Main office is located in London, although Ikhwanweb has correspondents in most countries. Our staff is exclusively made of volunteers and stretched over the five continents.
The Muslim Brotherhood opinions and views can be found under the sections of MB statements and MB opinions, in addition to the Editorial Message.
Items posted under “other views” are usually different from these of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Ikhwanweb does not censor any articles or comments but has the right only to remove any inappropriate words that defy public taste
Ikhwanweb is not a news website, although we report news that matter to the Muslim Brotherhood”s cause. Our main misson is to present the Muslim Brotherhood vision right from the source and rebut misonceptions about the movement in western societies. We value debate on the issues and we welcome constructive criticism.
to help inform you about your subject matter,questions
If you have any addition questions you can email us at :
Ikhwanweb2010@gmail.com
BismillahirRahmanirRahim
“He died on March 9, 1897 in Istanbul and was buried there. In late 1944, due to the request of Afghan government, his remains were taken to Afghanistan and laid in Kabul inside the Kabul University, a mausoleum was erected for him.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghani)
He wasn’t allowed to stay in a city full of Awliya!
BismillahirRahmanirRahim
To provide context:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salafi
From a perspective widely shared by scholars of Islam, the history of Salafism started in Egypt in the mid 19th century among intellectuals at al-Azhar University, the preeminent center of Islamic learning, located in Cairo. Prominent among them were Muhammad Abduh (1849-1905), Jamal al-Din al-Afghani (1839-1897) and Rashid Rida (1865-1935).[27][28][29][30][31] These early reformers recognized the need for an Islamic revival, noticing the changing fortunes in the Islamic world following the Enlightenment in Europe. Al-Afghani was a political activist, whereas Abduh, an educator, and head of Egypt’s religious law courts, sought gradual social reform and legal reform “to make sharia relevant to modern problems.” Abduh argued that the early generations of Muslims (the salaf al-salihin, hence the name Salafiyya, which is given to Abduh and his disciples) had produced a vibrant civilization because they had creatively interpreted the Quran and hadith to answer the needs of their times. [32]
Bismillah Ar-Rahman Ar-Rahim,
As an aside – Muhammad Asad, the famous convert (formerly known as Leopold Weiss) of “The Road to Makkah” and “The Message of the Qur’an” fame, was a disciple of Muhammad Abduh.
Even if not in a formal sense, this Afghani-Abduh line of reformist thought had a profound influence on Asad’s Islamic perspective.
To this end, Asad held certain dubious positions which may be dubbed Muta’zilite in tendency. For example, he did not believe the jinn were actual creatures fashioned by Allah, but that microbes might be the jinn.
In a collection of his essays on Pakistan (“This Law of Ours,” and other essays), he praises the muhaddith of Andalusia, Ibn Hazm – hailing him as a role model for fearless independent thought, and a precedent for ijtihad. Without going into exhaustive details, Ibn Hazm was at best a scholar of questionable tendencies.
I noticed Noufal’s comment on one’s approach to knowledge, and this is a noble intention and way. That being said, I am of the opinion that Allah subhana wa ta’ala will use people of questionable standards and character, to spread our deen. If I am not mistaken, our beloved Rasulullah – sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam – has stated this as well.
The impact of the Afghani-Abduh-Rida-Asad line on contemporary Muslim thought is a significant one. In a sense, they were intertwined with the legacy of Allama Iqbal, and Pakistan was a byproduct of this reformist line (though by no means, exclusively so).
Perhaps more relevant is the continuing impact on young Muslims in the subcontinent and beyond. Many are moved by the rich accounts and insights found in his “The Road to Makkah.” Even seasoned salafis will admit to his transliteration of the Qur’an into English as being unique, rich with footnotes and references that are deferential to the classical authorities.
Allah ultimately knows what is best for our selves.
BismillahirRahmanirRahim
Salamu’alaykum,
Simply spreading the Shahadat is one thing, submitting the ego according to its principals is another. One is a precursor to the other. Ensuring that one applies that Shahadat to the point of success requires participating in an Islam free of deficiencies of character and atheistic agendas.
Submitting the ego to unlearning much of what brought us to Shahadat is usually necessary to see the original paths inherent deficiencies in getting to the goal.
Wa alaikumussalam wa rahmatullah Yursil,
You are right with regards to the need for the ego to submit.
The question then arises – what must the ego submit to? Or to whom?
To paraphrase, you said: ” (ensuring success)…requires participating in an Islam free of deficiencies of character and atheistic agendas. ”
Even if one does submit for the sake of taming one’s ego – perhaps this ‘ideal’ of an Islam bereft of “deficiencies” is a phantasm. It even smacks of the salafi idol of a puritanical Islam, “devoid of” what they saw was innovation and needless additions.
I don’t mean to belabor this line of discussion; I just feel that no matter which inheritors of the Prophets are aiding us in fighting our ego/nafs/shaytan/hawa – we will still practice an Islam that is through the lens and sociocultural filter, of whom we take as an exemplar.
Insha’Allah, this has been a wonderful discussion. Allah forgive this slave, if my ego is infusing my words.
BismillahirRahmanirRahim
Salamu’alaykum,
In my example, it is explained as the principles of the Shahadat.
Perhaps its a phantasm, but what if it is not?
I wouldn’t limit the Awliya as being simply therapist/ego workers. They work at all levels, personal, political, spiritual, global.
Yes, we still practice Islam through the lens of those we take as our examples. But the reality is those awliya we take as our examples yields us an Islam suited for this time and place, and hence they provide instructions in consultation with the Prophet (S) regarding what must occur for the current socio-cultural situation, and more directly, specifically with you and me.
That is what the purpose of the Mujjadid and Khaliphatullah is all about.
Just came across this post randomly (amazing how google works!), but wanted to point out that the quote above about the praying and 40 days thing is most likely something paraphrased from a Nasruddin Hoca (Juha) tale… I have heard the specific Nasruddin Hoca story many times from different shuyukh (Turkish, Arab, Somali etc.), and I am sure many others have too!
To use it as a basis to charge Afghani with unbelief and atheism, therefore – particularly when there are plenty of more meaty things available if you are that way enclined – I find a bit shaky. Especially considering the Kedourie text that the translations of all the quotes are taken from (and not properly cited) in the very next paragraph mentions the point that one of Afghani’s last acquaintances stated, which was that Afghani saw that Islam, Judaism and Christianity shared the same essential principles and purpose. (Kedourie, 1997, 15), which is not very atheistic…
Furthermore, Kedourie also records that the other quote above mentioning he delved in the sciences etc. until it lead to atheism, was later retracted after `Abduh personally met the Adib Ishaq, and that it was instead prompted by Ishaq meeting some less than credilous acquaintances of Afghani who held doctrines he himself did not espouse. (Kedourie, 1997, 17). Kedourie’s text is not without its own problems, specifically relating to polemic and orientation, but it is definitely more balanced than the above quotes taken from it make out! It has been discussed in academia precicelsy for the sensationalist and polemical approach he takes regarding Afghani, as well as generalizations it makes (for example, Talal Asad in ‘Politics and Religion in Islamic Reform: A Critique of Kedourie’s Afghani and Abduh’, Review of Middle East Studies 2 (1976), 13-22; P. M. Holt’s review of the book in the 1967 of the Bulletin of SOAS, 30:1, 190-194 etc). It was, after all, the mid-60′s when the book came out, so its orientation even if it contains a lot of data can be considered questionable in general – even in Western academia nowadays let alone for us Muslims.
If you read any of the works of Keddie and others who have written academically on the subject of Afghani and Abduh then you will know that they discuss the origins of Afghani and the various expedient methods he and Abduh employed in order to empower Islam at the time they were living, and respond to the imperialist discourse and constraints on the Egyptian society of the time. For sure, we may not agree with everything they said and did (or even much at all), but there is no denying that they did a lot of work in order to try and solve what they saw were problems Islam and Muslim society faced during their lifetime. This led to them being exiled by the political authorites a number of times, so they must have been doing something right!
I just find it ironic that you are accusing Afghani of atheism when he wrote a tract which came out guns blazing against atheism/materialism (Al-Radd `ala al-Dahriyyin), completed in India of all places! This is well known, and can be found in such places as the Encyclopaedia of Islam etc. My University library even has a translation of the Persian original published as part of Keddie’s text on Afghani and Abduh. A summary of its content can be found in the Encyclopaedia of Islam article about him:
“He begins with an attack on Darwin’s ideas and goes on to assert that only religion can ensure the stability of society and the strength of nations, whilst atheistic materialism is the cause of decay and debasement. He stresses this assertion by detailing all that belief in God and religion gives a society, first in terms of the collectivity: pride in the knowledge of one’s superiority to animals and of belonging to the finest community, i.e., Islam, and also in terms of the individual: fear of stricture, loyalty and truthfulness. He attributes the loss of political supremacy of certain states to materialism (Epicureanism in Greece, the doctrines of Voltaire and Rousseau in France etc.). He ends with an apologia for Islam, rendered antonomasically as religion.”, EI2
This was written by Goldziher of all people, who is not known to be sympathetic to Islamic thought much at all, so is very interesting regarding how he characterises the text as apologia.
The major part of your thesis – regardless of Afghani’s belief or unbelief per se – is lacking though, and that is drawing an accurate connection between his thought and that of the other later revivalist movements across the Muslim world. Even drawing a connection between that of say, Afghani and Rida, is tenicious at best – besides showing how they both were politically and socially active and attempting to revive Islam as a social and cultural force – because their attitudes and orientation radically differed. They simply had different interests and dealt with very different issues in their respective lifetimes. Afghani was most likely classically trained in the Persian and Iraqi Shi`a tradition and the Ishraqi school of thought, was mystically enclined and was interested in the related subjects of science and epistemology etc., whereas Rashid Rida was a shaykh who studied a traditional Sunni curriculum of jurisprudence and other related subjects, so focused on issues relating to law and usul al-din. This much is clear from even a brief study of their respective lives. `Abduh was somewhat between, and as the Kedourie book quoted from above makes clear, he was drawn to Afghani because of his mystical sentiments, and indeed, referred numerous times to Afghani as his “spiritual guide”, amongst other things. The text (and others) also describes some of the mystical exercises that `Abduh followed with Afghani, but that would sidetrack the discussion from the main topic of the post, which is characterising Afghani primarily, and from that, inferring there is direct a causal and intellectual link between his thought and that of other movements.
It is definitely an interesting idea though, and although I don’t much believe it, I would love to see a more fleshed-out study of this so intellectual and physical links can be accurately traced. That is what the sanad and silsila are for, after all, to trace connections.
Jazak Allah,
dawood
And just to add as an aside, it is interesting that Western academia generally views Afghani as a Shi`a who took refuge in the Sunni world, whereas the Sunni’s see him as one of their own – regardless of how heterodox. It’s an interesting world, but his origins in my opinon do not matter much either way.
ma`a al-salama,
dawood
BismillahirRahmanirRahim
Salamu’alaykum Dawood,
Thank you for your extremely thorough comment.
I’d love to hear what the critics of Kedourie’s compilation of quotes and his essay would say about the Renan Journal Debates and these other quotes. I haven’t read these criticisms, and look forward to doing so. Kedourie’s case, in light of these letters and quotes, unless you care to share alternative explanations, remains truly compelling to me personally.
These quotes have not really been exposed to the Muslim world in any real sense to allow for any response to be given from his most fervent admirers, so at least that purpose is fulfilled by sharing them here.
Yes, of course, there is always more material where that came from, as you noted.
In light of the Renan comments, it’s quite clear how that could be reconciled as being atheistic, as could any discussion about religions, which is why Kedourie didn’t seem to have a problem in repeating these lines. At least it could be clearly taken as anti-religious / anti-dogma. In fact such a Perennialist pattern of thinking reinforces the differences between traditional Muslims and Al-Afghani.
We must remember that Afghani was able to speak of religions with their proper names, while truly referencing “the society that follows its inspirations and its teachings and is formed in its image”. He obviously dreamed of a common society of scientific progress and abandonment of the impediments of religion, Muslims just hadn’t been given enough time to get to that stage.
Therefore the knowledge that there is a gap between Afghani’s Islam (and revivalist Islam) and the Islam of say, the Ottomans (a deep reverential sufism) is difficult for westerners and even today’s Muslims engrossed in (or at least surrounded by) such revivalist movements to understand. Just as one who has never seen finds it difficult to understand or express color.
I don’t think that exile by Caliphal authorities is naturally a good thing and implies progress. In fact, I would say that to think in such a manner is another example of al-Afghani influence! The traditional understanding of Islam hindered rebellion against leaders, elimination of fitnah, connection to the jamaat. Even a casual reading of hadith on these subject makes that much clear. One could hardly describe modern political revolutionaries, in which mold Afghani is being cast in above, as fitting into the Islamic paradigm of a good Muslim citizen. To now value, rather that recognize as distasteful, that type of behavior is a fundamental mental shift that occurred in Muslims in the past 100 years. In this manner, Afghani is just a symbol of acquiescing to Western models of ‘progressive’ thinking, in deep deep ways which Muslims have yet to recognize or question.
If there are such fundamental changes, again, in which Islam is Afghani finding problems in, and what is he suggesting it be replaced with?
I do think there is confusion being made between being anti-religion, an atheist, and a heretic. There *is* a difference, and his quotes and that of many of his peers indicate he was at least one or the other. My own words do not at all definitively say that he was an atheist (especially as we understand them today with the modern examples of Richard Dawkins, Hitchens, etc). I simply state he had anti-religious viewpoints (see title and conclusion). One could be anti-religious and pro-spirituality, we see this today with New Age spiritual cults.
As far as drawing the connections, much of them are made for me. Afghani’s influence on the movements I mentioned has been well studied. In some of these movements he remains a primary symbol (http://www.ikhwanweb.com/Article.asp?ID=806&LevelID=1&SectionID=115), in which they present flattering biographies as almost required reading. Yes, Kedourie’s work is from the 60′s, yet he didn’t seem to change his position up till his death in 1992, at which time he remained and remains a noted historian and not a Enquirer reporter.
Frankly, rather than looking at Kedourie’s interpretation, I think it’s more important to take a lesson via negativa in this case. Why haven’t these quotes and letters circulated amongst those same movements? Why was translation of these works hindered and impeded? Why is there no thoughtful Muslim response to this academic assault on one of their most influential heroes?
Much of the dialogue about Islam has become about the jurisprudence you mentioned Rida was trained in or the scientific/economic progress that Afghani desired for Muslim societies.
This is followed up with subsections (depending on movement) on how to run a society, how to deal with politics, how to govern, what is halaal and what is haraam and how to enforce it. The most spiritual discussions end with Quranic exegesis, which only impart individuals with the requirement for understanding Arabic to know the Quran as a literal text.
I think that this modern culture of Islam in the West, which is largely absent of a traditional sufism, is also why you find it difficult to understand my thesis (that and my own brevity in explanation). I am brief for a few reasons, one is to spark discussion, another is that to give words to what is missing in Afghani’s political Islam and shared with revivalist movements is very difficult, it is vast as it is inherently experiential.
As far as scope, I am just a lowly blogger who likes to show excerpts. I did try to cite them correctly, giving the original sources from Kedourie’s essay so that individuals looking to respond could go to the source rather than a criticism… Some of my readers know while I finished Kedourie’s work and the essence of this post over 10 months ago, publication was waiting for double checking of references. But I also included Kedourie’s essay as a secondary citation for the quote which I could only find in his work (The Abduh correspondence).
The main Afghani quote can be found here:
http://sitemaker.umich.edu/emes/sourcebook/da.data/82631/FileSource/1884_al-afghani.pdf
I did make a note that I left out the reference for the Adib Ishaq quote, must have been lost in formatting. I’ll add that back in later.
I also reread the reference you make to a retraction of Anhuri’s comment in Kedourie’s essay. Kedourie says “he induced Anhuri to publish a declartion saying that what he had related concerning Afghani’s belief he had only heard from some Egyptians and Syrians”.
Kedourie, somewhat sarcastically, follows this up by saying the confusion arose due to people ascribing heretical ideas to him, who were not (now) to be considered his real disciples. Interesting, but not really a departure from the main point of the article, which is there was a great deal of confusion around what exactly Afghani actually believed, and at a minimum, it certainly was not in an orthodox Islam of the Ottomans.
Yes, I agree, a full fleshed out study is definitely worthwhile. Thank you for your comments.
Wa `alaykum al-salam wa rahmut allah,
Thank you for the response Yursil. Once again I apologise for the length, but as we are sharing thoughts, I wanted to put in my two cents. You have raised a few ad-hominem points in the above comment, which I have addressed simply so we can get to know each other better, so please forgive me if I have said anything to cause offence, as it was not my intention at all.
I think you misunderstand my post somewhat… I am not attempting to ‘defend’ Afghani at all (and in fact am not particularly interested in him or his work); the main reason I posted was simply because I am somewhat familiar with the time period at hand and saw the quotes were not being attributed accurately, so I had to respond for the sake of academic accuracy. This is especially in case others would like to do their own research on this issue, which is what you are inviting. The simple fact (whether you like it or not) is that academia has moved on in the last forty years from the sensationalist opinion of Kedourie – regardless of if he recanted them or not – and unless somehow it can be shown Western academia has “drunk the kool-aid” in regards to Afghani and `Abduh, questions must be asked as to why specifically Kedourie’s forty year old opinions of Afghani and `Abduh are more compelling to you rather than that of Keddie, Hourani or any of the others who dealt with this area and topic in the same time period or later, yet have a different opinion of him; especially those writing immediately after Kedourie’s ground-breaking study. Indeed, Hourani sums it up nicely in his newer preface to Arabic Thought in the Liberal Age (Section 2, here). Keddie, herself, writing a handful of years after Kedourie (and even using his work as a source!), concludes that Afghani was most likely a Muslim deist, although did have problems with the establishment and established religious constructs. She likens him to the mystical philosophical movement in the medieval period, which makes sense if he was exposed to the Ishraqi school of Islamic thought and was attempting to counter the encroaching “enlightenment” thought of the colonial period from within the Islamic intellectual tradition. I simply do not understand why you feel the need to essentially make a crypto-takfir of him, and attempt to do this by taking quotes from a few sources to attempt to bolster your point when the majority of the Muslims consider him one of their own and have done for a long time.
One could question exactly how this is the case: at best, you are spreading around some quotes in the Western-Muslim online world, and the educated elite elsewhere in the Muslim world lucky enough to both be fluent enough in academic English to understand the content of the quotes (plus the ensuing discussion), have access to the main sources and also have internet access. The internet is widely available across the Muslim world, but unless your website is getting tens of thousands of hits daily from there, then I don’t see how you can claim this at all. It is quite clear to me that this post is in response to the initial post made by Suhaib Webb on his blog, which you quote above at the start of the post, and in response to quibbles over the issue of “revival” itself.
If you have read Elie Kedourie’s text, you will know that there is an example letter from `Abduh to Afghani, which is very “deep” and “reverential” regarding his relationship to his mentor and spiritual guide. It is, in fact, very mystical, and considering that `Abduh was drawn to Afghani in the first place through him opening the mystical path for him, is something which should not be covered over or avoided. Indeed, `Abduh’s first major text was Risalat al-Waridat – a text on spiritual utterances and inspirations. I would have thought that if you wanted to critique Afghani and `Abduh, this would have been the avenue that you, as a Traditional Naqshbandi, would have followed. You are also glossing over the fact that the Sufi turuq spread throughout the Muslim world, have similarities but also many differences in approach; Muslims and the Islamic tradition are not a monolith so to essentialize these takes away from discussing such a complex issue. Reductionism does not work, we are talking about a very dynamic man, who instigated a very dynamic movement – like it or not.
The contentions made in your comment above about my own opinion of Afghani being clouded by subsequent laudatory scholarship on both he and `Abduh couldn’t really be further from the truth. I am no particular fan of Afghani, nor his ideas (from the very few writings he left us), although as someone interested in Islamic jurisprudence and the dynamic history of the period, I do appreciate `Abduh’s revival of interest in Shatibi. But regardless of one’s own opinion, the fact is that their movement was the impetus for renewed investigation and research in the Islamic intellectual tradition, at a time when the Arab world was crushed under the boots of colonialism and the various religious institutions in Egypt were becoming more and more dependent on their ruler’s countenance. The Ottoman Empire was fading fast, due in part – and sorry to say it, because I can see your obvious love of Ottoman tradition and culture, but as a student of history I must – the many heavy-handed policies of the latter day Sultans such as Abdulhamid II, and the sharp recoiling from the implementation of the Tanzimat reforms. Indeed, much of the literature of the period talks of such issues, such as the well-known Taba`i al-Istibdad wa Masari` al-Ist`ibad [commonly translated as The Nature of Tyranny] of Kawakibi (who was imprisoned and treated very badly by the Ottoman government due to his calls for checks and balances on the Sultan’s authority and power), as well as that in Western academia. There is a reason that Egypt became a haven of intellectual thought and took in a number of both Muslim and non-Muslim thinkers from across the Levant. There is also a reason that the Egyptian monarchy – which was decidedly separate by this stage from the Ottoman Empire – also felt threatened and ran in to trouble shortly afterwards too.
Regardless, you are pronouncing a crypto-takfir on him, and in a reactionary way like those you repeatedly criticise. Being “anti-religious” clearly means anti-Islam. Let’s not beat around the bush here. I am no fan of Afghani, and do believe he was decidedly non-conformist and anti-establishment, but I do not have the knowledge regarding him or the tradition one way or the other to pronounce takfir on him, nor call him an atheist due to a couple of choice sentences he was saying to a specific audience. Without turning it in to a hadith-hurling match, your words, circular and inconclusive as they may be have created the possibility now that at least one of you is, is not that what we are all taught?
But all of this is an aside to your initial proposition, and actually detracts from it. This was that Afghani’s thought and his followers had subsequent influence on other Islamic religious movements across the Muslim world, including South Asia. This has yet to be proven conclusively – with actually any substantial evidence at all – and your insistence that “much of them [the connections] are made for me”, does not make it so for everyone else, most of whom have not even done a cursory reading in the area. Citing the Ikhwan forum full of random people discussing random issues after a random spate of googling to provide a reference for your claim simply does not cut it.
We are talking about specific intellectual influence and genealogy here, not simply that everyone wants “progress” and for Islamic thought to be “revived”. I don’t know a single Muslim who doesn’t want to progress from the sorry state of affairs they perceive themselves to be in, and for the religious tradition to once again gain prominence. Do you? Never mind the contentions over what exactly these terms mean at all. Let us be academic about it at least instead of polemical, as this is a serious claim deserving serious study.
Afghani left for posterity a handful of writings, next to nothing, and most of it was theorizing and intellectual musings, for want of a better description. Those who were associated with him cannot be called sympathisers with the colonial powers at all, regardless of your quoting of the hadith above. They were decidedly anti-colonial in nature.
I think you are once again making a crass generalisation there… Jurisprudence has been the mainstay of the religious tradition for centuries; without the shari`a as a solid base, there is no tariqa or haqiqa, is this not what we are taught? This is fact, and something I think we can all agree on; I think all of us Muslims can agree with the Orientalists in regards to how important the fiqh tradition is to our religion. We can all also agree that as the fuqaha say as one of their maxims “taghayyur al-ahkam bi taghayyur al-ahwal” – rulings change with a change in circumstances. And the Muslim world has gone through a tremendous amount of change in the last 150 years, that’s for sure. So of course a lot of the discussion will be relating to jurisprudence, I don’t think anyone can deny that, and it would be silly to even attempt to. Fiqh is an important part of our tradition. Even the simple fact that we (and your readers) are here, in the West, as well as the “Muslim World”, attests to this. After 1924, there was a spate of discussion on how Islam can survive with no Caliphate (and especially after the failed attempt of Sharif Husayn bin `Ali in the Hijaz); many at the time said Islam can simply not function in a society with a non-Muslim government. Yet here we are. This is a huge change, and cannot be underestimated in its importance. So for sure, the shuyukh discussed the various legal issues at hand, and still do to this day. One further example is the contact Rashid Rida had with the Muslims in Indonesia through Al-Manar, his periodical. With Indonesia mostly under Dutch authority, and strongholds like Aceh remaining, the Muslims there were not sure how to deal with the various situations they faced, so wrote to numerous scholars and shuyukh (including sending a delegation to Istanbul, incidentally) asking for advice. Advice on the new situations they have never faced before. This is Islamic law in action; it is how the legal tradition works.
Well, you are again making an assumption about me without knowing a single thing, and your claim that this is all “experiential” has no basis in attempting to make any judgment that holds any weight. It reminds me of a famous story, which I was told long ago when studying fiqh with my teacher: someone asked al-Ghazali (I think) about seeing something in a dream or through ilham and its subsequent validity as evidence in a court of law – the place where issues in the social sphere are dealt with. Ghazali affirmed belief that such an experience could occur, but answered that it is not valid as evidence because it is entirely personal, without any way to cross-reference the evidence and prove or disprove conflicting accounts of events etc. This seems to be the situation here, and as a historian, it is simply something that I cannot accept based on your “experience”. All it leads to is that your opinion is true for you, but not necessarily for anyone else.
It is not the excerpts that are the problem – it is how you attempt to link them in to a narrative and in order to prove your initial premise – which you have failed to do at all. As much as I wish I could agree with you and it were that simple… It would make my job a lot easier, that’s for sure!
Alhamdulillah, then I hope that my response will be helpful in that regard. That is all I wanted, in actual fact, but discussion has ensued, so in sha’ Allah it will bring more to light on the issue at hand and help us all progress in our knowledge of this area.
You are shifting the goalposts now. But first the quote itself. It reads “The libel, it now seemed, had originated with some followers whom Afghani had accepted in the goodness of his heart and who, when misfortunes befell him and he was expelled from Egypt, ‘started boasting of being his disciples, and ascribing to him their heretical opinions’! In the biographical notice to which `Abduh himself wrote he was quite circumspect in his treatment of the topic. People, he says, were jealous of him, and spread calumnies about him, taking for pretext his study of philosophical works which some late divines had forbidden reading.” (Kedourie, 1966, 17) These works, incidentally, included the Muqaddima of Ibn Khaldun, amongst other things, which we Muslims generally champion now as a beacon of light and intellectual achievement. As is clear, Kedourie is not sarcastic at all, he quotes briefly and summarises what one assumes to be from `Abduh’s statement itself, or something related to it. The issue of `Abduh being circumspect is worth noting, but there is no conclusive evidence there at all regarding anything, other than some people said some things which were allegedly at variance with what Afghani believed and taught, according to his most senior student. There is also no indication of who these people were – for all we know they may even have been non-Muslim as Afghani held quite the eclectic court.
But there is an issue which needs to be discussed, and that is your equating the Islam of the Ottomans (by whom I am assuming you are meaning the contemporary Ottomans of Afghani’s time?), with orthodoxy itself, although I do note that you say “an orthodox Islam”. This is another very generalised statement which covers a broad area with diverse intellectual traditions… There was definitely a difference between the intellectual and dare I say it, spiritual milieu in the likes of Istanbul, Damascus, and elsewhere in the Ottoman Empire, down to the Hijaz itself. In fact, one finds that the Hijaz was a major locus for Islamic “revivalism” between the seventeenth and twentieth century’s, these movements stretching across from the Hijaz through East and West Africa, to India and even Southeast Asia. Scholarly networks and chains of ijazat attest to this. Yet the majority of these scholars and groups were ‘orthodox’; in the Indian Ocean area, for example, the core Shafi`i texts were studied such as Minhaj al-Talibin and Ibn Hajar’s commentary, as well as the works of Ghazali, which remains prominent throughout until the present. Even this is very different from the Ottoman Hanafi-based system, especially if you are including the codification of the Majalla and its implementation throughout the realm (including in Iraq etc.). It was never implemented in Egypt because by this stage the country was autonomous. It is a complex area of social and intellectual history. So again, the questions become: who decides that the Ottoman template is the criteria for measuring ‘orthodoxy’? And why is it being used? From reading your blog in general and seeing the connections you have to the Naksibendi order, it is understandable why you would look to this as a template, but I simply do not see why should it be so for everyone else – even for those at the time living within the Empire. You are also excluding a huge cross-section of the Muslim world at that time, and today, who simply do not look to the Ottomans at all.
Anyway, this is getting far too long, but I hope it is of some benefit. If I had my own blog I would have simply posted there, but unfortunately I do not so I hope this will suffice and contribute to the ongoing dialogue.
Ma`a al-salama
BismillahirRahmanirRahim
Salamu’alaykum,
This is a contradiction. This ultra long article (longer than my original post) is indeed an effort to defend Afghani from what you have now dubbed ‘crypto-takfir’.
I fail to see exactly where the quotes themselves were attributed inaccurately. There was ‘a’ quote which was not cited and had a retraction later on, which I’ve already spoken about.
Well, if we are speaking of ‘facts’ about academia’s position in the last forty years, then certainly whether I like it or not is not relevant. What is also really irrelevant are opinions of people, yours, mine Kedourie, Keddie or Hourani.
What is much more relevant is how we as individuals read his own words and come to our own conclusions on these words. My article is not a regurgitation of every idea expressed in Kedourie’s work, its simply a short collection of quotes.
I’ve already asked for alternative explanations of these words, but it has not been provided (even within this vast ‘undefensive’ discussion).
Being considered as possibly a ‘deist’, with ‘mystery’ (Hourani’s words), does not make someone who ‘cuts the head of religion’ an orthodox Muslim.
Hourani does state that al-Afghani seems better placed within Shia thought. If it is within the wide spectrum of Shia thought to think in a manner as described in his quotes and letters, the recent debacle of the Prophet’s (S) non-existence coming out from Shia Professor, Muhammad Sven Kalisch, seem to start making a pattern.
Would ‘crypto-takfir’ be an accurate word to describe what the Muslim blogging world has said about that particular claim?
I see that you fail to understand somethings, but I’ve already made my point in this regard. I’m not making takfir.
Being that I am a mureed of the Naksibendi Sufi way and have been involved in the spiritual path personally and publicly via the publication of books, internet material and via public speaking for over a decade, I am quite clear on the spiritual paths that exist within a broad range of traditions.
The reference to ‘deep and reverential Sufism’ was in the context of Ottoman Islamic Sufism, otherwise known as, for around half of Muslim history, as ‘orthodox sufism’. Whatever it is that occurred between Abduh and Afghani, whether it be Freemasonry Newage spirituality or some odd form of ‘shia sufism’, it matters little to me.
Again, no one from traditional Islamic spirituality could ever speak in such irreverential tones regarding the religion itself. An effect of Islamic spirituality is to promote certainty, a faith which allows one to be able to pick up the sword and die for it, just as much as it allows one to at least verbally defend it.
Playing games with mysticism as an excuse for undermining what Islam is in the first place, has never been accepted by traditional tarikats, and you can expect my response to be in that vein.
A difference in approach is reasonable to expect, but that does not give excuses for statements that are clearly anti-religious to be called something other than anti-religious or at least heterodox. To label my collection of quotes as ‘crypto-takfiri’, does little in making them go away or give them any alternative meaning. This is, as you enjoy saying, whether you ‘like it or not’.
Nothing could be further from the truth. I had to do my own searches to find excerpts regarding what prominent modern Muslims thought of al-Aghani *after* encountering these dramatic quotes and reading Kedourie’s work shared to me by a close friend.
You are a ‘student’ of ‘history’? According to what definition? Hobbyist? Professionally?
I certainly am not. I am a student of myself.
The only Muslims who have the audacity to speak in such a manner of Sultan Abdul Hamid Han, are those that don’t feel that Islam affects their manners or that ‘academic honesty’ somehow trumps Islamic manners. The cloak for determining the ‘academic truth’ is not really acceptable to me as a reason for leaving Islamic manners in dealing with righteous rulers and saints.
At a minimum, modern Muslims are filled with the idea that they could have done a better job… The reality is you are nothing and I am nothing, we have barely proven ourselves in this life. And we do not know for certain whether we will even die with Shahadat. Sultan Abdul Hamid Han, on the other hand, was a Shaykh of the Shadhili Tarikat, led the Muslims for his entire life, sacrificed everything for us that alone brings the honor and respect that he carries is far above (in my eyes) any verbose and opinionated historian has.
I take my view of him from the Ottomans, from my own Islamic tradition. Those that believe the empire was ‘declining’ because of his actions are sadly, sadly mistaken. Isn’t it curious that it is not the worldly ambitious ‘elite’, rampant irreligiousity, and rebellious attitude spread amongst the nations and people which is ever to blame?
Before we pull out the ‘academic history’, I believe the Quranic and Islamic understanding is we are given the leaders which we deserve, that Allah will not change the situation of a people, unless they first change what is in their hearts.
Well, we certainly didn’t deserve Sultan Abdul Hamid Han.
As far as the proof, a casual reading of the quotes I provided from Maulana Nadwi and Suhaib Webbs site, and the Ikhwaan web site should give ample enough evidence. I believe you yourself are stating that a ‘majority of Muslims’ considered him as one of ‘their own’? Why would the majority of Muslims be discussing such an uninfluential and insignificant figure?
In the world that you inhabit, very little can be proven conclusively. Everything is left to the ethers of possibility. That is fine for you, inshAllah one day you will know Yaqin, eh?
As Algar has said about the Naqshbandi Tarikat:
I have absolutely no idea what you are taught. What I know about shariat, tariqat and haqiqat is not really fit for this discussion nor is it relevant to Afghani’s words.
If I have failed to do so, then there is no need to write such lengthy responses. A simple, you fail to do this or that, would have been sufficient! Even better, the failure should be apparent and my ‘failed’ ‘narrative’ should need no words to expose it as such. Interestingly enough, in all the writing that has gone, nothing has changed about the content of what Afghani said or did and the controversy over his faith.
The tangent of what is considered orthodoxy is really not fitting for this discussion, but if you are interested in my point of view we can discuss via email. My email address is yursil at gmail
The absence, again, of alternative explanations for Afghani’s actual words and his peers criticism remains to be a gaping hole in any criticism I have received regarding this post. I’ll close the comments for this post now, and suggest other discussions be taken private.