Обсуждение:Аль-Афгани

Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition / D̲j̲amāl al-Dīn al- Afg̲h̲ānī

, al-Sayyid Muḥammad b. Ṣafdar , was one of the most outstanding figures of nineteenth century Islam. Cultured and versed in mediaeval Muslim philosophy, he devoted his life and talents to the service of the Muslim revival. He was, in the words of E. G. Browne, at the same time a philosopher, writer, orator and journalist. Towards colonial powers he was the first to take the political attitude since adopted by many movements of national liberation. He is known above all as the founder of modern Muslim anticolonialism, admired unreservedly by many and considered by his opponents as a dangerous agitator. There is, on the other hand, a tendency to overlook the intellectual side of his personality, to forget his importance as a thinker. Notwithstanding the factors that crowded in on him (the decadence and lethargy of the Muslim countries, the increasing control of their economic and political life by European powers, the diffusion in the East of an atheism claiming its origin in Darwin) he had a clear view of the situation. It is with him that begins the reform movement which gave rise to the Salafiyya and, later, the Muslim Brothers. He expresses almost all the attitudes adopted between 1900 and 1950 by Muslim apologetics. By the spoken and written word he preached the necessity of a Muslim revival, both in thought (the need to throw off blind fatalism and give intelligence and freedom their proper place in life) and in action. Courageous and uncompromising, he aroused and strengthened the enthusiasm of his audiences wherever he went in his long years of exile. In Egypt he influenced the youth of Cairo and Alexandria, so that his personality left its mark both on future moderate leaders and partisans of immediate violence. He supported movements working for constitutional liberties and fought for liberation from foreign control (Egypt, Persia). He attacked Muslim rulers who opposed reform or did not show enough resistance to European encroachments. He even envisaged the possibility of political assassination. His ultimate object was to unite Muslim states (including Shlci Persia) into a single Caliphate, able to repulse European interference and recreate the glory of Islam. The pan-Islamic idea was the great passion of his life. He remained unmarried, made do with the absolute minimum in the way of food and clothing and took no stimulants other than tea and tobacco.

His family descended from Husayn b. CA1I through the famous traditionist CA1I al-Tirmidhi, whence his right to use the title Sayyid. According to his own account he was born at Ascadabad near Konar, to the east and in the district of Kabul (Afghanistan) in 1254/1838-9 to a family of the Hanafi school. However, Shlci writings give his place of birth as Asadabad near Hamadan in Persia; this version claims that he pretended to be of Afghan nationality, in order to escape the despotic power of Persia. He did in fact spend his years of childhood and adolescence in Afghanistan. At Kabul he followed the usual Muslim pattern of university studies and in addition began to pay attention to philosophy and the exact sciences, through the still mediaeval methods used at that time. Then he spent more than a year in India, where he received a more modern education, and made the pilgrimage to Mecca (1273/1857); on his return, he went back to Afghanistan and entered the service of the amir Dust Muhammad Khan [q.v.], whom he accompanied on his campaign against Herat. The amir's death led to civil war between his sons over the succession [see AFGHANISTAN]. Djamal al-DIn taking sides with one of them, Muhammad Aczam, shared the shortlived successes of that prince as his minister. But when the rival faction under Shir CA1I finally triumphed, he judged it prudent to leave the country. On the pretext of making the pilgrimage a second time (1285/1869), he went to India where he remained for less than two months; he was kept under observation by the British, and requested to leave as soon as possible. He then went to Cairo where he stayed for forty days, became acquainted with Azharis and gave lectures in his home. Then he went to Constantinople (1287/1870). As he already enjoyed a brilliant reputation, the high society of the Turkish capital gave him an enthusiastic welcome. He was soon called to the council of public education and invited to give lectures at the Aya Sofya and the mosque of Sultan Ahmed. But many were jealous of his success. A lecture given at the Ddr al-Funun on the usefulness of the arts gave rise to such criticisms (especially from the shaykh al-Isldm, Hasan Fehml) that he decided to leave Turkey. Certain of his words on the r61e of prophets in the organization of societies had been twisted to look like rationalism.

He went to Cairo (March 1871) with no thought of settling there; but the welcome he received made him decide to stay. The government made him an annuity of 12,000 Egyptian piastres without asking anything of him in exchange. Young men, among them Muhammad cAbduh, the future chief mufti of Egypt, and Sacd Zaghlul, the future hero in the struggle for Egyptian independence, gathered round him. At his home he gave them lectures on various subjects, read to them from Muslim philosophy and generally broadened their outlook. A wider circle, composed of these same pupils and older people, would listen to him at the "Cafe de la Poste" speaking on literature, science, politics etc. He urged the young people to fight with the written word by going into journalism, considered as the modern method of influencing people's minds. He gave his encouragement to Adib Ishak who founded the review Misr, then the daily al-Tididra-, he helped found Mir*dt al-Shark. He contributed himself to these journals, but above all got his pupils to do so. He aroused patriotic resistance to European interference in the question of the Egyptian debt. In 1878 he joined the Scottish Freemasons; but, disillusioned, he founded an Egyptian lodge affiliated to the French Grand Orient, whose three hundred members formed the fieriest element of the nationalist youth. Politics were discussed in the lodge and plans for reforms drawn up. At that time, Diamal al-Dln was involved in all requests for a parliamentary regime. He is even said to have suggested to Muhammad cAbduh the idea of assassinating the Khedive Ismacll. The replacement of Ismacil by the Khedive Tawfik (1879) put an end to any such project. In bad odour with the conservative Azharis and the Council of Ministers, closely watched by the British, Diamal al-DIn was finally expelled on the instigation of the latter (September 1879). Next he went to India, living under close scrutiny first at Haydarabad, then at Calcutta, where the British requested him to remain as long as the cUrabI Pasha affair lasted. It was while staying in Haydarabad that he composed in Persian his refutation of materialists [see DAHRIYYA]. 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.

During this time the situation in Egypt was becoming explosive. In 1881 cUrabi Pasha rose up against the Khedive, the Circassian officers in the army, and foreigners. It is certain that Diamal al- Dm's activities in Egypt had helped to stir up unrest. The revolt failed because of the British intervention of 1882 ending in the occupation of the country. Diamal al-DIn left India. We next find him in London in the spring of 1883, when Wilfrid Scawen Blunt met him. According to Blunt he had just returned from the United States where, after leaving India, he stayed for a few months with a view to naturalization. (This information given by Blunt without any explanation, cf. Browne, 401, is contested by all Arab studies on the subject; a letter from Diamal al-Dln to Muhammad cAbduh written in Port Said on the 23 September—no mention of the year—bears simply the instruction to write to him in London where he is going. It can only refer to 23 September 1882 although a number of studies in Arabic prefer 1883. But let us look at his subsequent activities). On 18 May 1883 in the Journal des Debats of Paris he published a reply to the lecture which Ernest Renan had given at the Sorbonne on 29 March 1883 on L'Islam et la science and which had caused a great deal of feeling in Muslim circles in Paris. In his reply he asserted that Islam is compatible with science, that in the past there had been Muslim scientists, some of them Arabs; only the present state of Islam could support the opposite view. On 3 September 1883 Blunt met him in Paris. He was conducting a campaign against British policy in Muslim countries. Leading newspapers published articles by him which made an impact on influential circles (on the Eastern policy of Russia and Great Britain, the situation Turkey and Egypt, the importance and justification of the movement brought about in the Sudan by the Mahdi). But the outstanding feature of his stay in Paris was the joint publication with Muhammad cAbduh, who had joined him and acted as his editor, of an Arabic weekly Urwa al-Wuthkd (The Indissoluble Link). This journal was the organ of a secret Muslim society of the same name which financed it. The first number appeared on 15 Djumada I 1301/13 March 1884 and the eighteenth and last on 26 Dhu '1-Hidjdja 1301/16 October 1884. Sent free of charge to members of the association and anyone else requesting it, its entry into Egypt and India was barred by the British (confiscations and heavy fines for being in possession of it). In spite of various stratagems (such as sending it in closed envelopes, as Djamal al-DIn later revealed) it did not reach enough readers and had to lapse. Its influence was nevertheless considerable. It attacked British action in Muslim countries. It emphasized the doctrinal grounds on which Islam should lean, in order to recover its strength. In 1885 Muhammad cAbduh left his mentor and went to Beirut; from then on the two men followed politically divergent paths. Muhammad cAbduh temporized, concentrating mainly on reforms that were immediately possibla, above all in teaching. Djamal al-DIn continued as a lone pilgrim along the road to pan-Islamism.

In 1885, on the suggestion of W. S. Blunt, British statesmen approached Djamal al-DIn, in spite of the aggressive character of his anti-British activities, over steps to be taken with regard to the movement of the Mahdi in the Sudan. The discussions led to no practical result. Shortly afterwards (1886) Djamal al-DIn was invited by telegram to the court of Shah Nasir al-DIn in Tehran. He was given a lavish reception and was earmarked for high office. But very soon his increasing popularity and influence became offensive to the Shah and he was forced to leave Persia "for health reasons". Next he went to Russia where he established important political contacts and on behalf of Russian Muslims obtained the Tsar's permission to have the KurDan and religious books published. He stayed there till 1889. On his way to the Paris World Fair he met the Shah in Munich, and was persuaded by him to return to Persia. During his second stay there Djamal al-DIn had cause to realise how changeable the sovereign was. Djamal al-DIn had drawn up a plan of legal reforms; by criticizing it the jealous and scheming grand vizier Mlrza CAH Asghar Khan. amln al-sultdn, reversed the Shah's favourable attitude. Djamal al-DIn retired to the sanctuary of Shah cAbd al-cAzIm near Teheran. In an asylum considered inviolable [see BAST], he remained for seven months, sourrounded by a group of admirers who listened avidly to his theories for politcal reform in the oppressed country. Urged by the grand vizier and spurning the right of asylum, the Shah had him forcibly removed by 500 cavalry, put into chains and despite his delicate state of health taken as far as Khanikln on the Turko-Persian border (beginning of 1891). From then on Djamal al-DIn showed nothing but hatred and a desire for vengeance towards the Shah, an attitude which Ahmad Amln contrasts with the nobler feelings of other exiled reformers. From Basra, where he stayed just long enough to recover his health, he sent a scorching letter to Mlrza Hasan-i Shlrazi, the first mudjtahid of Samarra, opposing the Shah's decision of March 1890 to grant the tobacco rights of Persia to a British firm. He mentioned other concessions made to Europeans and accused the Shah of wasting public moneys to the advantage of "the enemies of Islam". He also denounced other abuses and cruelty by members of the government, particularly CAH Asghar Khan (see this letter in Arabic in Mandr, x, 820 ff., and in English in Browne, 15-21). His letter had swift results; the mud[tahid published a fatwd prohibiting the use of tobacco to all believers until the government cancelled the contract of concession. .The government had to give in and compensate the concessionaires. Djamal al-DIn then went to London for a year conducting a violent campaign through articles and lectures against the regime prevailing in Persia. He contributed particularly to the bilingual monthly review (in Arabic and English) Diya? al-Khdfikayn, "Radiance from the two hemispheres", which he helped to found (1892). He demanded the deposition of the Shah. He looked especially to the professional men of religion, assuring them they were the ramparts of Islam against European designs. His repeated appeals, the feeling caused by his expulsion and the successful tobacco boycott were the beginning of a powerful movement for reform backed by the Persian religious authorities.

The closing years of Djamal al-Dm's life were clouded by sadness. He spent them so to speak in a gilded cage at Constantinople, where sultan cAbd al-Hamid had twice summoned him through his ambassador in London (1892). After first declining, Djamal al-DIn consented to go. Was the sultan sincere in inviting the illustrious champion of a pan- Islamism, in which Turkey would have played a major part, and did he really intend to work with him towards its realization ? Or, as Ahmad Amln suggests, did he want Djamal al-DIn near him to be able to neutralize his influence more effectively? It is difficult to say. The newcomer was given a fine house on the hill of Nishantash, not far from the imperial palace of Yildiz. He received 75 Ottoman pounds a month and was allowed to keep contact with people wishing intercourse with him. The sultan behaved kindly towards his guest, listened to him to begin with at least and persuaded him to drop his resentful attitude to the Shah. He even offered him the post of shaykh al-Isldm, but he declined it. That was the turning-point. Intrigues and rivalries, especially on the part of Abu '1-Huda, the leading religious dignitary at the court, did the rest. Relations between the sultan and his guest became extremely frigid. Djamal al-DIn made several requests for permission to leave, which always met finally with a negative reply. We have some idea of his position at that time from the visitors he received. He was pained and dejected by the sight of so much cowardice around him. He criticized Muslims for their boastfulness and inactivity. His ideas were twisted so that he was accused, for example, of wanting to recognize the young Khedive c Abbas as Caliph because the latter had gone out of his way to meet him during a walk one day. But he continued to profess the same ideas on the need for constitutional liberties and on Islam, the one solid foundation of reformed Muslim states of the future. When on n March 1896 the Shah fell victim to an assassin who was a loyal follower of Diamal al-Dln, he was accused of guiding the murderer's hand. He defended himself against the charge, notably in his statements shortly afterwards to the correspondent of the Paris newspaper Le Temps. But his position was even more precarious.

He died on 9 March 1897 from cancer of the chin; rumour had it that Abu '1-Huda ordered the doctor only to pretend to treat him, or even poisoned him. He was buried in the cemetery of Nishantash. At the end of December 1944, his remains were taken to Afghanistan and laid to rest on 2 January 1945 in the suburbs of Kabul near cAH-Abad, where a mausoleum had been raised to him.

Despite his knowledge of Muslim theology and philosophy, Diamal al-DIn wrote little on these subjects. His treatise on the refutation of materialists was soon translated [see DAHRIYYA]. He has left an extremely succinct outline of the history of Afghanistan called Tatimmat al-baydn (lith. Cairo, undated, 45 p.) and the article Bdbi in the Dd^irat al- Ma'drif of Butrus al-Bustanl. But his pamphlets and political articles above all establish him as a commentator on current affairs. Apart from those in European languages, others in Arabic are to be found in the Egyptian press of about 1872-9 under his own name or such pseudonyms as Muzhir b. Waddah; he later contributed to al-^Urwa al-Wuthkd (anonymously) and to Diya* al-Khdfikayn (signing al- Sayyid or else al-Sayyid al-Husaym). It should finally be noted that the intensification of the struggle against the Western colonial powers after the war of 1939-45 gave Diamal al-DIn a topical interest. Consequently, his life and ideas became the subject of several works published in Cairo and intended for the general public.