Studying the al-Afghani and Abduh Biographies in the Rahnema Reading

In contrast to the Lapidus and Mamdani readings, the Rahnema reading consisted of two biographies: one of Sayyid Jamal al-Din al-Afghani and Muhammad Abduh. Although al-Afghani is known for his activism against imperialist forces and his belief in pan-Islamic unity as a means to fortify the Muslim world, I was intrigued by how his Shi’ite education in his birthplace, Iran, colored his teachings more predominately than the Afghani Sunni background he claimed he was from. For example, he argued that human reason was needed in the modern world, a belief that was most likely informed by the philosophical and “falsafa” tradition of Iran. Keddie even details Aghani’s referring to prophecy as a craft in a public lecture as reformist official of the Ottoman Council of Education, a belief viewed as heretical by the Sunnis, but accepted by the philosophy tradition. Haddad writes on Muhammad Abduh, whom she compared to al-Ghazali. Abduh recognized how far the Muslim community as a whole had fallen from the Golden Age of Islam and attributed some of this decline to Europe. However, of the central arguments that Abduh made was that Europeans do not adhere to the noble principles they put forth. However, he clearly states that the European civilization is not completely responsible for the degradation of Egypt. He believed that a chief factor was the internal divisions within the Muslim community, and the decline of the Muslim community was a punishment from God, promised in the Qur’an.

The Lapidus reading contextualized the breakdown of the worldwide system of Muslim societies of the eighteenth century in a broader historical context. Although much of history taught in the United States is Eurocentric, Lapidus’s explanations of how the changes within European society, such as the Industrial Revolution, economic bureaucratic reforms, new technologies, and the pursuit of scientific knowledge, influenced their colonization of the Middle East. The Lapidus reading describes many of the historical details of how different Muslim states, such as the Ottoman regions, Turkey, Egypt, and Tunisia, responded to European pressures differently.

Although the Rahnema and Lapidus readings were very historically informative, I enjoyed the Mamdani reading the most. His discussion of the formation of the concept of a nation state directly ties in with the theorists (Anderson and Wallerstein) that I am studying in sociology. Rahnema argues that the modern idea of nationality can be understood in terms of the history of race with two kinds of victims: victims within the state and victims of imperial expansion. Although Rahnema discusses victimhood by these growing powers generally, the ideas touch upon the mindset of how uprisings, revolts, and mutinies are viewed today: why would these “native” people wish to rebel against the colonizing power of another nation? Although the answer seems obvious when stated in this manner, Rahnema explain how nation states viewed the spread of religion, and nowadays democracy, as a burden. Although we are living in a post-9/11 world, I have not come into contact with many comparisons between the Holocaust and the events that happened on 9/11, although Mamdani writes that this comparison is often made. The discussion of the phrase “never again” and “never forget” is especially poignant, and related to the fictionalized notion of the nation-state. Individuals who are bound to a group of people never want these types of events to happen to their people again; individuals who are bound to the greater community, mankind, never want these type of events to happen to anyone at all, to humanity in general. Finally, Mamdani’s description of the different types of “jihad” was eye opening as well. Although I certainly do not believe any of the modern media’s depiction of the concept of “jihad,” Mamdani’s comparison between the “jihad” of the Muslims and Christians during the Crusades was an excellent comparison – every group has their version of a reasonable fight; only one’s views on the group and the people influences whether we belief they are justified or not. Instead of translating “jihad” as a “holy war,” translating the word as a “just war” changes the game a little.