Introduction
Jamal al-Din al-Afghani, Imperialism, Science and Religion, 1883 and 1884, provides an interesting comparison of style and content as it explores the two contradicting concepts that Al-Afghani used in his activism time. On the one hand, he appears to follow a righteous path of religion, while on the other, he portrays a path of scientific truth that rejects religion and follows facts. Al-Afghani’s approaches brought about controversies as these disparities did not reveal his true belief and intent. Al-Afghani was born and raised in a religious family who claimed descended from Prophet Muhammad. He spent most of his childhood in Shrines, where he received his early religious education in Iraq. He moved a lot among Muslim countries, spending his anti-imperialist ideas. His advocacy against European colonialism blossomed after he witnessed European oppression against the Indians in the 1850s when they tried to rebel against their foreign rule, which resulted in suppression from the British
Also, Johann Gottlieb Fichte, Addresses to the German Nation, 1807 and 1808, examines the interpretation of Germanness in the 19th century, describing it as a philosophical disposition comprising a determination to attain freedom in a liberal state. Although he was a renowned post-Kantian philosopher and an intellectual radical, he did not believe in religion. As a result, he was stripped of his academic qualification and vacancy as a professor at Jena following the allegations associated with atheism and Jacobinism. Seeking refuge in Prussia, he managed to secure tenure as a professor at the new University of Berlin. Several critics stigmatized his addresses, noting that they were expressions of intolerant German nationalism. The text demonstrates German liberal historicism, Kantian philosophical approach, and Herderian concerns regarding national identity.
In Imperialism, Science, and Religion, Al-Afghani essays provide a broader explanation of religion and social order provisions. He centered his argument on religion, noting that it provides favorable conditions for societal advancement and general well-being. According to him, the nation cannot be ruled based n pure reason because of its inadequacy to provide all the answers. The secular sovereignty lacks the mechanism short of a revolution that ensures those in power, and their subjects follow the law. Although he frequently referred to the Islamic religion as pure and true, Al-Afghani’s critique of secularism and heterodoxy is practical and political instead of theological as his orthodoxy was a mystery, but he used Islam as the necessary force that brought unity, identity, and mobilization against imperialism (Keddie).
In reply to Renan, Al-Afghani criticized Islam, arguing that it is opinionated and intolerant. In his later, he observed that the Muslim religion, by its essence, opposed the development of science. The nature of Arab people does not like either metaphysical sciences or philosophy (Keddie). However, he presented two principal questions: are the obstacles in developing science coming uniquely from the Muslim religion itself? Was it how spread in the world, to those who originally adopted it or those that it was forcefully imposed? As of the first question, he argued that there is no single nation that can be governed entirely by reason as it cannot distinguish between good and evil or that which can make it happy from a certain source of unhappiness and misfortune.
This force of action forced it to look outside itself for refuge. This forced humanity to seek the inspiration of reason, opening up the vast unknown horizons where their imagination found peace and complete satisfaction of desire. The curiosity of humanity to understand the causes of events that pass before their eyes forced them to follow their teachers’ advice and the orders they gave. They found a way to impose obedience using the name of a supreme being to whom all teachers attributed their events, shielding men from discussing their utility (Keddie). Al-Afghani further noted that every religion is intolerant in one way or another, but other denominations have risen above and allowed civilization and the practice of science, especially Christianity. However, Muslims remain in the entanglement with the tutelage of religion.
In truth, he noted that Islam has tried to cripple the development of science and has succeeded in stumbling the intellectual movements barring its follower’s minds from searching for scientific truth. Similar attempts have been made by venerated religious leaders unwilling to accept reasoning into their culture (Keddie). Therefore, individuals ought to free themselves from the religious solitude whereby they have become fanatics, full of foolish pride of possession, believed to be absolute truth, and embrace reason to achieve necessary civilization.
In the second essay, refutation of materialists, he attacked n Sayyid Ahmad Khan, an influential public figure and a strong believer in science and reason. Here, Al-Afghani defended religion after observing that Khan and his followers encouraged Indian cooperation with their colonial masters, the British other than joining pan-Islamic opposition to fight against foreign inversion (Keddie). Al-Afghani explains religion’s political utility, defining it as a set of laws and practices bestowed upon humans by the transcendent supreme being. Therefore, religion has tremendous social utility, fostering superiority in the sense of sharing individuals’ faith.
In the seventh addresses to the German Nation, Fichte observed that a man’s scientific view is not formed voluntarily and arbitrarily but from his way of life and, in essence, his inner self, which becomes his core root of looking at things. He believed that a person reflects his innermost soul that stands forth to his outward eye affecting how he sees things, thus seeing differently implies that one must become different (Fichte 2). Therefore, the foreign-born’s inner essence is fixed and cannot be changed at the same time. It cannot be dissolved into others without allowing. Mainly, different is the state’s genuine German art, which seeks fixity and independence of a certain level, which requires nurturing to be fully acquired. However, this cannot be achieved using the old generation that has been spoiled by neglect rather by educating young people about the German way of life.
In the following address, Fiche addresses what a meant by the love of fatherland is. He noted that only the original man who has not been corrupted by the arbitrary organization capable of real and rational love for his nation (Fichte, 3). Fichte argued that it is the only religion that has had the capability of transcending at all times without causing conflict with morality, righteousness, and holiness of the life indorsed by this belief. Faith has enabled individuals to believe in the divine and the view of the presence of the higher-order to the extent that its followers and the primitive Christian in general place their hearts in things above the earth, ignoring the earthly affairs, earthly fatherland, deeming it not worth the attention (Fichte, 4). As Fichte noted, it is the gross misuse of religion that individuals should abandon the state’s affairs as a mark of true religion.
The state’s affairs aim to enable positive law, internal peace, and a condition of affairs for everyone. They provide an environment whereby each individual can fairly earn their daily bread and satisfy their material needs in as long as God allows them to live, which forms a basis for the meaning of the love of fatherland (Fichte, 5). This love of fatherland should govern the states, and it can only be attained if the individual’s natural freedom is limited in some way (Fichte, 7). This implies that religion should work with the states and not against it by encouraging equality and fair distribution of resources other than advocating for heavenly fatherland ignoring state affairs that affect individuals’ daily functions.