During his last sojourn in India (1879-1883), Afg̲h̲āni wrote a treatise entitled, ḥaqīqat-i Maz̲hab-i Nīcari wa Bayān-i ḥāl-ī Nīcariyān̲ (The Truth about the School of Naturalism and a Description of the Naturalists). An analysis of this work is necessary since it is the only detailed work of Afg̲h̲āni which contains his views on materialism and reflects certain fundamental aspects of his religious outlook.

Afg̲h̲āni was prompted to write this treatise, which is in a way a refutation of the views and beliefs of the naturalists, because of the growing popularization of the views of the school of Syed Aḥmad k̲h̲ān (1817-1898) better known as the founder of the M. A. O. College, which later developed into the Aligarh Muslim University. Muḥammad Vāṣil, a teacher of mathematics in the Madrasah-i A‘izzah, Hyderabad, in a letter,1 requested Afg̲h̲āni to explain the origin, aims and influence of the school of naturalism on human culture. He also sought to know the difference between naturalism and religion and whether naturalism supports religion or opposes it and what part does it play in civilization, culture and society.2

Afg̲h̲āni begins his treatise by stating that the nīcari school (of India) was similar to the atheistic school that flourished in Greece during the third and fourth centuries B.C. The real aim of this school was to uproot the foundations of all religions and establish ibāḥat (rendering something lawful) and ishtirāk (communion) among the people.3 He further states that the word nīcariyat (naturalism) was very popular in most of the cities of India and everyone gave a different interpretation according to his own understanding. However, people were ignorant of its true implications and meanings, and hence it was essential to give an account of naturalism from the very beginning and explain in detail the harm that they were causing to human society and culture. Again, it was necessary to prove rationally that wherever the protagonists of these views appeared, they caused decay and disintegration.4 Later, in an article in al-‘Urvah, Afg̲h̲āni states that during his stay in India he found that the Indian Muslims were led astray by the views of Syed Aḥmad k̲h̲ān as well as by his followers, and hence he wrote the treatise wherein, after describing teachings of this false school and exposing their dangerous influences, he proved that religion was the only basis of civilization and culture.5

Before analyzing the contents of the above treatise, it may be pointed out here that Afg̲h̲āni regarded Syed Aḥmad k̲h̲ān and his followers as materialists and atheists—-a judgment that seems to be unfounded and erroneous. It is, therefore necessary to relate here the factors that led Afg̲h̲āni to such a conclusion.

At the time of Afg̲h̲āni’s arrival in India (1879) the Indian Muslims had not recovered from the shock of frustration and defeatism which had overtaken them after the failure of the War of Independence in 1857. Besides, they were looked upon with suspicion by the British government. According to Afg̲h̲āni, the Indian Muslims, who had been deprived of their power and authority, had not become reconciled to the loss of their empire and that, as long as they were firm in their religious faith, it was not possible to make them acquiesce to foreign domination.6 Further, in view of the growing activities of the Christian missions, the Muslims regarded English education as an indirect means to propagate Christianity. Hence, the Muslims became averse to Western culture on religious grounds. The majority of the orthodox ‘ulamā took a firm stand against modern education and encouraged anti-British sentiments among the Muslims. Such an attitude and animosity threatened to deprive the Muslims of government jobs which required persons educated on modern pattern.

Syed Aḥmad k̲h̲ān, like the rest of the reformers of the period, saw that the Indian Muslims could regain their social stability, firstly, by inspiring confidence in the British government in India as to their loyalty,7 and, secondly, by adopting Western modes of life and by acquiring modern education. Observing the aversion of the Muslims towards modern sciences on religious grounds, he held that there was need for a modern scholasticism (jadīd ‘ilm-i kalām) so as to show that the various doctrines of modern science were in conformity with the articles of Islamic faith.8 To meet this need, he evolved his own system of scholastic principles which aimed at judging religious belief on the grounds of Reason and Nature. He states that the truth of a religion depends upon its conformity with natural laws. The whole creation including man is the Work of God and religion in His Word; so there could not be any contradiction between the two.9 Like Afg̲h̲āni, Syed Aḥmad k̲h̲ān also regarded Reason as the touchstone of religious faith. However, in his interpretation of the fundamental Islamic beliefs, especially of Heaven, Hell, the Angels, and Prophet-hood, he took an extremely rationalistic view which left little room for the metaphysical.10 It was due to this overemphasis on rationalization of the Islamic beliefs and demythologizing of the Qur‘ān that a violent reaction among the Indian ‘ulamā appeared against Syed Aḥmad k̲h̲ān. He was branded as a Nīcari (naturalist), Kristān (Christian), Dahriyah (atheist), and Kāfir (heretic).11

Now, as might have been noticed in the previous chapters, Afg̲h̲āni stood, first, for the liberation of the Islamic world from Western domination and, secondly, for the freedom of the Muslim mind from superstition and prejudices towards modern sciences and learning. In the peculiar conditions obtaining in India at the time these objectives were advocated separately and mutually exclusively by the two rival groups, viz., the ‘ulamā, on the one hand, and Syed Aḥmad k̲h̲ān, on the other. Being essentially an enemy of Western imperialism, Afg̲h̲āni’s sympathies naturally lay with the anti-British attitude of the ‘ulamā, although he did not share their hostility towards modern education and learning. On the other hand, he was violently opposed to Syed Aḥmad k̲h̲an, primarily because of the political views of the latter which aimed at a compromise with the British rulers. Hence, he regarded Syed Aḥmad k̲h̲ān’s religious views and educational program as ancillary to his political servitude to British interests in India. He criticized the principles and method of Syed Aḥmad k̲h̲ān’s Tafsīr al-Qur‘ān as an attempt to make Muslims servile to the Egnlish,12 and his Tabyīn al-Kalām as an attempt to please the rulers.13 Likewise, he saw in the Naturalist school of philosophy the origin of Syed Aḥmad k̲h̲ān’s concept of Nature, which in fact, did not amount to materialist view of universe but sought to judge religious beliefs according to natural laws and human nature.

Afg̲h̲āni’s treatise may be divided into two parts. The first part contains a description and criticism of the philosophers holding a naturalistic or materialistic view of the universe, man, and society, from the time of the early Greeks down to the middle of the 19th century. Among them he makes special reference to Democritus, Epicurus, Leibniz, and Darwin, in Persia to Mazdak and Babism; among the Muslim schools to the Batinites, Ismailites, and the Assassins; and in France to Rousseau and Voltaire. He also makes some general and sweeping remarks about Communism, Socialism and Nihilism. In the second part, he discusses man’s beliefs, habits, and principles which are the basis of human happiness, and are the fundamentals of all religions, especially Islam. This section has already been studied in detail in the previous chapters.14

The Greeks

As for the Greek philosophers, Afg̲h̲āni classifies them into two groups: muta‘allihīn (theists) and t̤ab‘īyīn (naturalists). Among the former he includes Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and his followers. They believed that beyond this world of senses and matter there are absolute beings which are devoid of physical accidents (‘avāriz̤-i-ajsām) and are pure of corporeal defects (naqā‘iṣ-i jismānīyah). The chain of both absolute and material beings culminates in an absolute Being which is pure substance (basīt̤) and therefore free of composition. His existence is His essence. He is the First Cause and the real source of all existent beings whether material or absolute.15

The second group consisted of the materialist philosophers. They believed that nothing existed apart from matter and beyond the world of five senses. They explained the difference between the effects of properties of the material (mavād) of things as arising from the nature (t̤ab‘) of the material.16

Afg̲h̲āni’s above classification of the Greek philosophers resembles that of al-g̲h̲azāli’s in his al-Munqiz̤ min al-z̲alāl.17

Afg̲h̲āni then studies several schools of nature-philosophers which were formed due to difference of opinion on the issue of the composition of the universe and the creation and evolution of life. According to him, some of these philosophers held that the creation of the celestial (‘alvi) and the terrestrial (sifli) forms and their composition was accidental, thus believing in effect without cause (tarjīḥ bilā murajjiḥ). This theory was first held by Democritus, who stated that the whole celestial and terrestrial universe is composed of small atoms which are by nature moving. These developed into present forms and shapes by mere accidents. Another group believed in the eternity of the world and stated that the species of plants and animals have no beginning; in each seed is concealed the plant and in each plant the seed, ad infinitum.

Afg̲h̲āni remarks that this theory makes a finite quantity contain infinite quantities, which is inconceivable. Yet another group believed that although the species of plants and animals are eternal like the celestial and the terrestrial systems, the seeds of plants and animals are not eternal. Each member of the species serves as a model (qālib) for the composition of similar seeds and germs. Afg̲h̲āni does not accept this theory as correct and gives as an illustration the phenomenon of deformed (nāqiṣ al-a‘z̤ā) animals producing well-formed animals.18
Then, Afg̲h̲āni describes the views of Epicurus who held that the species of plants and animals acquired the present forms through a process of formal change and transformation at different stages. Epicurus also claimed that like pigs man was originally full of hair and then gradually evolved into his present hairless forms. Afg̲h̲āni points out that Epicurus did not explain as to why forms change according to passage of time.19 However, later, when the thinkers holding this view found that the geological science had refuted the theory of eternity of species, they renounced their views. Then, there were differences of opinion among the philosophers with regard to the creation of the seeds of plants and animals. Some held that the seeds of species were, in fact, created when the heat of the earth began to subside and that now no new germination was possible. Whereas others maintained that the possibility was still there, especially in the Torrid Zone where this process still continued. Afg̲h̲āni rejects both these schools of thought, for they failed to explain what causes life in the seeds, whereas, in fact, it is life, which is the cause of their composition. Some thinkers believed that these seeds existed on earth at the time of its separation from the sun. But, Afg̲h̲āni criticizes this theory by stating that since according to them the earth was composed of burning fire, how was it that the seeds were not burnt up and their particles not disintegrated.20

Afg̲h̲āni, then discusses the question of the growth of germs from their rudimentary state into their present perfect forms and shapes. He states that some of the philosophers held that each species has its own particular types of germs, which move by their own nature, absorb inanimate particles and thus develop into the forms peculiar to their species. Afg̲h̲āni remarks that, in fact, in the light of chemical analyses and researches there was no difference between the basic elements of one species and the others. For instance, the basic elements of the sperms of human beings and those of the cow or the ass are the same. Then, how is it that the developed species of human beings and the animals are so distinctive from each other?21

Darwin

Contrary to the above-mentioned thinkers, Afg̲h̲āni states that some held that the germs of all species, especially the animals are not different from each other as far as their atomic substance is concerned. They, however, transform themselves into different species according to necessity and other environmental factors. The exponent of this theory was Darwin.22 Raising objections to this theory Afg̲h̲āni remarks that Darwin based it on “a deficient resemblance between man and ape,” and according to the theory it was possible that a mosquito may develop into an elephant and vice versa. Rejecting the view that differences in the environmental factors cause difference in the species, Afg̲h̲āni queries what explanation does this theory offer to the variation that exists within those plants, insects, or fishes which inhabit the same regions of earth or water and live under the same climatic conditions? Again, what is it that guides the imperfect and unconscious germs to develop their internal and external limbs and organs to most amazing perfection?

Afg̲h̲āni does not accept Darwin’s law of ‘adaptation according to necessity,’ or ‘natural selection.’ He does not agree that the horses of the cool Siberian regions have more hair than those of the hot Arabian areas due to necessity. He attributes such a difference to the same reason which explains the variation of the plants and animals belonging to the same region.

Afg̲h̲āni then describes the views of a group of modern materialists who rejected the idea of thoughtless matter being the source of this well-organized universe.
At the basis of all celestial and terrestrial systems, there are three factors: matter, force, and consciousness or intelligence (idrāk or sha‘~ur). Matter, by virtue of its inherent force and by acquiring consciousness appears in various organized shapes and forms. In living beings, whether plants or animals, it develops limbs or organs in accordance with time and place so as to protect them.24

By this theory, Afg̲h̲āni points out, the materialists were unknowingly refuting their hard-earned principle of Democritus, which held that bodies were composed of indivisible lifeless atoms.25 He raises the objection that since according to this theory each atom possesses a particular force and consciousness of its own, it is not possible for a single accident (‘araz̤) to be applied upon one existent unit in two different places. In these circumstances how did these scattered particles, in order to compose a body, come to know each other’s intentions? Again, it does not explain the difference of material forms and shapes. How did the atoms in different eggs come to know that they have to develop into different types of birds, or grow limbs and organs required by living beings? Afg̲h̲āni states that in reply to such criticism the upholders of this theory may argue that each atom possesses all necessary knowledge of the past and the present, knows the intentions of all other atoms, and all of them have adjusted their movements in consonance to each other. Hence, there is complete uniformity in the universal system. However, Afg̲h̲āni remarks, such a contention also produces an impossibility. If this contention is correct then it means that the extension (bu‘d) of the tiny Democritus’s atom contains infinite extensions. For, each form of knowledge (ṣ~urat-i-‘ilmīya) which is depicted in matter, would necessarily take in a part of the atom’s extension. Again, since according to this theory the ‘form of knowledge’ is infinite, therefore, presence of infinite extensions in the finite atoms becomes obligatory which is inconceivable. Second, if these atoms are so conscientious, then why do they not raise the universe, composed of their own substance, to perfection? Again, why it is that the consciousness of man and that of other animals, which is in fact the consciousness of these very atoms, is incapable of knowing their nature and is helpless in preserving their lives?26

From the above discussion, it seems that Afg̲h̲āni was not inclined to accept any point of view which transferred power from God to material beings. According to him, the chief difficulty with these materialist schools was that they failed to reconcile certain problems with their false principles of nature or consciousness. They found that chemical analysis revealed that actually there was no difference among the basic elements of things, while their physical qualities widely differed from each other. Aware of this difficulty some materialists expressed the view that atoms had different shapes and, therefore, they produced different effects on things under varied conditions. One of the above-mentioned ten schools did not believe in God, and hence they were called materialists, naturalists, or atheists by themselves as well as by the theists.27

Influence of the Naturalist teachings on world nations

In this section Afg̲h̲āni studies the causes of the rise and fall of certain nations. According to him there were three beliefs and three qualities which formed the basis of the progress of a nation. The three beliefs are: man is the noblest among God’s creation, his is the noblest nation, and man has been created with the purpose of attaining the highest peaks of perfection. The three qualities are: modesty, trust and sincerity.28 On the other hand, the decay of the nations was the result of the corruption of these essential beliefs and qualities caused by the teachings of the naturalists.

Greece(29)

Afg̲h̲āni states that by virtue of possessing these beliefs and qualities the Greeks remained unified against the mighty Persian Empire, conquered it and them attacked India. The quality of trust was so deep in their character that they preferred death to treachery. For instance, Themistocles, despite his distinguished services in the conquest of Persia, was expelled from Greece by his own countrymen on charges of high treason, and had to take refuge in Persia. However, when he was ordered by Artaxerxes to command Persian army against Greece, he committed suicide instead of acting as a traitor to his motherland.30

The decay of Greece started with the appearance of the naturalist Epicurus and his followers. They rejected belief in God and declared that man in his vanity and pride supposes that the universe is created for his worthless being and that he is the primary cause of the universe and the noblest of all beings. Under the influence of his greed, selfish desires and fancies, man has started believing in the life hereafter, and for this reason, contrary to his own nature, he has bound himself in numerous bonds, taken upon himself many hardships and sufferings and has deprived himself of all natural pleasures and luxuries. The Epicurean philosophers held that, in fact, man is even inferior to animals. He has learnt all arts and crafts by imitating other animals and insects. For instance, he has learnt weaving from the spider, building houses from the bee, raising mansions from the ant, storing food provisions from the tiny ant and music from nightingale. There is no future life and, therefore, it is pointless to go through sufferings and difficulties. Man should not deprive himself of pleasures by going against nature. The terms ‘prohibited’ or ‘un-prohibited’ and ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ are meaningless. Modesty (ḥayā) indicates weakness of soul and should be disposed of. Man should break himself free from all bonds of habits and customs until he can commit without any hesitation actions which are generally regarded by society as base. Men have equal share in property and wealth.31

Afg̲h̲āni believed that with the popularization of these Epicurean principles among the Greeks, reason and wisdom were gradually replaced by fallacies, sciences and philosophies decayed, morals were corrupted and all virtues gave way to vices. Consequently, the Greeks lost their empire to the Romans and were forced to lead a life of slavery and baseness.

Persia(32)

The Persians by practicing the six essential beliefs and qualities enjoyed the highest happiness. They had such deep faith in honesty and truth that they did not borrow money, lest, pressed by circumstances, they might be forced to tell lies and whenever any weakness appeared, it was subdued by the force of the essential beliefs and qualities. Such a state of affairs continued till the reign of Kobad,33 when Mazdak, the naturalist, appeared as the ‘Remover of Tyranny’ and ‘Controller of Oppression.’ His teachings, however, resulted in the uprooting of the very foundations of Persia’s good fortunes.

Mazdak held that all principles and customs formulated by man are based upon tyranny, oppression and falsehoods. The sacred system of natural law is not rejected as impracticable as yet; it is still inviolable and persists in the animal world. Nature is nobler than reason and gives men equal rights with regard to food, drinks and women. One should not deprive oneself of sensuous pleasures even with ones own sister, mother or daughter. Since all wealth and goods are common property of human beings, one should not prevent others from drawing pleasure from a woman by taking her into marriage. It is the duty of a man to reject all principles and customs formulated by the deficient human reason. He should, by virtue of the sacred law of nature, claim any chattel or women he desires and force the usurpers to abandon their oppressive activities.

Afg̲h̲āni remarks that as a result of the spread of such corrupt teachings, vices of every kind crept into the Persian society. Although Nausherwan34 had Mazdak and his followers executed, he was not able to eradicate the influence of their teachings completely. Besides, it was due to this moral degeneration that the Persians could not sustain a single attack of the Arabs, while their neighbours, the Romans, stood up against the Arabs for quite a long time.35

The Muslims(36)

Afg̲h̲āni then expresses his views about the naturalists who appeared in Islam and were the cause of its degeneration. He says that it was by virtue of the essential beliefs and qualities that the Muslims gained political power and got several thousand non-Muslims converted to Islam, but with the appearance of the naturalist thinking in Egypt in the fourth century of Hijrah, Islam began to show signs of decay. It was started by the Bāt̤inīs who propagated their ideas throughout the Muslim world, especially in Persia.

Their method was as follows: in the first place they created doubts in people’s minds about their beliefs and then made them take a pledge of faith in the Bāt̤inī beliefs and, lastly, they carried them to their supreme leader. They believed that anyone who preach their ideology, should always behave hypocritically towards the heads of the Islamic state and should be capable of forming his own opinions (that is, without following the religious authorities). The first principle which was taught to a convert to this school was that the external religious duties (a‘māl-i zāhirīyah) were meant only for those who had not yet gained access to truth, or, in other words, acquired true and perfect spiritual leader. Thus, with a true guide, one did not need to observe external duties. In fact, all physical and spiritual duties, beliefs and laws are meant for imperfect and deficient individuals. Once a man achieves perfection he should free himself from all such bonds and follow ibāḥat. Similarly the terms ‘prohibited,’ trust (amānat) or mistrust (k̲h̲iyānat), truth (ṣidq) or untruth (kiz̲b), virtues (faz̤ā‘il) or vices (raz̲ā‘il), have no meaning. The Bāt̤inīyah also sought to deny faith in the unity of God and strengthen naturalism by holding that if God exists He should resemble other existent beings and if He does not, He should resemble non-existent beings. Since God is above all such anthropomorphic expressions, He is neither existent nor non-existent. Thus, Afg̲h̲āni pointed out that they taught to believe in ‘the name’, while denied ‘one who is named.’37 For a long time the Bāt̤inīyah were busy in their clandestine activities of corrupting the morals of the Muslims until at last the ‘ulamā and the political leaders perceived the danger and resisted it. The naturalists, aware of the strength of this resistance, went even to the extent of shedding the blood of thousands of ‘ulamā and of the reformers and political leaders.

One such naturalist declared at Alamout that the Day of Judgment implied the establishment of justice and, since he himself was the incarnation of justice (Qā‘im ḥaq), religious duties were no more to be performed and all were free to act according to their desires. In short, they invited the Muslims to all kinds of vices and false beliefs and by preaching anthropomorphic doctrines sought to eradicate faith in God which is the basis of human happiness.38
Afg̲h̲āni holds that as a result of these teachings the Muslims degenerated and became weak. It was for this reason that the Tartars, the Turks and the Mongols were able to march into their territories, plunder cities, and massacre thousands of Muslims. However, thanks to the deep-rooted Islamic beliefs and morals which were not completely erased from the minds of the Muslims, they succeeded in liberating Syria from the domination of the Tartars, who were themselves converted to Islam, later. Yet, the Muslims could not completely overcome the weaknesses that had been caused by the teachings of the naturalists in the Islamic society and regain their earlier grandeur and power.39

Afg̲h̲āni points out that usually the historians describe the Crusades as the starting point of the decay of Muslim power. He suggests that it would be more correct to trace it back to the propagation of the ideology and thought of the naturalists, which had weakened Islam and divided the Muslim community into several sects. Afg̲h̲āni states that the Bābis who had appeared in Iran in his days and had shed the blood of thousands of innocent men, were no other than the followers of the naturalists of Alamout. Their teachings were similar to those of the Bāt̤inīyah.

France(40)

The French were distinguished for their sciences and culture and no European nation was equal to them except the Greeks. This was also due to their following the above mentioned six essential principles. Their decline, however, started in the 18th century when the naturalists, like Voltaire (1694-1778) and Rousseau (1712-78) revived Epicureanism. They rejected all laws, supported ibāḥat and ishtirāk, described social customs and manners as useless, condemned religion as the invention of human ignorance, rejected belief in God, and insulted prophets. These blasphemies influenced the French mind so deeply that they abandoned their own Christian faith and morality. The influence of the false naturalist teachings of Voltaire and Rousseau was apparent in the French Revolution. They corrupted the morals of the French people and divided them into different sects. Gradually, each group followed its own methods of satisfying personal desires and achieving pleasure and completely ignored common good. As a result the French could not exercise any healthy influence on either the East or the West and, although Napoleon I tried to reinstate the Christian faith, the influence of such teachings could not be erased completely nor could the differences of the various schools of thought be bridged up. These were also the causes of the defeat of the French at the hands of the Germans. Moreover, there appeared at this time another group who preached socialism and their ideology was as harmful to the French as the Germans were to them. Had the peoples of good faith and morals not resisted these teachings, the naturalists, in order to achieve their aims, would have almost destroyed France.

The Ottomans(41)

The decline of the Ottomans was also due to the popularization of the ideas of the naturalists among some of their nobles and leaders. Afg̲h̲āni believed that the soldiers who proved traitors during the last Ottoman war (with Russia in 1872) were also the followers of naturalism and claimed for themselves the nomenclature, ‘peoples of modern thought.’

The Socialists, Communists and Nihilists(42)

Afg̲h̲āni includes the Socialists, the Communists and the Nihilists in the same category of naturalists. They all claimed to be the friends of the poor and the down-trodden. Although each one of these schools expressed its view in its own peculiar way, yet they shared certain common principles and beliefs: they ignored all human distinctions and, in the manner of Mazdak, allowed all to share everything; they believed that all mundane pleasures and comforts were the gifts of Nature; the greatest hindrance in the propagation of the sacred laws of Nature, namely ibāḥat and ishtirāk, were religion and state, and hence, these two institutions should be destroyed forthwith. Finding educational institutions the most effective medium for the propagation of their ideas, some of them adopted the teaching profession in European schools and converted large numbers of people to their own views and ideologies. They were, especially, successful in Russia. Afg̲h̲āni warned that if the three schools of thought cited above gained strength, they would prove very dangerous to mankind. Among the upholders of naturalism Afg̲h̲āni names Mormons who formed two separate societies for men and women in America and declared that all men had full rights over all women.43

Afg̲h̲āni states that the materialists or the naturalists have appeared in different communities in different disguises and under different names. Sometimes they described themselves as philosophers, destroyers of tyranny and oppression, knowers of truth, and peoples of secret knowledge, and others claimed that their mission was to remove superstition and to enlighten humanity. Again, like all false prophets of the past they also claimed prophethood for themselves. However, mankind protected its morals and society from corruption by virtue of the essential beliefs and qualities bestowed upon it by religions.44

Criticizing the Communist theories of social justice and economic equality, Afg̲h̲āni points out that the needs of human society are dependent upon certain arts and crafts, which are different from each other in their being noble or ignoble and difficult or easy to perform. However, the aim of the materialists is that all human beings, without any distinction whatsoever should have common rights over all pleasures and no individual should enjoy any special rights or prerogatives over another individual and there should be complete equality among human beings. If this principle is accepted, then each individual would refrain from noble and hard work (that is, professions) and, consequently, social life would be ruined and the machinery of mutual transactions and co-operation would come to a standstill. Afg̲h̲āni felt that if this impracticable principle was at all accepted and men succeeded in providing comforts for all, it will result in human society losing all charm, material and spiritual achievements, sciences and industries.

For, Afg̲h̲āni argued, the real basis of all human achievements was the love of distinction without which human soul would cease to rise upwards and human intellect would refrain from probing into the realities of life and from solving intricate problems.45

Discussing the evils of naturalist teachings, Afg̲h̲āni states that since they denied life after death, self-love dominated all activities of the naturalists. Self-love allows to sacrifice universal good for one’s own particular good, which means that one can sell one’s nation for personal benefit.46 Afg̲h̲āni states that the materialists adopted different methods of propagating their views. In times of peace they did their work openly, while in times of fear and suppression they adopted secret means.47 They posed as men of letters, friends of the community and well-wishers of the nation. On the one hand, they are hand in glove with the thieves and, on the other, they call themselves fellow travelers in the caravan (of Islam). They aim at uprooting the very foundations of the nation and destroy its unity for their own bread. Afg̲h̲āni holds that besides corrupting the morals of the people, they lead nations towards slavery and misery. Again, there are some who, without betraying their beliefs of ibāḥat and ishtirāk, are content with the denial of God and the Day of Judgment. Undoubtedly these teachings are themselves quite enough to destroy society and culture. Afg̲h̲āni comes to the conclusion that it is impossible to find a naturalist who is cultured and has good conduct.48

In his concluding remarks, Afg̲h̲āni firmly states that if a religion, howsoever false and the lowest among the religions it may be, is based upon the beliefs of God and of Reward and Punishment (which are commonly held by all religions), it is superior to materialism in respect of culture, society, administration and all other human organizations and achievements.49 Of all the religions, Islam is most capable of ennobling men’s souls and leading them to happiness.50

References

1 Dated, Muḥarram 19, 1298A.H./December 22, 1880
2 H, pp. 2-3. It appears that Afg̲h̲āni’s attack on Syed Aḥmad k̲h̲ān’s religious views had created a stir in a section of intelligentsia of Hyderabad at that time. There is available a treatise published during Afg̲h̲āni’s stay in Hyderabad in support of his criticism of Syed Aḥmad k̲h̲ān. One Nasiruddin Muhammad wrote this treatise entitled Radd-i Nīcariyat, in about 1882, refuting the view contained in a letter written by Syed Mahdi ‘Alī k̲h̲ān, Muḥsinul Mulk, a close associate of Syed Aḥmad k̲h̲ān and who, at that time, was Revenue Secretary, Government of Hyderabad, addressed to ḥāji Ismā’īl k̲h̲ān, Ra‘is of Datāwali (U.P.) and which was published in Aligarh Institute Gazette (Aligarh), July 23, 1881. Criticizing the ‘heretical’ views of Sir Syed and Muhsinul Mulk, he points out that it was against the popularization of such heretical views that ‘Maulānā Jamāluddīn’ had written his treatise entitled, Radd-i Nīcariyah, p. 37
3 Ibid., p. 4
4 Ibid., p 6
5 ‘Urvah, ii, p. 138. Afg̲h̲āni argued that the English in order to weaken the Indian Muslims considered the corruption of their religious beliefs through popularization of naturalist teachings as essential. Their support to the M.A.O. College of Syed Aḥmad k̲h̲ān was governed by this purpose. Mag̲h̲ribi, op. cit., pp. 68-69. See also Biography, pp. 393-94
6 Ibid., p. 135-36
7 For this purpose and to assure the British Government that the Muslims were not wholly responsible for the 1857 revolt, he wrote Asbāb-i Bag̲h̲āvat-i Hind (1857), and Loyal Mohammadans of India (1860-61). Besides, in order to bring the Muslims closer to the Christians, he wrote a book entitled, Tabyīn al-Kalām (a commentary of the Bible, refuting the common belief of the Muslims that the Scriptures were corrupted by the Christians and the Jews. In his Aḥkām-i t̤a‘ām-i-Ahl-i-Kitāb (Rules for Dining with the People of the Book), published in 1868, he favoured inhterdining with the Christians.
8 Majm~u‘ah-i Lectures, Lahore, 1900, pp. 21-22; Alt̤āf ḥusain ḥālī, ḥayāt-i Jāvīd, Lahore, 1957, p. 276
9 Majm~u‘ah-i Lectures, pp. 284-86; ḥālī, op. cit., p. 275.
10 For such interpretation, see his Tafsīr al-Qur‘an, Vol. 1, published in 1880, p. 4ff.
11 Ibid., pp. 623-57; See also, J. M. S. Baljon, The Reforms and Religious Ideas of Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan, Leiden, 1949, p. 68ff.
12 M, p. 46
13 ‘Urvah, ii, p. 137
14 Cf. Chap. III, pp. 77ff.
15 H, p. 7
16 Ibid., p. 8. By such philosophers Afg̲h̲āni probably meant the nature philosophers, Heraclitus the Eleatics, Empedocles, etc.
17 Al-g̲h̲azāli classified the philosophers into three groups. The materialists (dahriyīn), the naturalists (t̤ab‘iyīn) and the theists (ilāhīyīn). According to him the earliest were the materialists who “deny the Creator and Dispenser of the world. Omniscient and Omnipotent, and consider that the world has everlastingly existed just as it is, of itself and without a creator, and that everlastingly animals have come from seed, and seed from animal; thus it was and thus it ever will be.” The naturalists do not believe in future life, heaven, hell, resurrection, and judgment, and, therefore, give way to bestial indulgence in pleasure. W. M. Watt, The Faith and Practice of al-Ghazali, pp. 30-32
18 H, pp. 8-9. Afg̲h̲āni’s above criticism is directed against the Ionian physicists, or nature-philosophers, the Pythagoreans, Heraclites, the Eleatics, Empedocles, the Atomists and Anaxagoras, all pre-Socratic schools. The Ionian philosophers, viz., Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, attempted to explain phenomenon by natural causes and without appeal to mythical beings. They held that different bodies change into other substances; hence the original element must have been similarly transmuted into different substances found in our present world of experience. The fact of change itself is explained by the view that reality is alive; the original substance bears within itself the cause of motion and change (hylozoism). The Pythagoreans fix their attention, not so much upon a sense-perceived substance, as upon the relations existing between things. Since this may be expressed in numbers, they make entities of numbers, conceiving them as the primary causes of things. According to Heraclites, the world is in constant change and there is no real permanence in things. On the other hand, the Eleatics, viz., Paramenides, Zeno, rejected the nation of change and held that permanence is significant characteristic of reality. Empedocles agreed with the Eleatics and stated that nothing can really originate or change or disappear in the absolute sense; but the permanent elements of the world can and do change their relations to one another. Accepting this conception in principle, the Atomists, viz., Leaceppus and his pupil Democritus presuppose numberless indivisible particles of matter, called atoms and conceive motion as inherent in the atoms themselves. Anaxagoras accepting these notions assumes countless elementary qualities and ascribes the origin of their motion to a mind, outside of these elements. Frank Thilly, A History of Greek Philosophy, New York, 1948, pp. 14ff.
19 H, pp. 9-10. Epicurus (341-270 B.C.) believed that living beings originally arose from the earth. At first, monsters were produced with shapes not adapted to their surroundings, but these could not live. Thilly, op. cit., p. 100
20 H, p. 10
21 Ibid., pp. 11-12
22 Ibid., pp. 12-13
23 Ibid.
24 Ibid., p 15
25 Ibid., pp. 15-16
26 Ibid., pp. 15-18. Afg̲h̲āni did not mention the name of the philosopher of this school. Probably, he had in his mind the German philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716 A.D.). He is the only among modern philosophers who ascribes matter, force and spirit to an atom. Finding the hypothesis of merely extended bodies and matter unsatisfactory in the explanation of physical facts he introduced the idea of force which is the source or fountain of the mechanical world. He declares that the source of mechanics is in metaphysics. Simple substances are called by him metaphysical points, formal atoms or essential forms. Such force-atoms, described by him as monads, are eternal; they cannot be destroyed, nor can they be created. He described monads as spiritual or psychic forces. There are different degrees of perception from the lower to the higher monads. The universe is composed of an infinite number of monads in a gradually ascending scale of clarity. God is the highest, the purest of the monads. Atomists held that there are many homogenous realities, which are material; for Leibniz they are spiritual. Thilly, op. cit., pp. 369-70. Leibniz furnishes an answer to Afg̲h̲āni’s objection, namely, why there is so much suffering in the world in spite of the existence of conscientious atoms? He holds that this world is the best possible world. “It is not perfect. It has its defects. God could not express his nature in infinite forms without limitation and impediment. Such limitations are metaphysical evils; they result in pain and suffering (physical evil) and sin (moral evil). Besides, evil is a foil to bring about the good. Virtue gains strength in combating evil.” Ibid., p. 372
27 Ibid., p. 18
28 Cf. pp. ff. 77 above ff.
29 H, pp. 42ff.
30 Ibid., p. 43 Cf. J. B. Bury, A History of Greece, London, 1956, pp. 334-446
31 H, pp. 42-46. Epicurus (341-270 B.C.) held that man’s nature is built upon pleasure. All animals from the moment of their birth seek pleasure and avoid pain by a natural instinct. Pleasure, therefore, is the goal at which we all aim and, indeed, ought to aim. Happiness is the highest good. About God, future life and morality, Epicurus is clear enough. We are afraid of the catastrophes of nature, of the wrath of the God, of death and hereafter; we worry over the past, present, and future. So long as we do this, we cannot be happy. He describes natural rights, laws and absolute justice as nothing but artificial means to realize individual self-interests. Thilly, op. cit., pp. 102-3.
32 H, pp. 47ff.
33 Date of accession, A.D. 488
34 Date of accession, A.D. 531
35 In the religious history of Persia, Mazdak occupies an important place as the exponent of the only naturalist school. In the tenth year of the reign of King Kobad, who succeeded to the crown in A.D. 488, Mazdak began to propagate his creed. The most alluring tenet of this new religion was the community of females and of property – a popular doctrine, which brought him numerous converts. Mazdak held that, as everything animate and inanimate belongs to God, it was impious in man to claim, or to appropriate to himself, that which was the property of his Creator, and, as such, destined for the common use of all human beings. Mazdak was able to propagate his doctrines by winning support of King Kobad who fell a prey to his teachings. It was by Nausherwan, the son of Kobad, who ascended the throne in A.D. 531, that Mazdak and all his followers were put to death. E. G. Browne, History of Persian Literature, Vol. I, Cambridge, 1951, p. 170
36 H, pp. 49ff.
37 The term Bāt̤inīyah was applied by Arab writers to several quite distinct sects including the k̲h̲urramiyah, the Qarāmit̤ah, the Ismā‘īlīyah, the Mazdakīyah, the Ta‘līmīyah, and the Malāḥidah. According to Shahrastāni, the Bāt̤iniyah believed that “each external has an internal, every revelation (tanzīl) has an interpretation (ta‘vīl). One cannot speak of the qualities of God as one speaks of those of men; one cannot say that he is wise or that he is ignorant, that he is, or that he is not, for that would be falling into the error of likening him to his creations (tashbīh).” B. Carra De Naux, Ency. Isalm. Art. ‘Batiniya.’
38 H, p. 52. The reference is to ḥasan b. ṣabbāḥ, the founder of the sect of the Assassins, a Persian sub-set of the Ismā‘īliyah, in the eleventh century A.D. Described as the ‘Nihilists of Islam,’ the followers of ḥasan b. ṣabbāḥ, terrorized Asia, Africa and Eastern Europe for several years with their ruthless activities of assassinations and propagation of heretic principles among the Muslims. They were attacked and annihilated by Hulagu after the destruction of their fortress in the mountain of Alamout. Cf. Ameer Ali, The Spirit of Islam, London, 1953, pp. 340ff. E. G. Browne, op. cit., Vol. II, pp. 201ff.
39 H, pp. 52-54
40 Ibid., pp. 55ff.
41 Ibid., pp. 57-58
42 Ibid., pp. 58ff. Later, he modified his views on socialism. Cf. Chap. I
43 H, p. 60. This was the United Order of Enoch, established in the later part of the 19th century, by the Mormon prophet, Joseph Smith, who claimed to have received a revelation to “consecrate all the properties, that which thou hast, unto me, with a covenant and deed which can not be broken.” The Mormons established several societies in America which did not work. Several communities in Utah were later organized on the principles of the United Order, where there was no private property except clothes. The experiment was abandoned in 1884. Vergilius Fern, An Encyclopedia of Religion, London, 1956, p. 188
44 H, pp. 20-21
45 Ibid., pp. 38-39
46 Ibid., p. 39
47 Ibid., pp. 39-40
48 Ibid., pp. 60-62
49 Ibid., p. 73
50 Ibid., pp. 74 ff.