However, the two secularists did not meet eye to eye on all topics including things such as the Ottoman Empire. Shumayyil was a harsh critic of the Ottoman Empire, citing his views on its faults and pointing out three fundamental things that were lacking within such an empire: science, justice, and liberty (248). On the contrary, Antun believed that the Turks and their patriotic spirit above all else, alongside natural selection, allowed for the Ottoman Empire to grow and flourish over the Arabian heritage (258). This point of comparison could also be found within Al-Afghani and Abduh, where Al-Afghani sought to reform with the Turks and Persians and leaning towards Antun’s mindset of the Ottoman might, while Abduh and Shumayyil possessed a strikingly similar portrayal of their distaste of the Ottomans. The mention of similarities between the two groups of thinkers does not end there. Though the…show more content… This would include a sense of solidarity between Shi’i and Sunni peoples to work together for the community’s welfare (116, 117). Likewise, Muhammad Abduh thought of implementing a modern system of law, albeit within an Islamic perspective (152). This does not negate his efforts of desiring better relations between those who share a nation more so than a religion, especially with the previously discussed situation of Egypt’s nationalism. Continuing on, Shibli Shumayyil also exemplifies such a statement of unity and advocating of law by indicating that “co-operation was the supreme law of society” while everything that fell under it were arrangements that built up to such an action (250, 251). Finally, Antun lays out his perspectives simply by indicating that the essentials of society are a body of principals and laws that could be divided into general and particular (255), mimicking the thoughts and perspectives of his fellow