Al Ghazali - The Alchemist of Happiness

[Monotheist 101]

I have recently started reading works by the the 11th century Islamic Philosphor Abu Hamid Mohammad ibn Mohammad Al Ghazali, I cant help but be blown away by his insightful writings, I will continue to share qoutes and excerpts from his various treatises as I work my way through them.
Rejection and Restoration of Beliefs

Quite commonly one is led to question inherited beliefs, beliefs that one may have adhered to for an entire lifetime. These points in life where such crises arise can cause a person to begin a quest to determine where the truth for oneself ultimately lies. Abu Hamid al-Ghazali (1058-1111 CE) underwent such an affliction during his lifetime. The crisis he underwent caused him to reject his inherited beliefs in an attempt to remove himself from any conformist views he might have held. This paper will delve into the process of his breakdown of conformist views and subsequent rebuilding of certainty towards knowledge, and critique points in his quest where his rationale and methodology seem problematic. This paper will prove that al-Ghazali was never capable of rejecting all conformity, and was actually heavily reliant on conformity to guide him through his crisis.

al-Ghazali, in Rescuer from Error, was insistent on his pursuit of knowledge from a young age, whereby he claimed to have “attempted to penetrate every obscurity, grapple every problem, tackle every predicament, examine the beliefs of every faction, and investigate the hidden creed of each sect.” This may very well be the basis for why he began his quest. The quest itself is attributed to a Hadith of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), where it says, “Every child is born in the natural state; his parents make him a Jew, Christian, or Magian.” This, al-Ghazali admits, was problematic to him, and contrary to what he had observed being raised, where he claims to have seen Christian boys growing up Christian, Jewish boys growing up Jewish, and Muslim boys growing up Muslim. The Hadith caused him to be “inwardly moved to seek out the reality of this original nature, as well as the reality of the beliefs acquired out of conformity to parents and teachers”. This is where it appears al-Ghazali’s quest for truth began.

Initially, al-Ghazali begins his quest for knowledge by seeking out the ‘reality of knowledge’, or ‘certain knowledge’. He defines this to be knowledge so self-evident, that there is no room for doubt, and any thoughts of error or illusion are inconceivable. Any attempts to disprove it or opine error would be futile.

He admits being almost entirely devoid of ‘certain knowledge’, except for two attributes; sensory beliefs, and necessary beliefs. But he even questions his sensory beliefs. He cites shadows, stating that senses perceive it to be still upon observation. Rational thought proves, indisputably, that the shadow moves, and proves sensory belief wrong. In terms of necessary or rational beliefs, he goes one step further than his examination of sensory beliefs. In verifying his certainty, he argues if rational beliefs were behind sensory beliefs and were able to prove rational belief wrong, how does he not know there is another apprehension that can prove rational beliefs wrong? For this, he uses the example of dreams. He states how one may perceive a dream to be reality, until awoken to another reality, far greater, and far realer than the dream; this reality. How can al-Ghazali be sure there is not another state beyond the awoken state that will prove this state to be less real, or less certain? He cannot. Thus, al-Ghazali believes he must reject necessary beliefs as well. By rejecting these two attributes of certain knowledge, al-Ghazali cannot derive a proof to rebut the rejection, since proof requires first principles, and first principles require some level of sensory and necessary beliefs.

Only now does al-Ghazali feel he has eradicated his conformist beliefs. Having eradicated anything that allows him to derive proofs and use first principles, he feels he has gone as far as possible. He describes his affliction and stagnation as “diseased”. Seeking a cure, he turns to Hadith and the Quran for guidance. He quotes a Hadith where God says to the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), “God Almighty created people in darkness then sprinkled them with his light.” al-Ghazali understands this to mean he must seek the light God sprinkles. Relieved this is what he needs to go further in his quest, he begins to seek restore his beliefs. In doing so, he studies four seekers of truth; theologians, esotericists, philosophers, and mystics.

In a critique of theologians, al-Ghazali understands them to be too conformist to tradition and too reliant on consensus of community. He does not feel the answers they provide are satisfactory for him on a level that engages answers in both theology and science. So he rejects them.

He rejects philosophy after divulging himself in its study for years. Studying both science and philosophy, he concludes that to prove the error in philosophy, one must study all of science and philosophy, and know more than his opponents in order to prove them wrong. His reasoning is if one does not know everything about science, one cannot be certain he is right about everything. However, this study of philosophy and science also leads al-Ghazali to conclude that philosophers have a penchant for atheism and blasphemy. He argues that naturalist and materialist philosophers are blasphemous atheists based on their views on Judgment Day and afterlife. He cites ibn Sina and al-Farabi as two examples of theist philosophers who have strayed into blasphemous works, by continuing the work of naturalists and materialists. Unable to reconcile the blasphemy, he rejects philosophy, but leaves the capability of delving into the study of the sciences. He also states that the scientific aspect of philosophy is reconcilable with religion, and have roots in mysticism.

Also rejecting esotericism, al-Ghazali, eventually accepted mysticism as his path to certainty, citing

“…what was most distinctive about them and what was specific to them was what could not be attained through teaching but rather through ‘tasting’, the ‘state’, and a ‘transformation of attributes.’”
​

Through the journey that al-Ghazali took, it is necessary to retrospectively critique his path and realize there were problematic steps he took that never totally eliminated conformity. He even foreshadowed his own conformism when he said, “It is a precondition of being a conformist that the conformist not know that he is merely conforming.” This has been concluded from the basis of his constant reliance upon the Quran and Hadiths throughout his crisis. al-Ghazali is reliant upon these two Islamic authorities to guide him towards the faction that will grant him the most knowledge.

al-Ghazali’s journey is supposedly set out to find truth regarding the original state of man; a state acknowledging a person is not born Muslim, Jewish, or Christian. al-Ghazali never rejects his own Muslim identity to study the original state, but rather, uses it to guide him to a faction of knowledge (mysticism), that he feels will allow him to remain non-conformist to any other authority, but the Quran and the Prophet. Thus, he is not truly non-conformist, and is, in fact, falling victim to the precondition that he previously parameterized. In doing so, he is unable to objectively look at the original state of man, and determine where the truth lies. His journey then becomes less about a man who is seeking truth, and more about a man who is justifying his version of the truth as the original state of man.

Regarding all forms truth-seeking that al-Ghazali had set out to study in his rebuilding of beliefs, it is clear that, regardless of what faction he was studying, whether it was philosophy, mysticism, esotericism, or theology, he was always reliant upon conforming to the authorities in those particular fields. al-Ghazali even said it himself during his study of science and philosophy,

“One must become equal with the most knowledgeable of its practitioners, then exceed them and surpass their level…”
​

For philosophy, he studied all the scientific works. For theology, he studied all the religious works. For mysticism, he studied all the works of the mystics. Thus, his knowledge for proving each faction wrong was reliant upon conforming to the masters of those subjects he studied. al-Ghazali, thus, was never, in his quest to seek truth via non-conformity, ever really non-conformed. His attempts to become non-conformist were actually very conformative, whether it was to his religion during rejection of beliefs, or whether it was to the authorities in the studied fields, during rebuilding of beliefs. Either way, al-Ghazali never totally rejected his beliefs, nor did he totally non-conform.
http://islamoblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/al-ghazali-rejection-and-restoration-of.html
Thoughts?

 

[Sha'irullah]

Definitely an under appreciated person who functioned on the basis of kalam and his understanding of it. This appreciation has been long lost it seems and now is replaced by stringent choke-hold on the intellectual flow of wisdom.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

A very interesting read and one I agree with significantly (though would note his continued at least subconscious conformity to Islamic 'truths' or perspectives coloured his capacity to conform to subsequent models and thus he may not have been truly conformist with them, but that is a minor point). He is someone about whom we in the west should know more, his influence on human history (not just islamic history) is significant.

It is unfortunate tha he reacted so strongly against naturalists and materialists... his own penchant for rejecting these schools of thought (because he was unable to reconcile them with his beliefs) were to be a significant contributor to a tremendous implosion of the Islamic world ending their golden age and stifling their development (it is something we can all be grateful for that his birth occurred no earlier than it did - or europe may have not had the opportunity to recognise the folly that had overtaken them and not have had their rebirth, their renaissance, which was largely facilitated by the islamic world). On the other hand I agree with his rejection of esotericism, yet find it amusing that he was able to overlook the parallels that can be drawn with any system of faith.

 

[Monotheist 101]

Mishkat Al Anwar- The Niche of Lights.. Part 3.

The first division consists of those who are veiled by pure darkness. These are the atheists "who believe not in Allâh, nor the Last Day."[1] These are they "who love this present life more than that which is to come,"[2] for they do not believe in that which is to come at all. They fall into subdivisions.

First, there are those who desire to discover a cause to account for the world, and make Nature that cause. But nature is an, attribute which inheres in material substances, and is immanent in them, and is moreover a, dark one, for it has no knowledge, nor perception, nor self-consciousness, nor consciousness, nor light perceived through the medium of physical sight.

Secondly, their are those whose preoccupation is self, and who in no wise busy themselves. about the quest for causality. Rather, they live the life of the beasts of the field. This veil is, as it were, their self-centred ego, and, their lusts of darkness; for there is no darkness, so intense as slavery to self-impulse and self-love. "Hast thou seen," saith Allâh, "the man who makes self-impulse his god?"[1] and the Prophet, "Self-impulse is the hatefullest of the gods, worshipped instead of Allâh."

This last division may farther be subdivided. There is one class which has thought that this world's Chief End is the satisfaction of one's wants, lusts, and animal pleasures, whether connected with sex, or food, or drink, or raiment. These, therefore, are the creatures of pleasure; pleasure is their god, the goal of their ambition, and in winning her they believe that they have won felicity. Deliberately and willingly do they place themselves at the level of the beasts of the field; nay, at a viler level than the beasts. Can darkness be conceived more intense than this? Such men are, indeed, veiled by darkness unadulterated. Another class has thought that man's Chief End is conquest and domination--the taking of prisoners, and captives, and life. [49] Such is the idea of the Arabs, certain of the Kurds, and withal very numerous fools. Their veil is the dark veil of the ferocious attributes, because these dominate them, so that they deem the running down of their quarry the height of bliss. These, then, are content to occupy the level of beasts of prey, nay, one more degraded still.
A third group of people see the highest felicity in the abundance of property and the extension of ease. After all, property is an instrument to achieve the object of appetite. Through it, the human being attains the ability to achieve wishes. Hence, these people aspire to gather property; to increase estates, land, valuable horses, cattle, and farmland, and to hoard dinars in the earth. Hence, you will see one of them striving throughout life --- embarking on great dangers in the deserts, on journeys, and in the oceans to gather possessions with which he is niggardly toward himself, to say nothing of others. These are the ones meant by the words of The Prophet: "The slave of the dirham is miserable: the slave of the dinar is miserable." What darkness is greater than that which deceives the human being? Gold and silver are two stones that are not desired in themselves. When wishes are not achieved through them and they are not spent, then they are just like pebbles, and pebbles are just like them.
A fourth group of people climbs from ignorance and pretends to possess the rational faculty. They suppose that the highest felicity is the expansion of honor and fame, the spread of reputation, a multiplicity of followers, and the influence of the command that is obeyed. Hence, you see that their only concern is eye service and cultivation of the things upon which observers cast their glance. One of them may go hungry in his house and suffer harm so that he can spend his wealth on clothes with which to adorn himself so that no one will look at him with the eye of contempt when he goes out. The types of these people are beyond count. All of them are veiled from Allah by the sheer darkness that is their own dark souls.

 

[Monotheist 101]

Hujjat al-Islam Abu Hamid al-Ghazzali


“Thus, if you see a scholar of law wading into declaring others infidels and misguided, shun him and do not busy your heart nor tongue with him! Indeed, provocations in knowledge are from people’s nature, and the ignorant one is not able to exercise patience with it. And because of this, differences have multiplied amongst people. And if the knowledge was forcefully taken from the ignorant, then differences would subside.”

 

[Monotheist 101]

"Each of your breaths is a priceless jewel, since each of them is irreplaceable and, once gone, can never be retrieved. Do not be like that deceived fools who are joyous because each day their wealth increases while their life shortens.
What good is an increase in wealth when life grows ever shorter? Therefore be joyous only for an increase in knowledge or in good works, for they are your two companions who will accompany you in your grave when your family, wealth, children and friends stay behind"
- Al Ghazali (The Beginning of Guidance)

 

[Taahir]

I have a few books by him, I really enjoy his work. I finished his autobiography of his path to Sufism recently, very good read.

 

[Monotheist 101]

I have a few books by him, I really enjoy his work. I finished his autobiography of his path to Sufism recently, very good read.

Please feel free to share excerpts or qoutes that you liked from his works..

Cheers

 

[Taahir]

Please feel free to share excerpts or qoutes that you liked from his works..

Cheers

So I began by saying to myself: “What I seek is knowledge of the true meaning of things. Of necessity, therefore, I must inquire into just what the true meaning of knowledge is.” Then it became clear to me that sure and certain knowledge is that in which the thing known is made so manifest that no doubt clings to it, nor is it accompanied by the possibility of error and deception, nor can the mind even suppose such a possibility. Furthermore, safety from error must accompany the certainty to such a degree that, if someone proposed to show it to be false — for example, a man who would turn a stone into gold and a stick into a snake — his feat would not induce any doubt or denial. For if I know that ten is more than three, and then someone were to say: “No, on the contrary, three is more than ten, as is proved by my turning this stick into a snake” — and if he were to do just that and I were to see him do it, I would not doubt my knowledge because of his feat. The only effect it would have on me would be to make me wonder how he could do such a thing. But there would be no doubt at all about what I knew!

I realized, then, that whatever I did not know in this way and was not certain of with this kind of certainty was unreliable and unsure knowledge, and that everyknowledge unaccompanied by safety from error is not sure and certain knowledge.

Both of these really made me think.