Imam al-Ghazali's Faysal al-Tafriqa Bayna al-Islam wa al-Zandaqa

Category: SOUND

The title is translated into English as: The Decisive Criterion for Distinguishing Islam from Masked Infidelity.

The English translation of the book is from On the Boundaries of Theological Tolerance in Islam: Abu Hamid al Ghazali's Faysal al Tafriqa (Studies in Islamic Philosophy) by Dr. Sherman A Jackson (also known as Abdul Hakim Jackson).

Download Link: Click here for PDF

Description:

Abu Hamid al Ghazali, one of the most famous intellectuals in the history of Islam, developed a definition of Unbelief (kufr) to serve as the basis for determining who, in theological terms, should be considered a Muslim and who should not. Jackson's annotated translation is preceded by an introduction that reconstructs the historical and theoretical context of the Faysal and discusses its relevance for contemporary thought and practice.

It is composed of a somewhat lengthy introduction by Dr. Jackson followed by the translation. Here are some of my thoughts on Dr. Jackson's commentary, to be followed later by any notes on the work itself:

He says Al-Ghazali didn't go into his criticism of the Neoplatonists here. That's because he did that in Tahafut Al-Falasifah (Incoherence of the Philosophers).

He says the Qur'an is not a book of logic and doesn't tell us "how" to reason. Al-Ghazali derived the basic rules of syllogism from the Qur'an in Al-Qistas Al-Mustaqim (The Just Balance).

I would not trust anything written about the four Imams of fiqh from Western sources without verifying the claims yourself, including an Islamic scholar like Dr. Jackson because far too many works are either falsely attributed to or falsely disassociated from these 'ulema in the Western tradition and it is too easy to get caught up in these mistakes in Western academia.

The first 18-19 pages of the intro are good, then Dr. Jackson's own biases kind of bleed through. He is a Maliki in fiqh but he seems to be partial to Athari/Hanbali 'aqeedah, going so far as to reach over to Christian theology for some ideas which were totally unnecessary to bring into the book (though he does acknowledge they are antithetical to Islam) for the purposes of showing how anthropomorphism can be rational.

His discussion on tradition is insightful but unnecessary. Tradition can be reduced into terms of reason by thinking of it as the process of preserving a paradigm of thought (in a very Kuhnian manner), or preserving a living tradition of thought. This involves transmission and his definition of tradition, but not one without the other, as the goal is to preserve a living tradition (sort of like how we preserved the Sunnah, the living practice of the Qur'an). This is reflected in my book in the discussion of the madhahib and taqlid.

The criticism of the scholarly community in the section on Al-Ghazali's life is very well written and full of profound insight into today's affairs, which are a reverse of that era.

He quotes Imam al-Ghazali,

"How many towns are there that are devoid of Muslim doctors, while it is not permissible to accept the expert testimony of non-Muslims in cases involving the religious law. Yet, we do not see anyone devoting himself to the study of medicine. Instead, they fall over each other in pursuit of jurisprudence, especially dialectics and the art of disputation, despite the fact that there is an abundance of jurists who can issue legal opinions and address the issues of the day. I wish I knew how the jurists could sanction the undertaking of communal obligations that are already being met to the neglect of communal obligations that are not being met. Is there any reason for this other than the fact that the study of medicine does not provide easy access to executorships of religious endowments, bequests and estates of orphans or to judgeships, government positions, superiority over one's peers and power over one's enemies?"

While some might be eager to use these as arguments against scholarly tradition, they ought to be reminded that this particular academic tradition in Baghdad met an untimely end at the hands of the Mongols. God's wrath was already felt upon Baghdad and all those that Al-Ghazali had to deal with. The 'ulema of today are a great deal more influenced by Al-Ghazali than the pre-Al-Ghazali tradition. And conversely, Western orientalists had often lamented this, because they thought Al-Ghazali brought down the level of intellectual debate by discouraging debate (on the other hand, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy sees Al-Ghazali as ushering in a Golden Age of Islamic Philosophy by making logic part of the curriculum at madaris or seminaries). Yet they could only agree with the sentiment expressed above, and elsewhere in Al-Ghazali's works, that empirical work in the health and physical/natural sciences was a communal obligation no longer being fulfilled.

A fair bit of this is focused on a principle I have repeatedly brought up. The difference between a person's views and the logical consequences of those views. A person might have a set of beliefs which, taken to their logical extreme, necessitate a belief in flying dolphins... without actually believing in flying dolphins. So to attribute to such a person a belief in flying dolphins is incorrect, so care must be taken in drawing this line when criticizing the views of another. In terms of their beliefs in the moment, the theologians of the various sects, including some of the heretics, were mostly on the same page (i.e, their 'aqeedah). It is only in their statements of rationalization of their beliefs (more akin to theology) where differences arose because these different ways of stating the beliefs, when taken to their logical consequences/extremes, wound up in very different places, even kufr. Yet kufr was not an applicable label for the adherents because they were not guilty of believing in those resulting doctrines, they were just guilty of holding illogical or logically inconsistent views, so the issue here is the correction of logic or statement of belief moreso than a correction of belief, particularly on difficult subjects like the Divine Attributes which could be approached from any number of directions. This is something much more discernible in modern scholarship but not so much in Al-Ghazali's time.

The introduction closes on a very strong note by sticking to a discussion of Al-Ghazali's views, which is a worthwhile read for anyone.

Islamic Theology and Philosophy of Science

Category: STRONG

I've been working on this book about Islamic theology (orthodox specifically) during my free time the past two years and how it relates to philosophy of science, especially in recent times. It's a draft and a work in progress but I've run out of free time until probably 2013 or maybe even beyond so I'm putting up what I have so far. That's why it cuts off abruptly, I excised the unfinished parts.

It includes a little commentary on the previously mentioned Theologus Autodidactus and Philosophus Autodidactus.

Click here: http://islamtheologyscience.wordpress.com/

It includes a bit of discourse on theology, history of theology, and finally the more philosophical matters in theology and how it relates to science (including contrasting Islamic theology with Enlightenment era and later European/Western philosophy).

Please keep in mind this is a draft. I've said most of what I initially wanted to but it could use a good rewrite for readability in the future, especially some of the more complicated sections on science or philosophy where my strategy was to repeat the same thing in several ways hoping at least one way "clicks" for the reader. The final version, should I ever get time to complete it, could wind up very different but I feel there's some usefulness for Muslims with questions about these very matters. I won't put this in the "SOUND" section until I get a full overview by a scholar. I've had one read through most of the metaphysics bits and approve (I took very few liberties except in explaining the traditional, conservative, orthodox stance). The only issue of question is the stuff at the very end regarding discussion of the attributes of Allah, an extremely controversial subject, so I cut that out entirely until I finish it and a scholar looks at it first. I make a little mention of the subject in what is still left in and it might appear unorthodox because I use some arguments used by other theological sects at one time and now defunct, but they're essentially saying the same thing as the orthodox theologians. The wording might be easier for people to understand now in our times (whereas it was discounted for the opposite reason in its time). This is because the environment or situation that existed at that time doesn't exist today (competing theological sects within Islam... the orthodox Ash'ari/Maturidi have won out overwhelmingly and won't be challenged again). So, the issue isn't of meaning, since I intended to convey the orthodox position on all accounts, just of language.

Feel free to respond here in the comments section with questions or more preferably, e-mail islamtheologyscience@gmail.com and I'll try to answer questions as I get time.

An Exposition of the Hearts: Part 2

Category: SOUND

[Note, Imam al-Ghazali is using slightly different terminology here, referring to what we might know as the Nafs or Self as just the soul, not to be confused with the pure Ruh or soul. From our perspective, both are from inside of us and some might not even be able to tell the difference between the two.]

On the subjugation of the soul and the enmity of Satan

It is the duty of the intelligent person to overpower the desire of the soul with hunger. This is because hunger results in subjugating the enemy of Allah. The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: "Satan flows in the body of man just as blood flows in his body. So constrict his passage ways with hunger."

...

Some wise people have said that the person whose soul overpowers them becomes a prisoner in the love of its desires, confined in the prison of its sins, and it prevents his heart from benefits. The person who irrigates the land of the limbs with desires has in fact planted in his heart the tree of regret.

Allah created the creation under three categories.

(1) He created the angels, gave them intelligence, but did not give them desires.
(2) He created animals, gave them desires but did not give them intelligence.
(3) He created humans and gave them intelligence and desires.

So the person whose desires overpower their intelligence, then animals are better than them. And the person whose intelligence overpowers their desires, then they are better than the angels.

What do they mean by 'desire'?

If people understood the one fundamental principle about the human experience, then most of their problems would cease to exist. That is, the human experience is a subjective one. We are always going to be ruled by biases, it is up to us whether to accept the ones we mistakenly inherit as children or to consciously decide on our own as an attempt to guide our own lives in a direction of our choosing.

See all those updates on my blog where I quoted the Roman Stoics or newer Western philosophers like Descartes. Anything which pleases or displeases someone, including desires, is simply a judgement passed by the mind. One that is alterable. This is unanimous insight into our nature by all human civilizations. Some emphasize it, some do not.

It isn't simply a problem of indulging in desires, because even Islam allows for the fulfillment of basic desires. Or rather, needs. Islam recognizes needs. What turns a need into a desire? The specific expression of it. You need food and other people. The objective truth of the matter is any food or any people would do (or rather, what Allah says would do which is a little more specific). The subjective nature of our experience, however, leads people to conclude one kind or type of something is preferable to the other. This is due to desires being learned from constant exposure and/or socialization/indoctrination. So while we all know to what extent our desires should be controlled, our needs fulfilled, we tend to assume that our current state at any given moment actually means anything.

I need food. I like apples. I value apples over other food and tend to assume that this means something, that apples are therefore significant in some way and my desire for them a meaningful expression of my deeper soul or something. When the truth is, I learned that like for apples from a younger age. We're always learning, adapting, etc in this world, and it's impossible to know what's going on at a younger age when we start learning so much. Say apples in this case are forbidden by Allah for whatever direct or indirect harm they may cause. I know that to curb this desire, I can indoctrinate myself with a new preference. One that I choose. But I'm loathe to do so because... I think apples mean something, not realizing that this "feeling" of something deeper for the apples is merely another layer of manifestation of the desire to begin with. Desires permeate the highest levels of our consciousness and thought processes. They were imprinted into our subconscious minds from first (and repeated) exposure, and now the subconscious guides the conscious. It becomes difficult for me to realize that the only reason I like apples at all is because I had already gone through a period of adaption, socialization, indoctrination, orientation, whatever you want to call it. One that I had no choice or control over due to my young age. It is no more meaningful than anything else I might choose to re-indoctrinate myself with (probably less so, because I make a conscious choice in the latter).

If, as in this case, apples are bad, then I've formed "meaningful" attachments to bad things, and I'm well on my way to disaster because now my very soul is inclined to haraam. And all for what? Something that is seemingly random to the casual observer, completely without meaning or significance. The only significance to the lot that you're dealt in life, is that you have to deal with it. Not the 'lot' in and of itself. It's a means to an end. Everyone is given a 'lot' and everyone has to transcend it to become their own person, not a product of their times. The means is to reprogram yourself according to your own will and conscious choice, otherwise we would simply be products of whatever random occurrences combined to form our childhood, with no correlation to what is good or preferred by Allah. And this is the state of most of humanity today.

This thing, this "preference beyond the need" is a desire. And it is this which, if not ruled over by intelligence, turns men into animals. And if controlled by our intelligence (meaning, oriented in the proper direction for Allah), elevates us above angels.

We never respect desires. We only respect people and their souls/Selves, even if that includes an inability to reckon with their desires. Thus only a few things are made unlawful in Islam. If people want to waste time preferring one kind of food over another that is harder to obtain, so long as it does not take away from religious responsibilities and both are lawful, then it's okay. What's okay? Not the preference. But the inability by the person to control their Nafs, their weakness. Better to give some leeway rather than have people self-destruct under the burden. There are more important things to do than worry about food, such as ibadat and tasawwuf. The latter provides a means for circumventing the Nafs and defeating it if a direct attempt at resistance is impossible.

On negligence and inattention

Negligence increases remorse. Negligence removes bounties and comes as a barrier in fulfilling service to Allah. Negligence increases jealousy. Negligence increases rebuke and regret.

It is related that a pious person saw his teacher in his dream and so he asked him: "What is your greatest regret?" The teacher replied: "The regret [due to] negligence."

It is related that a pious person saw Dhu an-Nun Misri (ra) in his dream so he asked him: "What did Allah do to you?" He replied: "He made me stand before Him and said to me: 'O you who used to claim! O liar! You claimed to love Me but then you became unmindful of Me?'"

A poet says: "You are in negligence and your heart is inattentive. Your entire life has passed while your sins are still the same." (translated from Arabic)

...

It is mentioned in Uyun al-Akhbar that Shaqiq al-Balkhi (ra) said: People make three statements which they are very used to in their actions:

(1) They say: "we are the slaves of Allah" yet they do actions of free people. So this is contrary to their statement.
(2) They say: "Allah has guaranteed our sustenance." Yet their hearts are only satisfied with this world and gathering all its vanities. This is also contrary to their statement.
(3) They say: "It is inevitable for us to die." Yet they do deeds of a person who is not going to die. This is also contrary to their statement.

Therefore, my dear brother, you should think with which body you are going to stand before Allah, with which tongue you are going to answer Him, and what are you going to say when he questions you about every single thing - big and small. You should therefore prepare answers for the questions, and ensure the answers are correct. Fear Allah for He is fully aware of all that you do - be it good or evil. Allah then admonishes the believers that they should not abandon His orders and that they should believe in Him as one both in secrecy and in public.

...

Allah says: "He who is not pleased with My decision, who is not patient over what I afflicted him with, who is not grateful over My bounties and who is not content with what I give him, then he should look for a Sustainer apart from Me."

A person said to Hasan al-Basri (ra): "I do not experience any enjoyment in obedience to Allah." So he said to him: "You probably looked at someone who does not fear Allah." Worship demands that you abandon everything solely for Allah.

A person said to Abu Yazid (ra): "I do not experience any enjoyment in obedience to Allah." So he said to him: "That is because you are worshipping acts of obedience and not worshipping Allah. Worship Allah so that you experience enjoyment in acts of obedience."

It is related that a person commenced salah and when he came to the words "You alone do we worship", the thought crossed his mind that he is really worshipping Allah. An announcement was made in his heart: "You are lying. You are actually worshipping the creation." So he repented and remained aloof from people. He then started his salah again and when he came to the words "You alone do we worship", an announcement was made: "You are lying. You are actually worshipping your wealth." So he gave all his wealth in charity. He then started his salah again and when he came to the words "You alone do we worship", an announcement was made: "You are lying. You are actually worshipping your clothing." So he gave all his clothes in charity except what he really needed. He then started his salah again and when he came to the words "You alone do we worship", an announcement was made: "Now you are speaking the truth. You are really worshipping your Sustainer."

...

Allah says: "He who desires the plantation of the hereafter, We give him more in his plantation. And he who desires the plantation of this world" (26:20), i.e. the pleasures of clothing, food and drink of this world, "We give him some of it and there is no share whatsoever for him in the hereafter." (59:19) In the sense that love for the hereafter is removed from his heart. It is for this reason that Abu Bakr (ra) spent 40,000 dinars on the Prophet (saw) in secrecy and 40,000 dinars in public - to the extent that there remained nothing with him. As for the Prophet (saw), he shunned the world, its desires and its pleasures - he and his family. It is for this reason that when the Prophet (saw) got his daughter, Fatimah (ra), married to Ali (ra), her dowry was merely a tanned piece of sheep leather and a leather pillow whose filling was fibres.

That last anecdote was intended by Imam al-Ghazali (ra) for the prevailing sentiments of the audience of his time, in which marriage was used as a means to greater wealth and status. It is still used predominantly for that in much of the world, but that might be alien to those of us who've lived in the West. It is still used as a means to a worldly end, but the desire is not solely for wealth or status for the majority of people but for aesthetics and (over)indulgence in lust (keeping in mind that Islamic society was very open with regards to sexuality compared to Western society in Imam al-Ghazali's (ra) time so lust does not mean sex... it means specifically the sexual instinct separated from the rest of the thought processes and emotions which should govern it, so it functions like it does in animals initially then eventually strays even from that and descends into the demonic).

Source: An Exposition of The Hearts by Imam al-Ghazali (ra)

An Exposition of The Hearts: Part 1

Category: SOUND

These are excerpts from An Exposition of the Hearts, an English translation of Mukashafah al-Qulub al-Muqarrib ila Hadrah 'Allam al-Ghuyub which is an abridged version of Mukashafah al-Qulub al-Akbar by Imam al-Ghazali (ra).


Recorded by az-Zabidi in Ittihaf as-Sadah al-Muttaqin bi Sharh Ihya' 'Ulum ad-Din:

"The reality of remembrance [of Allah] cannot be realized in the heart except after inhabiting it with taqwa and purifying it from reproachable traits. If not, this remembrance will merely be [like a person] speaking to himself. This has no power over the heart nor can it repulse Satan. ... Just as your supplications are not answered because the prerequisites of supplication are not present, in like manner you remember Allah and Satan does not flee from you because the prerequisites of remembrance are not present."
-Imam al-Ghazali (ra)

"If the soul is not stopped from some of the lawful things, it will desire the unlawful things."
-Imam al-Ghazali (ra)

"The ailments of the heart cannot be treated except through knowledge and practicing on that knowledge."
-Imam al-Ghazali (ra)

The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: "He who fills his eyes with the unlawful, Allah will fill his eyes on the day of resurrection with the fire."

The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: "When a morsel of unlawful food goes into the stomach of a person, every angel in the earth and the heaven curses him as long as that morsel remains in his stomach. If he dies in that state, his abode is Hell."

"Do not fear people, but fear Me." (5:44)

"As for he who transgressed and preferred the life of this world, Hell alone is his abode. As for he who feared standing before his Sustainer and stopped his soul from from lower desires [lust, etc], then Paradise alone is his abode." (79:37-41)

It is reported from the Prophet (saw) that Allah says: "When a servant is afflicted by a calamity and he turns to Me, I shall give him before he even asks Me, and I shall accept his supplication even before he supplicates to Me. And when a servant is afflicted by a calamity and he turns to the creation to My exclusion, I shall shut the gates of the heavens upon him."

Ad-Dahhak (ra) said: "A person who is not put through a test either by some affliction, worry or calamity every forty days, then there is no good for him in the sight of Allah."

Wahb ibn Munabbih (ra) narrates that a Prophet worshipped Allah for 50 years. So Allah inspired to him saying: "I have certainly forgiven you." He asked Allah "O my Sustainer! Why are you forgiving me when I have never committed a sin?" So Allah ordered a vein of his to palpitate fiercely. Consequently, he did not sleep that night. When the morning angel came to him, he complained to him about the palpitation of his vein. The angel replied: "Your Sustainer says to you that your worship of 50 years does not equal this complaint about this vein of yours."


"O man! You should know that the soul that has been commanded to evil is a greater enemy to you than Satan and that Satan gets the upper hand over you through the whims and desires of the soul. Your soul should therefore not delude you with false hopes and deception. ... Its invitation is baseless and everything from it is a deception. If you are pleased with it and follow its dictates, you will be destroyed. If you are negligent in taking it to account, you will drown. If you are unable to act against it and follow its desires, it will drive you towards the fire. There is no return for the soul towards good. It is the head of trials and tribulations, the mine of disgrace, the treasure house of Satan, and the source of every evil. None but its Creator truly knows it. Fear Allah for surely Allah knows all that you do, be it good or evil. When a servant ponders over his life that has passed in search of his hereafter, this pondering will be a cleansing of the heart."
-Imam al-Ghazali (ra)

The Messenger of Allah said: "pondering for a little while is better than a year's worship." As stated in the Tafsir of Abu al-Layth. It is therefore the duty of an intelligent person to repent from past sins and to ponder over those things that will take him closer [to Allah] and with which he will gain salvation in the hereafter. He should also curtail all his hopes, hasten in repentance, engage in the remembrance of Allah, abstain from the prohibitions, impose himself to patience, and abstain from following the desires of the soul. This is because the soul is an idol. The one who worships the soul is actually worshipping an idol. And the person who worships Allah with devotion, he is the one who has subjugated his soul.

^ [Note, Imam al-Ghazali is using slightly different terminology here, referring to what we might know as the Nafs or Self as just the soul, not to be confused with the pure Ruh or soul. From our perspective, both are from inside of us and some might not even be able to tell the difference between the two.]


Source: An Exposition of The Hearts by Imam al-Ghazali (ra)