Al-Ghaza¯lı¯’s Philosophical
Download 4.03 Mb. Pdf ko'rish
|
|
to Damascus in 488/1095. 158
In his autobiography, al-Ghaza¯lı¯ says such specu- a l ife b e t w e e n p ubl ic a nd p r i vat e ins t r uc t ion 4 3 lation had begun already during his lifetime. Those who speculated were un- convinced that the reasons for his change were purely religious. 159
There is no testimony for al-Ghaza¯lı¯’s motivations other than the words we quoted from his Deliverer from Error , and further conjecture disconnects itself from textual evidence. In the end, the reasons for al-Ghaza¯lı¯’s “crisis” in Baghdad are less interesting than the results. Other great minds suffered similar physical and psychological traumas, and yet such traumas do not feature as prominently in their biographies as in al-Ghaza¯lı¯’s. 160
Whatever he experienced in the years between 485/1092 and 488/1095, al-Ghaza¯lı¯ created its historiography through his highly public conduct in the aftermath of these events and their narration in his autobiography. Rather than speculating about the assumed real motives behind his decision to leave Baghdad, one should focus on the effects they have on his subsequent work. Earlier scholarship on al-Ghaza¯lı¯ assumed that there was a substantial change in al-Ghaza¯lı¯’s thinking following the year 488/1095. Some scholars even tried to explain inconsistencies in his teachings by pointing to his “conver- sion.” Such a hermeneutic approach is not warranted. Although the weight of certain motifs in al-Ghaza¯lı¯’s writing changes after 488/1095, none of his theo- logical or philosophical positions transform from what they were before. Con- current with the report given in the Deliverer from Error , evaluating the moral value of human actions gains a newfound prominence in al-Ghaza¯lı¯’s œuvre. The connections among an individual’s “knowledge“ (that is, convictions), his or her actions, and the afterlife’s reward for these actions gain center stage. Al-Ghaza¯lı¯ saw his new understanding of the afterlifely dimension of actions in this world as a tawba , a “repentance” or “conversion” toward a life that cares more for happiness in the hereafter than in this world. The tawba is a motif in Sufi literature as well as in Muslim theological texts. It is a very public event in a Muslim’s life that is often talked and written about. In all his autobiographic statements, in his Deliverer from Error , in his comments to ¶Abd al-Gha¯fi r al- Fa¯risı¯, and in his letters, al-Ghaza¯lı¯ approached the events of 488/1095 accord- ing to the established literary trope of a Sufi repentance ( tawba ). 161 According to this literary pattern, the experiences that led to the change and the transforma- tion are dramatic. In reality, there might have been a more gradual development that took years to manifest itself. On one subject, however, al-Ghaza¯lı¯ changed his mind profoundly. From 488/1095 on, he openly declined to cooperate with rulers and tried to avoid teaching at schools they patronized. Why did al-Ghaza¯lı¯ travel to Damascus? The Palestinian historian ¶Abd al-Lat.ı¯f T.ı¯ba¯wı¯ tried to answer that question in 1965. He suggested that al- Ghaza¯lı¯ was attracted by the life and teachings of Abu ¯ l-Fath. Nas.r ibn Ibra¯hı¯m al-Maqdisı¯, a prominent Sha¯fi ¶ite and a Sufi . 162 He died during al-Ghaza¯lı¯’s stay in Syria in Muh.arram 490 / December 1096. Abu¯ l-Fath. Nas.r enjoyed a far-reaching reputation for his austerity, asceticism, and his Sufi teachings. He taught for no payment and refused to accept gifts. 163
It was said that he lived on a loaf of bread a day that was baked from the income of a piece of land he owned in Nabulus. 164
The legitimacy of the income gained through one’s teach- ing became an important subject for al-Ghaza¯lı¯. 165 Food is illicit if it is obtained 4 4 a l - gh a z a ¯ l 1
¯ ’ s ph ilosoph ic a l t h e olo g y by illicit means. This includes food that is bought with money given by some- one who himself has obtained it unlawfully. The property of rulers and their deputies, al-Ghaza¯lı¯ began to stress, should generally be regarded as unlaw- ful. 166
The Baghdad Niz.a¯miyya was funded by endowments of lands as well as direct stipends that came from the Seljuq chancellery. From its very foundation in 457/1065, pious scholars were reluctant to teach there because they could not be sure its funding was proper and licit. Was the school built from spoils of earlier buildings? Was the endowed land lawfully acquired or confi scated? Were the stipends paid with tax money that had been violently extracted from its lawful owners? 167
Fear of dealing with impure and dubious things ( wara ¶ ) is a common motif in Muslim ascetic literature, and it seems to have played an important role in al-Ghaza¯lı¯’s decision to leave Baghdad. 168
Abu ¯ l-Fath. Nas.r’s ethics of unpaid instruction avoided these moral dilemmas that could easily de- stroy one’s prospect of eternal reward for teaching rightfulness. In his Revival, al-Ghaza¯lı¯ lists the obligation of teaching one’s students without payment as one of the fi rst duties of the teachers, second only to being sympathetic to one’s students and their fate in the life to come. 169
When the local Seljuq ruler offered Abu ¯ l-Fath. Nas.r a sum of money that he claimed came from a lawful tax, the Sufi still refused it and sent it back. 170
tions that al-Ghaza¯lı¯ would live from the income of his writing activity, 171
vow- ing on the grave of Abraham in Hebron never again “to go to any ruler, to take a ruler’s money, or to engage in one of his public disputations.” 172
In his Revival, he explained to his readers why particularly weak political leaders depend on public disputations ( muna¯z.ara¯t ) and why weak scholars are drawn to them. He warns his readers against taking part and lays down eight conditions that should be met if such disputations indeed prove necessary. The fi fth condition is that these disputations should be held in small circles ( khulwa ) rather than “in presence of the grandes and the sultans.” 173
In Damascus, al-Ghaza¯lı¯ taught liberally, and his sessions were attended by a great number of students. The chronicler Ibn al-Athı¯r reports that in these sessions, he began to read from his Revival of the Religious Sciences ( Ih.ya¯ 7 ¶ulu¯m al-dı¯n ). 174
His teaching sessions (singl. h.alaqa ) took place in the Umayyad Mosque and in a school building attached to its western wall. 175 Before al- Ghaza¯lı¯ came to Damascus, this school was known as the za¯wiya of Abu ¯ l-Fath. Nas.r. It soon became known as the Ghaza¯liyya- za¯wiya and was still known by that name during the eighth/forteenth century. 176 The inhabitants of Damascus also connected al-Ghaza¯lı¯’s name to the southwestern minaret of the Umayyad Mosque, whose upper part has since been rebuilt in Mamlu ¯k times. The story that al-Ghaza¯lı¯ lived in the minaret’s highest rooms may not be too farfetched. Ibn Jubayr (d. 614/1217) reports it fi rst, after his visit to the city in 580/1184. During his time, the spacious rooms of the minaret were a dwelling place for Sufi s, and an ascetic from al-Andalus inhabited the rooms in which al-Ghaza¯lı¯ was said to have lived nine decades earlier. 177
become part of the local lore and were caused by ¶Abd al-Gha¯fi r al-Fa¯risı¯’s a l ife b e t w e e n p ubl ic a nd p r i vat e ins t r uc t ion 4 5 mistaken account of al-Ghaza¯lı¯s travels in Syria, which was duly copied by Ibn ¶Asa¯kir in his book on the history of Damascus. In his own comments on the subject, Ibn ¶Asa¯kir leaves open the question of how long al-Ghaza¯lı¯ resided there. 178
When in his autobiography, al-Ghaza¯lı¯ mentions that he “stayed for almost two years in al-Sha 7m ,” the name al-Sha 7m refers not only to Damas- cus but also to the whole of Syria, including Palestine. Even his travels from Syria to the Hijaz and back fall within these two years. 179 After no more than six months, al-Ghaza¯lı¯ left Damascus and traveled to Jerusalem. Al-Subkı¯ con- nects al-Ghaza¯lı¯’s departure from Damascus with the unwelcome experience of vanity. While attending incognito the teaching session of a scholar at the Amı¯niyya madrasa, al-Ghaza¯lı¯ heard his name and his teachings being quoted. He feared that pride ( ¶ujb ) might inadvertently overcome him, and he decided to leave the city. 180
489/1096. In his autobiography, he writes that he visited the Dome of the Rock every day and shut himself up in it. 181 Here, he published his Letter for Jerusa- lem ( al-Risa¯la al-Qudsiyya ), a short creed that would later be incorporated into the second book of the Revival . The Letter was considered a gift to the people of Jerusalem. It was intended to be studied “by the ordinary people” ( al- ¶awa¯mm ) who fear the dangers of dogmatic innovations ( bid ¶a ). The popular character of this work is evident from the way al-Ghaza¯lı¯ introduced it within his Revival : In this book [i.e., the Revival ] let us just present the fl ash-lights [of dogmatics] and let us restrict ourselves to those that we have pub- lished ( ma¯ h.arrarna¯hu ) for the people of Jerusalem. We called it The Letter for Jerusalem on the Foundations of What-to-believe and it is presented here in the third chapter of the book On the Foundations of What-to-believe in the Revival . 182
In Jerusalem, al-Ghaza¯lı¯ may have written or published a second book, The Stairs of Jerusalem of the Steps Leading to Knowledge on the Soul (Ma ¶a¯rij al- Quds fı¯ mada¯rij ma ¶rifat al-nafs). This assumption might just be deduced from the title, however, which also allows for other interpretations. 183 Al-Ghaza¯lı¯’s early biographers noted that after his departure from Baghdad, he turned to- wards the subjects of “eliminating pride and exerting one’s inner self.” 184 This
raised an interest in the psychological teachings of the philosophers. The Stairs of Jerusalem presents these psychological teachings; yet it is highly technical and not suited for popular teaching. The local historian of Jerusalem, Mujı¯r al-Dı¯n al- ¶Ulaymı¯ (d. 928/1522), who wrote in 901/1496, provides reasonably detailed information about where al-Ghaza¯lı¯ lived and taught in that city. He reports that al-Ghaza¯lı¯ “stayed at the za¯wiya, which is above the Gate of Mercy and was known previously as the Na¯s.iriyya , east of the Bayt al-Maqdis. It was called the Ghaza¯liyya relating to him. Since then, it has been destroyed and fallen into oblivion.” 185 The Gate of Mercy ( ba¯b al-rah.ma ), east of the Bayt al-Maqdis, is the Golden Gate in the eastern wall of the H . aram al-Sharı¯f, which here doubles as Jerusalem’s city-wall toward Gethsemane. The gate’s building is either Byzantine or early Islamic. Throughout 4 6 a l - gh a z a ¯ l 1
¯ ’ s ph ilosoph ic a l t h e olo g y its history, it has often been closed; since Ottoman times, its two entryways have been walled shut. 186
The Ghaza¯liyya school would have been on the top of this gate, situated on a platform that is currently empty (see fi gure 1.3). This account of Mujı¯r al-Dı¯n is notably similar to the one given in ear- lier sources about the school of Abu ¯ l-Fath. Nas.r in Damascus, which be- came known as the Ghaza¯liyya . Note that in Mujı¯r al-Dı¯n’s text, the school in Jerusalem is called al-Na¯s.iriyya (and not al-Nas.riyya ) and that the author leaves open to whom this name initially referred. 187 Yet, in another passage of his book he writes that the za¯wiya al-Na¯s.iriyya was probably where Abu¯ l-Fath. Nas.r stayed earlier “for a long time.” Mujı¯r al-Dı¯n cautiously suggests that the name referred to him. 188
However, no school is known to have existed at this spot during the pre-crusader period when al-Ghaza¯lı¯ was there. 189 Later, an Ayyu ¯bid school al-Na¯s.iriyya was built above the Golden Gate in Jerusalem during the seventh/thirteenth century. Its foundation in 610/1214 was part of the refur- bishment of the H . aram al-Sharı¯f by al-Malik al-Mu ¶az.zam ¶I¯sa¯ when he was governor of Damascus. 190 The name al-Na¯s.iriyya referred to his uncle S.ala¯h. al- Dı¯n (Saladin), who had reconquered Jerusalem from the crusaders in 583/1187 and whose offi cial title was al-Malik al-Na¯s.ir —the Victorious King. 191 Ibn al- S.ala¯h. al-Shahrazu¯rı¯ (d. 643/1245), who was himself an infl uential commenta- tor of al-Ghaza¯lı¯’s legal works, had taught at this madrasa before he settled in Damascus. 192
By the time of Mujı¯r al-Dı¯n’s writing, it had long been der- elict. It is most probably this school that Mujı¯r al-Dı¯n mistakenly connects figure 1.3 Jerusalem’s Gate of Mercy. View from inside the Noble Sanctuary with the platform on top, the site of the Madrasa al-Na¯s.iriyya during the seventh/thirteenth century.
a l ife b e t w e e n p ubl ic a nd p r i vat e ins t r uc t ion 4 7 to al-Ghaza¯lı¯’s time. 193 Abu
¯ l-Fath. Nas.r had left Jerusalem for Tyros and Damas- cus twenty years before al-Ghaza¯lı¯ arrived there, and it is unlikely that schools existed in his name in both Damascus as well as in Jerusalem when al-Ghaza¯lı¯ visited these places. 194
annual pilgrimage at the end of that year. On his way to the Hijaz, he stopped in Hebron and visited the graves of the patriarchs, making the aforementioned vow. 195
From Hebron, al-Ghaza¯lı¯ continued to Mecca and Medina. His partici- pation in the pilgrimage of 489 is a well-documented event. 196 Some Muslim figure 1.4 The Gate of Mercy in Jerusalem. View from outside the city wall. 4 8 a l - gh a z a ¯ l 1
¯ ’ s ph ilosoph ic a l t h e olo g y historians still believed he made the pilgrimage one year earlier, emphasizing how much confusion exists about the details of al-Ghaza¯lı¯’s life. This confu- sion was, of course, created by al-Ghaza¯lı¯ himself when he lied about his plans before he left Baghdad in 488/1095. Al-Ghaza¯lı¯’s own comment that he “stayed for almost two years in al- Sha 7m ” indicates a return to Syria after the pilgrimage. There is a report that Abu¯ l-Fath. Nas.r passed away shortly before al-Ghaza¯lı¯ entered Damascus. 197
must refer to al-Ghaza¯lı¯’s second arrival in Damascus after his return from the Hijaz. Four months later, in Juma¯da II 490 / May–June 1097, al-Ghaza¯lı¯ was back in Baghdad. During the year 490/1096–97, when al-Ghaza¯lı¯ left Syria, news of a great army of Europeans ( faranj ) reached Damascus, and the city prepared to send a contingent for the relief of the besieged Antioch. 198
The crusaders took Antioch in Juma¯da¯ I 491 / April–May 1098 when al-Ghaza¯lı¯ was already back in Khorasan. In his works, al-Ghaza¯lı¯ never refers to the ar- rival of the crusaders in the Levant. There is, however, a single, quite drastic reference in a Persian work that could be seen as spurious because of this atypicality. In the Present to Kings ( Tuh.fat al-mulu¯k ) attributed to al-Ghaza¯lı¯, the author writes that the unbelievers ( ka¯fi ra¯n ) have taken over Muslim lands, removed pulpits from mosques, and turned the sanctuary of Abraham in Hebron into a pigsty ( khu¯k-kha¯ne ) and Jesus’ birthplace in Bethlehem into a tavern. Therefore, the author concludes, jiha¯d against these unbelievers is imperative. 199
His second sojourn in Baghdad is well documented by the reports of his student Abu ¯ Bakr ibn al- ¶Arabı¯. Al-Ghaza¯lı¯ stayed at the Sufi convent named after Abu ¯ Sa ¶d of Nishapur right opposite to the Niz.a¯miyya madrasa. 200 Every day, many people would gather there to hear him teach and read from his Re- vival of the Religious Sciences . 201
Revival was an unusual book for its time. It was conceived as a work on the “knowledge of the path to the afterlife” ( ¶ilm t.arı¯q al- a¯khira ), a practical guidebook on how its readers may gain the afterlife through the actions they perform in this world. 202 In the introduction, al-Ghaza¯lı¯ writes that the book is on the “knowledge (or: science) of human actions” ( ¶ ilm al- mu ¶a¯mala ) and not on the “knowledge of the unveiling” ( ¶ilm al-muka¯shafa ). It wishes to provide that type of knowledge that prompts humans to act rightfully, staying clear of knoweldge that has no consequences for human actions. 203
The religious knowledge that al-Ghaza¯lı¯ wishes to revive is “the jurisprudence of the path to the hereafter.” 204
Revival creates a new genre of literature by com- bining at least three earlier ones: the genre of fi qh books on the individual rulings ( furu
the development of character such as Miskawayh’s (d. 421/1030) Refi nement of Character ( Tahdhı¯b al-akhla¯q ), and the genre of Sufi handbooks such as Abu¯ T.a¯lib al-Makkı¯’s (d. 386/998) Nourishment of the Hearts ( Qu¯t al-qulu¯b ). About a hundred years before al-Ghaza¯lı¯, authors such as al- ¶A¯mirı¯ (d. 381/992) or al-Ra¯ghib al-Is.faha¯nı¯ (fl . c.390/1000) wrote works that combined philosophi- cal ethics with religious literature. Revival stands in that tradition and borrows from it. 205
a l ife b e t w e e n p ubl ic a nd p r i vat e ins t r uc t ion 4 9 In his autobiography, al-Ghaza¯lı¯ writes that “certain concerns and the pleading of the children drove me back to the native land.” 206
His family, who stayed behind in Baghdad when he left in 488/1095, had already come to T.u¯s and waited for him. When he now left Baghdad, he seems to have used the same ruse he had employed two years earlier. Then, in 488/1095, al-Ghaza¯lı¯ had pretended to travel to the Hijaz while he had actually gone to Syria. In a letter written shortly before his departure from Baghdad in the summer of 490/1097, he claimed to be leaving for the Hijaz. 207
Another letter permits the conclusion that in Dhu ¯ l-h.ijja 490 / November 1097, he was already back in T.u¯s,
208 leaving no more than six months during the summer of 490/1097 for his second and last stay in Baghdad. The Ideal of a Secluded Life–His Last Years in Khorasan The Iranian historian ¶Abd al-H . usayn Zarrı¯nku ¯b characterized al-Ghaza¯lı¯’s decision to leave Baghdad in 488/1095 as an “escape from the madrasa.” 209
tively part of the Seljuq administration. His three vows at Hebron reveal that al-Ghaza¯lı¯ rejected the state and its offi cials, but not teaching in schools. Al- Ghaza¯lı¯ never gave up teaching, nor did he ever take time off from teaching. After 488/1095, however, his teaching largely took place at small madrasas that were not founded and fi nanced by the Seljuq state. Such a small madrasa, or, as we would say today, a private madrasa, was often called a za¯wiya , a “corner.” In Medieval Latin, unoffi cial teaching that was not authorized by the church was sometimes called teaching “in corners” ( in vinculi ). Something similar might be behind the usage of the Arabic za¯wiya . Offi cial teaching happened in madra- sas, unoffi cial teachings in a “corner.” Abu ¯ l-Fath. Nas.r’s school in Damascus, for instance, was a za¯wiya . In his Revival, al-Ghaza¯lı¯ says that scholars fall into two groups: those muftı¯ s, that is, scholars, who write offi cal fatwa¯ s and who Download 4.03 Mb. Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: 
|