Al-Ghaza¯lı¯’s Philosophical
Download 4.03 Mb. Pdf ko'rish
|
|
55 Like Avicenna, al-Ghaza¯l ı ¯ claims that every human has a small portion of these faculties, not only prophets; prophets are only the most distinguished examples of purifi ed souls. These faculties become stronger if one purifi es one’s soul by cleansing it ( t.ahhara ) from worldly desires. The miracles that the prophets perform—which earlier Ash ¶arites regarded, as we will see, as a break on God’s habit—are simply the causal effects of the strong infl uencing power of the prophet’s soul. We should note that al-Ghaza¯l ı ¯ remained somewhat uncommitted to the teachings presented in this letter, introducing them as “a school of thought” to teach the existence of a close link between the purity of a person’s heart and his or her level of knowledge and insight. Ibn al- ¶Arabı¯, however, understood that al-Ghaza¯l ı ¯ was a member of this “school of thought”—a reference to none other than Avicenna—which teaches that purifi ed souls are able to achieve higher insights than those hearts that remain tarnished. Ibn al- ¶Arabı¯’s book Protective Guards Against Strong Objections ( al- ¶Awa¯s.im
ı ¯ made to his stu- dents. At one point, Ibn al- ¶Arabı¯ reports that al-Ghaza¯l ı ¯ inclined toward the position of some fala¯sifa that rationality ( ¶ aql ) offers a path toward knowledge about the afterlife. In his published works, al-Ghaza¯l ı ¯ exhibits no such lean- ings, always maintaining that the revealed information about the afterlife is so detailed and so clear that it overrules all rational speculation and allows no fi gurative interpretation of the revealed text. 56 Ibn al- ¶Arabı¯, however, says that al-Ghaza¯l ı ¯ leaned toward the opposite position and held it in high esteem. 57
7 0 a l - gh a z a ¯ l 1
¯ ’ s ph ilosoph ic a l t h e olo g y In another passage of this book, Ibn al- ¶Arabı¯ reports al-Ghaza¯l ı ¯’s opinion on those who claim to see the Prophet in their dreams. 58 Ibn al- ¶Arabı¯’s other books, such as his voluminous commentary on al-Tirmidhı¯’s h.adı¯th collection, may yield more relevant information on al-Ghaza¯l ı ¯’s teachings, 59 as may some other works that still lie in manuscripts. In his commentary on the noble divine names, for instance, Ibn al- ¶Arabı¯ seems to be taking issue with al-Ghaza¯l ı ¯’s
rationalist teachings on that subject. Ibn al- ¶Arabı¯’s dictum that his teacher en- tered so deep into the bellies of the fala¯sifa that he could not get out may be taken from this work or from his equally unedited Lamp of the Novices ( Sira¯j
ı ¯’s view of the best of all possible worlds. 60
Al-Ghaza¯l ı ¯ wrote a few texts in response to Ibn al- ¶Arabı¯’s questions. One manuscript of the book Breathing of the Spirit and the Shaping ( Nafkh al-ru ¯h. wa-l-taswiya ) says that work is a response to Ibn al- ¶Arabı¯’s questions. 61 This text, whose abbreviated form is known as The Short Text to Be Withheld ( al-Mad.nu¯n al-s.aghı¯r ) or possibly also as Ghazalian Answers to Questions about the Afterlife ( al-Ajwiba al-Ghaza¯liyya fı¯ l-masa¯ 7il al-ukhrawiyya ), discusses the nature of the human soul and the human spirit ( ru
of shaping the body and breathing His life force into it (Q 32:9, 15:29, 38:72). Judging from the considerable number of manuscripts and modern prints, the book was and is very popular among al-Ghaza¯l ı ¯’s readers. Its authenticity, how- ever, is not fully established. Another Ghazalian text connected to Abu ¯ Bakr ibn al- ¶Arabı¯ also deals with the dispute between mutakallimu
nature of the human soul. 62 In a letter al-Ghaza¯l ı ¯ addressed to Abu¯ Bakr, he answers three questions on various subjects, among them, whether the soul is a self-subsisting substance ( jawhar ) or just an accident that inheres in a body. The existence of this brief text was noted by Ih.sa¯n ¶Abba¯s in 1968; 63 the text is still unedited and was not available to me. 64 The fi rst question Ibn al- ¶Arabı¯ asks is: “Is the spirit ( al-ru ¯h. ) lightened particles (. . .) or is it a spiritual substance ( jawhar ) that each body encounters in the form of rays like one encounters the sun (. . .)?” The second question enquires about “the difference between a bird[’s fl ight] and a good omen.” The third questions is: “What is the meaning of the Prophet’s saying: ‘The devil runs with one of you in his veins?’ ” 65
Al-Ghaza¯l ı ¯ answers these questions cautiously, fi rst reminding Ibn al- ¶Arabı¯ and other students that they should not strive to answer each and every question that they fi nd raised within themselves. Second, they should not as- sume that the results of a demonstration ( burha¯n ) could ever be false. The in- tellect—if properly applied—does not lead to false results. Third, they should keep in mind that when it comes to fi gurative interpretation ( ta 7wı¯l ) of revela- tion, it is insuffi cient to specify an interpretation that is merely probable. It is dangerous to judge what God might have intended in his revelation and what the Prophet might have intended in his sayings by assumptions and guesses. The text of al-Ghaza¯l ı ¯’s letter appears to be at least partly identical to al- Ghaza¯l ı ¯’s The Universal Rule in Interpreting Revelation ( al-Qa¯nu¯n al-kullı¯ fı¯ l- ta 7wı¯l ) , a short work of a dozen pages discovered in a Cairo manuscript and published in 1940. 66 There al-Ghaza¯l ı ¯ discusses several suggested interpretations of the m os t in f lue n t i a l s t u de n t s a nd e a r l y f ol low er s 7 1 h.adı¯th about the devil running in the veins of some of the Prophet’s compan- ions. He begins his own explanations with three recommendations, namely, (1) that one should not aspire to know everything, (2) that one should not as- sume a valid demonstration could result in a falsehood, and (3) that one should not engage in interpretation ( ta 7wı¯l ) if one is uncertain about the meaning of the revealed text. 67 It appears that The Universal Rule in Interpreting Revelation , which is mentioned in the work lists of al-Subkı¯ and al-Wa¯sit.ı¯, was generated from a letter al-Ghaza¯l ı ¯ wrote in response to Abu¯ Bakr ibn al- ¶Arabi. 68
Despite their brief period of personal contact, Abu¯ Bakr ibn al- ¶Arabı¯ was probably the master student of al-Ghaza¯l ı ¯’s—at least when it comes to his the- ology. Abu¯ Bakr was particularly interested in all questions dealing with the human soul and with epistemology. By the time he met al-Ghaza¯l ı ¯, the great Da¯nishmand (al-Ghaza¯l ı ¯) had adopted an Avicennan psychology regarding the human soul as a self-subsisting substance, able to continue existence after the body’s death. Yet in some books of the Revival —most evidently in the Letter for Jerusalem in the Second Book—he expresses the relationship between the human soul and the human body in the language of the mutakallimu¯n as de- pendent accidents (meaning the soul) that inhere in the atoms of the body. 69
The Letter to Jerusalem was written only a few months before Abu¯ Bakr met al-Ghaza¯l ı ¯. In other writings, I tried to resolve this apparent contradiction. 70
Although al-Ghaza¯l ı ¯ personally preferred the theory of the human soul as a self-subsisting substance that he ascribed to the fala¯sifa and the Sufi s, neither through reason nor through revelation are humans able to decide whether this theory is true or the alternative explanation held by the mutakallimu¯n . Nei- ther of the two competing views can be demonstrably proven, and both are viable explanations of the text of revelation. It was important for al-Ghaza¯l ı ¯ that all Muslim scholars become convinced of the corporeal character of resur- rection in the afterlife. One should fi nd a way to teach this essential element of the Muslim creed without needing to change the views of one’s readership on the nature of the soul and thus confuse their convictions. We will see that this strategy is a result of what I will call al-Ghaza¯l ı ¯’s nominalist approach to human knowledge. As ¶ad al-Mayhanı¯ (d. 523/1130 or 527/1132–33) Abu ¯ l-Fath. As ¶ad ibn Muh.ammad al-Mayhanı¯ was probably the most infl u- ential immediate follower of al-Ghaza¯l ı ¯ in the Muslim East. Whether he was a student of the great theologian is not entirely clear; the entries on him in chronicles and biographical dictionaries do not mention such a relationship. In fact, there is something enigmatic about his education that challenges the currently prevailing understanding of the educational patterns of this period. According to the historical reports written by religious authorities such as al- Subkı¯ or Ibn al-Jawzı¯, As ¶ad al-Mayhanı¯ was a successful and highly regarded teacher of Islamic law; nothing would suggest that he ever taught disputed posi- tions associated with falsafa . However, al-Bayhaqı¯’s biographical dictionary of 7 2 a l - gh a z a ¯ l 1
¯ ’ s ph ilosoph ic a l t h e olo g y scholars connected to the philosophical movement features a short article on As ¶ad al-Mayhanı¯. There he writes that As ¶ad had studied with al-Lawkarı¯, who was a student of one of Avicenna’s students. Al-Lawkarı¯ was the most important fi gure for the introduction of Avicennism in Khorasan. 71 As ¶ad al-Mayhanı¯ was the fi rst Muslim scholar with a dual intellectual pedigree: he was a reputable religious scholar who taught at theological madrasas, while still participating in the philosophical teaching tradition established by Avicenna. As ¶ad al-Mayhanı¯ was born 461/1068–69 in Mayhana, a town in northern Khorasan that is less than 100 km northeast of T.u¯s. 72 He studied fi qh with Abu ¯ l-Muz.affar al-Sam ¶a¯nı¯ at the Niz.a¯miyya madrasa in Merw, 73 where he later be- came a teacher. He then moved to Ghazna, where his fame grew. In 507/1113–14, the youthful Mah.mu¯d ibn Muh.ammad Tapar ibn Maliksha¯h, who ruled as gov- ernor over Baghdad, invited him to teach at the local Niz.a¯miyya. Like al-Ghaza¯l ı ¯ twenty-two years earlier, As ¶ad was a Seljuq appointee and close to the caliph’s court. Al-Bayhaqı¯ says that everybody who witnessed him at the caliphal court was highly impressed. Other historians add that the caliph, the sultan, and all the other dignitaries held him in high esteem and mention that As ¶ad soon ac- quired signifi cant riches. In 510/1117, As ¶ad gave his friend, the famous author al-Shahrasta¯nı¯ (d. 548/1153), a teaching post at the Baghdad Niz.a¯miyya. 74 In
513/1119–20, both al-Shahrasta¯nı¯ and As ¶ad ceased teaching at the Niz.a¯miyya— perhaps because their Seljuq patron temporarily lost authority over Baghdad. 75
517/1123. He died either in 523/1129 or 527/1132–33 in Hamadan. 76
As ¶ad al-Mayhanı¯ composed a curriculum of studies or a textbook that was adopted by the Niz.a¯miyya in Baghdad and by other schools. In Baghdad, it remained in use many decades after his death. The work is referred to as “The Notes” ( al-Ta ¶lı¯qa ), and it is credited for its masterful treatments of the tech- niques used in disputations ( khila¯f ). 77 It seems to have followed al-Ghaza¯l ı ¯’s
approach and included the study of formal logics in the area of jurisprudence ( fi qh ). The philosopher ¶Abd al-Lat.ı¯f al-Baghda¯dı¯ (d. 629/1231) says that his father studied at the Baghdad Niz.a¯miyya “the sciences of law, Sha¯fi ¶ite fi qh , and the disputations between the schools ( khila¯f ) with the ‘Notes’ of As ¶ad al- Mayhanı¯, who was famous during that time.” 78 This was in the middle of the sixth/twelfth century when As ¶ad was no longer alive. Twenty years later, the rationalist theologian Sayf al-Dı¯n al-A ¯ midı¯ (d. 631/1233) studied As ¶ad’s “Notes” diligently and considered himself a follower of al-Mayhanı¯. 79 At the end of the century, the H . anbalite jurist Ibn al-Jawzı¯ (d. 597/1201) wrote that many stu- dents of his school use As ¶ad’s “Notes” even though it teaches primarily Sha¯fi ¶ite and not H . anbalite law. 80 In the fourteenth century, the conservative Ibn Kathı¯r (d. 774/1373) confi rms that the work was still famous despite the fact that he considered it of little value. 81
ı ¯, so a
proper teacher-student relationship must be ruled out. The Muslim historians report details of al-Ghaza¯l ı ¯’s life on As ¶ad’s authority. The two were thus known or plausibly thought to be in contact. Al-Subkı¯ quotes a very appreciative comment of As ¶ad that aims to defend al-Ghaza¯l ı ¯ against the criticism of lesser-accomplished m os t in f lue n t i a l s t u de n t s a nd e a r l y f ol low er s 7 3 theologians: “Nobody will arrive at al-Ghaza¯l ı ¯’s level of insights and his virtue un- less he reaches—or at least almost reaches—intellectual perfection.” 82
The historians, however, do not report that the two ever met. Their meeting can only be deduced from two separate narratives about an episode in al-Ghaza¯l ı ¯’s
late life. Each of the two narratives is incomplete, and at least one must be partly erroneous. The fi rst report is from the collection of al-Ghaza¯l ı ¯’s letters. The anonymous collector tells of a group of scholars at al-Ghaza¯l ı ¯’s kha¯nqa¯h in T.u¯s who asked him, “which school do you belong to?” 83 The story immediately follows al-Ghaza¯l ı ¯’s exchange with Sanjar, which took place soon after 501/1108. As already explained, al-Ghaza¯l ı ¯ was asked to appear before Sanjar and defend himself against the accusation brought forward by H . anafi te scholars that al- Ghaza¯l ı
. anı¯fa in one of his earlier books. As Sanjar and many within the Seljuq court were H . anafi tes, 84 thirty-year-old derog- atory comments on the H . anafi te school’s founder could still harm al-Ghaza¯l ı ¯.
The accusations and how al-Ghaza¯l ı ¯ successfully parried them are reported in the collection of his letters. 85 Although the group of scholars that visited al-Ghaza¯l ı ¯ and asked this question is not identifi ed, they are brought in con- nection with “his enemies” ( muta ¶annita¯n-i way ) from the court of Sanjar. In al-Ghaza¯l ı ¯’s answer to their question, he gives a short version of his epistemo- logical approach to Muslim theology and ethics, mirroring his “law of fi gura- tive interpretation” ( qa¯nu ¯n al- ta 7wı¯l ) . He says: Regarding the subjects that are settled by reason ( ma ¶qu ¯la¯t ) my school ( madhhab ) is that of demonstration, following what a rational argu- ment ( dalı¯l ¶aqlı¯ ) mandates. Regarding the subjects that are settled by revelation ( shar ¶iyya¯t ) my school is the Qur’an and I do not follow one of the Imams by way of emulation ( taqlı¯d ). Neither al-Sha¯fi ¶ı¯ nor Abu ¯ H . anı¯fa may take a line of writing away from me and claim it. 86
The second narrative of this incident appears in Dawlatsha¯h Samarqandı¯’s (d. ca. 900/1494) history of Persian poets. We must assume that Dawlatsha¯h wrote after the collection of letters; in fact, it seems likely that he took most of his information from there. He writes: The scholar As ¶ad of Mayhana, a chronicler who was at the court of Sultan Muh.ammad Tapar, engaged in a public disputation ( muna¯z.ara ) with Abu ¯ H
. a¯mid al-Ghaza¯l ı ¯. The scholars of Khorasan supported As ¶ad and during a session at Sultan Muh.ammad’s court he asked al-Ghaza¯l ı ¯ the fi rst question: “Are you of the legal school of Abu ¯ H
. anı¯fa or of al-Sha¯fi ¶ı¯?” 87
ı ¯ responded with the same answer that is noted in the collection of letters. It is striking that in Dawlatsha¯h’s report, As ¶ad al-Mayhanı¯ appears as al-Ghaza¯l ı ¯’s enemy. There were, however, two As ¶ad al-Mayhanı¯s who were contemporaries. One studied Sha¯fi ¶ite fi qh , theology, and falsafa and became a teacher at the Niz.a¯miyya in Baghdad after al-Ghaza¯l ı ¯’s death. The second was about seven years older and was a Sufi and h.adı¯th scholar who died shortly 7 4 a l - gh a z a ¯ l 1
¯ ’ s ph ilosoph ic a l t h e olo g y after al-Ghaza¯l ı ¯.
88 The two were apparently not related. It is thus likely that Dawlatsha¯h had the second more conservative As ¶ad from Mayhana in mind, who may have belonged to the H . anafi te school of law. We can thus assume that Dawlatsha¯h constructed this encounter based on his knowledge of al-Ghaza¯l ı ¯’s
letters. Not so easily solved is the fact that in Dawlatsha¯h’s story, the exchange be- tween As ¶ad and al-Ghaza¯l ı ¯ happens at the court of Sultan Muh.ammad Tapar, rather than at the court of Sanjar. The name Muh.ammad Tapar cannot simply be an erroneous substitution for Sanjar, since in Dawlatsha¯h’s book, al-Ghaza¯l ı ¯
89 There are, however, no reliable re- ports of a confrontation between Sultan Muh.ammad Tapar and al-Ghaza¯l ı ¯. Sultan Muh.ammad Tapar resided in Isfahan and had left the affairs of Kho- rasan in the hands of his brother Sanjar, who would succeed him as supreme sultan of the Seljuq Empire after his death in 511/1118. Regarding this piece of information, Dawlatsha¯h’s story is probably wrong; it may be again based on an erroneous reading of the collection of al-Ghaza¯l ı ¯’s letters. 90
What then is the grain of truth in all this? The collector of al-Ghaza¯l ı ¯’s letters vaguely suggests that those who put the question to him were also hostile. That, however, need not be the case. The story of al-Ghaza¯l ı ¯’s memorable comment on his madhhab —a word that may also mean his “method”—might have been mixed up with earlier accusations about his fi qh brought forward by H . anafi te scholars. This confusion might have already existed when the collection of let- ters was put together. Initially, the two might have been different episodes and unconnected reports. Al-Ghaza¯l ı ¯’s answer to the question of his madhhab reads very much like one that he would have given to close students or to followers rather than to hostile accusers. Al-Ghaza¯l ı ¯ is known to have been very careful about what he conveyed to whom. 91 His blunt answer would certainly make him vulnerable to the accusation of being too rationalist even to follow al-Sha¯fi ¶ı¯. Putting himself in such a position was unnecessary, as the question—if put by adversaries—simply asks about his formal allegiance in fi qh. One way to reconcile the discrepancies is to accept the historical accu- racy of the answer and the name of the questioner. The question was prob- ably put forth by As ¶ad al-Mayhanı¯, just as Dawlatsha¯h reports—but not by the conservative Sufi but rather by the As ¶ad al-Mayhanı¯ who was the Sha¯fi ¶ite theologian sympathetic to al-Ghaza¯l ı ¯. It has already been said that this As ¶ad conveyed information on al-Ghaza¯l ı ¯’s life. We may assume that the Sha¯fi ¶ite As ¶ad al-Mayanı¯ was a follower of al-Ghaza¯l Download 4.03 Mb. Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: 
|