Al-Ghaza¯lı¯’s Philosophical
Download 4.03 Mb. Pdf ko'rish
|
|
al-ba¯t.iniyya , 38–40; cf. Ibn al-Walı¯d, Da¯migh al-ba¯t.il , 1:131–46; and Goldziher, Stre- itschrift , 44–45. He accuses the Isma¯ ¶ilites of teaching a dualism of ¶aql and nafs as fi rst and second divine beings. For similar criticism, see al-Baghda¯dı¯’s report of the Isma¯ ¶ilite teachings in his Farq bayna l-fi raq , 316.11–15. Al-Baghda¯dı¯ quotes these teachings from al-Nasafı¯’s lost Kita¯b al-Mah.s.u¯l . Walker, “The Ismaili Vocabulary of Creation,” 79, con- nects al-Baghda¯dı¯’s report to al-Sijista¯nı¯’s teachings. 127. Al-Ghaza¯lı¯, Fad.a¯ 7ih. al-ba¯t.iniyya , 40.10–17; cf. Ibn al-Walı¯d, Da¯migh al-ba¯t.il , 1:144.4–10. 128. Al-Baghda¯dı¯, al-Farq bayna l-fi raq , 316.11–12, quotes from al-Nasafı¯’s Kita¯b al-Mah.s.u¯l , which became available to non-Isma¯ ¶ilites (see Walker, Early Philosophical Shiism , 55–56). Apparently, al-Ghaza¯lı¯ relied heavily on al-Ba¯qilla¯nı¯’s lost book, Kashf al-asra¯r wa-hatk al-asta¯r . In his Ih.ya¯ 7 , 3:179.14–15 / 900.4–5, he takes the rare step of ac- knowledging his reliance on that work. Al-Zabı¯dı¯, Ith.a¯f al-sa¯da , 6:122.10, however, omits this passage, which prompted Goldziher, Streitschrift , 16, to assume it is an interpola- tion. Goldziher, however, bases his argument on grounds that are not all convincing. On al-Ba¯qilla¯nı¯’s book, see also al-Subkı¯, T.abaqa¯t , 7:18.1–5. 129. See, for instance, al-Ghaza¯lı¯, al-Munqidh , 33.11–16; or idem, Qawa¯s.im al-ba¯- t.iniyya , 33–34. In his Munqidh , 29.2–6, al-Ghaza¯lı¯ mentions that “one of his colleagues” (? wa¯h.id min as.h.a¯bı¯ ) attached himself to al-Ghaza¯lı¯ after he had professed the Isma¯ ¶ilite teachings. The former Isma¯ ¶ilite informed him of their arguments. 130. Al-Kirma¯nı¯, Ra¯h.at al- ¶aql , 279; de Smet, La quietude de l ’ intellect , 279–81. 131. De Smet, La quietude de l ’ intellect , 120–38. 132. Niz.a¯mı¯, Khamsah , 5:401–4 ( Sharafna¯mah , lines 5111–53). In what is probably its most well-known version in the West in Ru ¯mı¯’s Masnavı¯ , 1:213–15, English translation 2:189–90 (book 1, lines 3467–99), the roles of the Greek and Chinese painters are re- versed from that in al-Ghaza¯lı¯ and Niz.a¯mı¯, and the competition is no longer unresolved. The Greeks are declared winners, thus expressing the superiority of mystical experience over acquired knowledge. 133. Al-Ghaza¯lı¯, Ih.ya¯ 7 , 3:28.17–29.3 / 1382.9–22; the story also appears in Mı¯z.an
on Painters and Painting,” 14) understand the text as if the Chinese painters are judged superior over the Greek and that al-Ghaza¯lı¯ thus favored the Sufi method. That is, how- ever, not expressed anywhere in al-Ghaza¯lı¯’s texts. The equality of both ways is, in fact, stressed in Niz.a¯mı¯’s version, which seems to be directly inspired by al-Ghaza¯lı¯’s ver- sion. In Niz.a¯mı¯, the Greek is the best in painting ( naqsh ) and the Chinese the best in polishing ( s.aql ) (line 5153), yet both achieve results that are absolutely indistinguishable from each other and equivalent. 134. Al-Ghaza¯lı¯, Mı¯za¯n al- ¶amal , 37.18–38.1 / 226.6–8. Al-Ghaza¯lı¯ uses the word “heart” as a synonym to the philosophical usage of the word “soul” ( nafs ); see Griffel, “Al-G .
135. kufr s.ura¯h. ; al-Ghaza¯lı¯, Fays.al al-tafriqa , 198.5–8 / 66–67. See also Fad.a¯ 7ih. al- ba¯t.iniyya , 39.5–11; cf. Ibn al-Walı¯d, Da¯migh al-ba¯t.il , 1:134.15–20. 136. Baffi oni, “Contrariety and Similarity in God,” 4. 137. Frank, Al-Ghaza¯lı¯ and the Ash ¶arite School , 91. 138. There seems to have been a development about what al-Ghaza¯lı¯ considered a fa¯ ¶il . See pp. 184–85 .
not e s to page s 2 6 2 – 2 6 6 3 5 5 139. The passage is also discussed by Frank in Creation and the Cosmic System , 44–45, 75–77, and in Al-Ghaza¯lı¯ and the Ash ¶arite School , 19. For Frank, this passage is a major textual evidence supporting his conclusion that al-Ghaza¯lı¯’s God has no free choice in his creation and creates out of necessity, without free will ( Creation and the Cosmic System , 75). Frank, however, reports and translates only a small part of a longer argument. 140. MS Istanbul, S ¸ehit Ali Pas ¸a 1712, fol. 32b. See Bouyges, Essai de chronology , 81, in which the date of the colophon on fol. 32b is incorrect. 141. wa-yuqa¯lu innaha¯ a¯khiru mu 7allafa¯tihi ; MS Berlin, Petermann II 690, fol. 1a. See Ahlwardt, Handschriften-Verzeichnisse , 2:527–28 (no. 2301). 142. See above pp. 56–57 . 143. Al-Ghaza¯lı¯, Ilja¯m al- ¶awa¯mm , 3 / 53–54. The text of this work, which is poorly edited, has been compared to the manuscripts MSS Istanbul, S ¸ehit Ali Pas ¸a 1712, foll. 1a–32b; and Berlin, Petermann II 690. The Istanbul manuscript has been edited by Sa¯mih. Dughaym (Beirut: Da¯r al-Fikr al-Lubna¯nı¯, 1993), and the edition reproduces the original folio division in its margins. 144. Al-Ghaza¯lı¯, Ilja¯m al- ¶awa¯mm , 13 / 70. 145. Ibid., 8–9 / 64–65. 146. baya¯nu ma ¶na¯hu ba ¶da iza¯lati z.a¯hirih ; ibid., 10.12–13 / 66. ult . The two MSS have z.a¯hirihi . 147. Al-Ghaza¯lı¯, Ilja¯m al- ¶awa¯mm , 11.9–10 / 68.5–6. 148. Ibn Sı¯na¯, al-Shifa¯ 7 , al-Mant.iq , al-Burha¯n , 51.2–52.8. 149. Griffel, “Al-Ghaza¯lı¯’s Concept of Prophecy,” 124. 150. Al-Ghaza¯lı¯, Fays.al al-tafriqa , 41–60 / 184–94. 151. (. . .) min ghayri tarjı¯h. ; al-Ghaza¯lı¯, Ilja¯m al- ¶awa¯mm , 11.11–13 / 68.8–9. 152. Ibid., 11.9–11 / 68.5–8 ( farq in line 6 is to be amended by fawq ). Cf. Fad.a¯ 7ih. al- ba¯t.iniyya , 155.11–12. 153. Al-Ghaza¯lı¯, Ilja¯m al- ¶awa¯mm , 155.12–14. 154. Ibid., 11.18–20 / 68.16–18. 155. The Rasa¯ 7il Ikhwa¯n al-s.afa¯ 7 , 2:22.10–3 / 2:26.13–5, teaches that the next to outer sphere is the “bearing (or the throne)” or the “pedestal” ( kursı¯ , cf. Q 2:255) and the outer- most sphere is the “throne.” According to al- ¶A ¯mirı¯, Kita¯b al-Fus.u¯l fi -l-ma ¶a¯lim al-ila¯hiyya , ed. Khalı¯fa¯t 84. ult –87.1 / ed. Wakelnig 364.12–13, the fala¯sifa use the word “throne” to refer to the “straight sphere ( al-falak al-mustaqı¯m ) and the primum mobile ( falak al-afl a¯k ),” which is the outermost sphere. On the identifi cation of al- ¶arsh as the highest being and the starless sphere, see Heinen, Islamic Cosmology , 77–81, 83; and Wakelnig, Feder, Tafel,
teachings of the fala¯sifa with regard to the “preserved tablet” ( al-lawh. al-mah.fu¯z. ) and the “pen” ( al-qalam ), but he never mentions those with regard to “the throne.” See Frank, Creation , 45. 156. Al-Ghaza¯lı¯, Ilja¯m al- ¶awa¯mm , 11.20–23 / 68.19–21. 157. Ibid., 11. ult. / 68.23. 158. See particularly the twenty-sixth and thirty-fourth epistles of Rasa¯ 7il Ikhwa¯n
159. Al-Ghaza¯lı¯, Mishka¯t al-anwa¯r , 67.5–7 / 153.9–11; 66.8 / 152.16. This idea is also present in Rasa¯ 7il Ikhwa¯n al-s.afa¯ 7 , 3:3–4 / 2:456–57. 160. al-adna¯ bayyina ¶ala¯ l-a ¶la¯ ; al-Ghaza¯lı¯, Jawa¯hir al-Qur 7a¯n , 51.5; Ormsby, Theod- icy , 45. 161. Al-Ghaza¯lı¯, al-Maqs.ad , 152.11–13; Frank, Creation, 60. 3 5 6 not e s to page s 2 6 6 – 2 6 9 162. Al-Ghaza¯lı¯, Ih.ya¯ 7 , 4:146.6–7 / 2272.9–10. 163. Al-Ghaza¯lı¯, Mih.akk al-naz.ar , 124.14–16. 164. Al-Ghaza¯lı¯, Ilja¯m al- ¶awa¯mm , 11. ult. –12.3 / 68. ult .–69.2. 165. la¯ yumkinuhu min al-tadbı¯r , following MS Berlin, Petermann II, 690, fol. 6b. 166. Al-Ghaza¯lı¯, Ilja¯m al- ¶awa¯mm ., 12.3–9 / 69.2–9. 167. The usage of tas.arrafa in this context also appears in al-Ghaza¯lı¯ (?), Ma ¶a¯rij al- quds , 198.14–15: tas.arrufu l-a¯damiyyu f ı¯ ¶a¯limihi a ¶nı¯ badanahu yashbihu tas.arrufa l-kha¯liqi f ı¯ l- ¶a¯lami l-akbar. 168. natı¯jatu l-wa¯jibi wa¯jibun (not: wa¯jibatun) ; ibid., 12.7 / 69.8; following the MSS. 169. Al-Ghaza¯lı¯, Mi ¶ya¯r al- ¶ilm , 221.21–22; idem, al-Iqtis.a¯d , 43.3; Frank, Creation , 72, 81–82. Frank points to another passage in al-Iqtis.a¯d , 78.4–9, but the necessity there is of the sort that follows as a consequence of earlier creations; it is necessity from something else, a sort of necessity that does not pose the kind of problems currently discussed. 170. Cf. Ibn Sı¯na¯, al-Shifa¯ 7, al-Ila¯hiyya¯t , 328.2; al-Naja¯t , 228.17 / 553.9–10. 171. The implications of the statement that God is wa¯jib al-wuju¯d min jamı¯ ¶ jiha¯tihi are clearly spelled out in al-Ghaza¯lı¯, MS London, Or. 3126, fol. 198b. 172. Griffel, “MS London, British Library Or. 3126,” 21–29. See also Marmura, “Ghazali and Demonstrative Science,” 184, 189. 173. Al-Ghaza¯lı¯, Mi ¶ya¯r al- ¶ilm, 25.1–26.10. 174. Frank, Al-Ghaza¯lı¯ and the Ash ¶arite School , 93–94; Marmura, “Ghazali and De- monstrative Science,” 192. 175. Al-Ghaza¯lı¯, Mi ¶ya¯r al- ¶ilm , 221.21–222.1. The corresponding passage in MS London, Or. 3126, contains a long discussion of God’s essence in book 6, chapter 1 of that text (foll. 197b–207a). 176. Al-Ghaza¯lı¯, al-Iqtis.a¯d , 42.11–43.3. 177. Al-Ghaza¯lı¯, Ilja¯m al- ¶awa¯mm , 12.9–12 / 69.9–12. 178. Ibid., 12.10–11 / 69.11. 179. Ibid., 12.13–14 / 69.14–15. 180. In al-Ghaza¯lı¯ (?), Ma ¶a¯rij al-quds , 198–99, the author explains that while in the microcosm of the human body, production is mediated fi rst through the animal soul ( al-ru¯h. al-h.ayawa¯nı¯ ) and then through the brain ( al-dima¯gh ), so too does God cre- ate in the macrocosm “through the mediation of moving the heavens and the planets.” He specifi es that the relationship between the human heart and the brain is equivalent to the relationship between the throne ( al- ¶arsh ) and the stool or pedestal ( al-kursı¯ ). The senses ( al-h.awa¯ss ) are to the human what the angels, that is, the celestial intellects, are to God.
181. Al-Ghaza¯lı¯, Ilja¯m al- ¶awa¯mm , 11.20–22 / 68.19–21. conclusion
1.
Ibn T.ufayl, H.ayy ibn Yaqz.a¯n , 16. ult. –17.10.
2. ¶Ayn al-Qud.a¯t, Na¯mah-ha¯ , 1:79.7–10. More precisely, ¶Ayn al-Qud.a¯t says that al-Ghaza¯lı¯ did not explain the level of meaning in the Qur’an that is geared to the intel- lectual elite.
3.
Frank,
4. For a recent example in more popular literature about the history of science, see Steven Weinberg’s comments on al-Ghaza¯lı¯ in his review article, “A Deadly Cer- titude.” In what is partly a response to Weinberg, Robert Irwin, “Islamic Science and the Long Siesta,” largely accepts Weinberg’s view of al-Ghaza¯lı¯’s devastating effect,
not e s to page s 2 6 9 – 2 7 6 3 5 7 a view that is indeed widespread among current historians of the sciences and of philosophy.
5. Al-Ghaza¯lı¯, Taha¯fut , 277.2–3 / 166.1–2. 6. Kukkonen, “Possible Worlds,” 496, 499. 7. See above pp. 128–32 . 8. Ibn Rushd, Taha¯fut al-taha¯fut , 523.2–16, 531–32, complains about al-Ghazali’s use of the word “habit” ( ¶ a¯da ). If al-Ghaza¯lı¯ means that existing things have a “habit,” he should use “nature” instead since “habit” is only applicable to animate things. If the “habit” exists only in our judgment, he should instead use the world “intellect” ( ¶
because that is the agent ( fa¯ ¶il ) of such a habit.
9. Marmura, “Al-Ghaza¯lı¯’s Second Causal Theory.” 86. Marmura, however, be- lieved that al-Ghaza¯lı¯ is committed only to the fi rst theory that represents an occasional- ist view of causal connections. 10. Al-Ghaza¯lı¯, Ih.ya¯ 7 , 1:50.7–10 / 56.11–14; al-Zabı¯dı¯, Ith.a¯f al-sa¯da¯ , 1:236–37, with lam yaqu¯mu¯ bihi as a variant to lam yatas.iffu¯ bihi .
11. In al-Ghaza¯lı¯ (?), Ma ¶a¯rij al-quds , 14.16– ult, the active intellect is described as “the substrate of the cognitions, of revelation, and of inspiration ( ilha¯m ).” The active intellect is also referred to as “the spirit” ( al-ru¯h. ) as well as “the pen” and “the creation that fl ows out of God’s command ( al-mubda ¶ al-s.a¯dir min amr Alla¯h ). 12. Al-Ghaza¯lı¯, Mı¯za¯n al- ¶amal , 107.8–15 / 331.1–13. 13. Al-Ghaza¯lı¯ (?), Ma ¶a¯rij al-quds , 16.1–2. The Arabic mubda ¶ al-awwal or maybe even mabda ¶ al-awwal (“fi rst invention”) seems almost a pun on the philosophical name for the same being, al-mabda 7 al-awwal (“the fi rst principle”). 14. Ibid., 15.5–7; al-Ghaza¯lı¯, Fays.al al-tafriqa , 182.6–12 / 36.8–37.7; idem, Ih.ya¯ 7 , 1:115.17–18 / 142.1–2. The h.adı¯th that the fi rst creation is the pen is reported by al-Tirmidhı¯, Ja¯mi ¶ al-s.ah.ı¯h , tafsı¯r su¯rat 68 . See Wensinck, Concordance , 1:135a. The h.adı¯th that this fi rst creation is the intellect is not considered sound. An even longer version of the spurious ¶aql-h.adı¯th, containing a short cosmogenic narrative, is quoted by al-Ghaza¯lı¯, Mı¯za¯n al-
15. kha¯zinun li-anfusi khaza¯ 7inihi ; al-Ghaza¯lı¯, Mı¯za¯n al- ¶amal , 107.6 / 330.16–17. 16. In the twenty-fi rst book of his Ihya¯ 7 , 3:27.3–7 / 1380.5–9, al-Ghaza¯lı¯ says that the creator writes His plan for creation on the “well-guarded tablet” just as the architect writes his plan for a house on paper (see Nakamura, “Ghaza¯lı¯’s Cosmology Reconsid- ered,” 35–36). Frank, Al-Ghaza¯lı¯ and the Ash ¶arite School , 26–27, argues that the well- guarded tablet “designates the angel (separated intelligence) that is associated with the outermost celestial sphere.” That intelligence, however, exists even beyond the outer- most sphere.
17. Craig, Kala¯m Cosmological Argument , 12, 15, 150–51; idem, The Cosmological Ar- gument , 56, 58. 18. See p. 142 . 19. Baneth, “Jehuda Hallewi und Gazali,” 35; idem, “Rabbi Yehudah ha-Levi we- Algazzali,” 320. 20. See above pp. 253–60 . 21. See above pp. 256–57 . 22. Baljon, “The ‘Amr of God’ in the Koran,” 15–16. On modern Western as well as Isma¯ ¶ı¯lite and Muslim philosophical interpretations of what the word amr stands for in the Qur’an, see Wakelnig, Feder, Tafel, Mensch , 159–62. 23. See above pp. 260–64 . 24. At least four years lie between the composition of al-Ghaza¯lı¯’s Fa
3 5 8
not e s to page s 2 7 6 – 2 8 2 al-anwa¯r . They allow for an improvement of al-Ghaza¯lı¯’s understanding of Isma¯ ¶ı¯lite theology. 25. On the non-Fa¯t.imid Isma¯ ¶ı¯lite background of the Rasa¯ 7il Ikhwa¯n al-s.afa¯ 7, see Wilferd Madelung in his article “Karmat.ı¯,” in EI2 , 4:663a 26. See above pp. 199–201 . 27. In the early parts of the Veil Section in Mishka¯t al-anwa¯r, al-Ghaza¯lı¯ draws on material from the long forty-second epistle in the Rasa¯ 7il Ikhwa¯n al-s.afa¯ 7 , “The Differ- ent Beliefs and Religions” ( Fı¯ l-a¯ra¯ 7 wa-l-diya¯na¯t ); see Landolt, “Ghaza¯lı¯ and Religion- swissenschaft,” 29–31. 28. Al-Ghaza¯lı¯, al-Munqidh , 33.19–22. 29. Stern, “Authorship of the Epistles,” 368. 30. Diwald, Arabische Philosophie und Enzyklopädie , 313–14, connects al-Ghaza¯lı¯’s division of the two worlds to a similar one in Rasa¯ 7il Ikhwa¯n al-s.afa¯ 7 , 3:282.3–7 / 3:293.19–24. The resemblance, however, remains general and unspecifi c and takes no account of the third Ghazalian realm, ¶a¯lam al-jabaru¯t . 31. Ibn Taymiyya, “Sharh. al- ¶aqı¯da al-is.faha¯niyya,” 117–18. Ibn Taymiyya rejects al- Ma¯zarı¯’s view that there was also an infl uence from Abu ¯ H
. ayya¯n al-Tawh.ı¯dı¯. Cf. Laoust, Essai sur les doctrines , 82–84. 32. Ibn Rushd , al-Kashf ¶an mana¯hij al-adilla , 183. ult. –184.3; see also Taha¯fut al-
the Jewish Averroist Issac Albalag (fl . c . 1290) discusses Ibn Rushd’s and al-Ghaza¯lı¯’s po- sitions on the relationship between the mover of the primum mobile and God. See Vajda, Isaac Albalag , 31–32, 95–98; and Steinschneider, Die hebraeischen Übersetzungen , 1:303. Throughout his career as a writer, Ibn Rushd held different opinions about whether the mover of the highest sphere is identical to God or whether God is the creator of this mover; see Kogan, “Averroës and the Theory of Emanation,” 396–97. 33. Ibn T.ufayl, H.ayy ibn Yaqz.a¯n , 17.10–18.3. Ibn T.ufayl did not share this view. 34. (. . .) wa-ha¯dha¯ min jinsi kala¯mi l-ba¯t.iniyya ; Ibn al-Jawzı¯, Talbı¯s Iblı¯s , 166.3–7. Cf. Ibn Taymiyya, Minha¯j al-sunna , 4:149.19–20. 35. Frank, Al-Ghaza¯lı¯ and the Ash ¶arite School , 87, 101. 36. Frank, “The Non-Existent and the Possible in Classical Ash ¶arite Teaching,” 16–17. 37. See, for instance, al-Juwaynı¯, Irsha¯d, 110.3. 38. Ibid., 210.3–4. 39. Al-Ghaza¯lı¯, Munqidh , 23.11–13. “Elemental natures” ( al-t.aba¯ 7i ¶) seems to refer to the four prime elements ( ust.uqusa¯t ). 40. Al-Ghaza¯lı¯, al-Munqidh , 45.3–9. 41. Al-Ghaza¯lı¯, Ih.ya¯ 7 , 1:115–16 / 142.34–37. 42. Gianotti, Al-Ghaza¯lı¯ ’ s Unspeakable Doctrine of the Soul , 168. 43. Al-Ghaza¯lı¯, Mishka¯t al-anwa¯r, 42.2–3 / 120.8–9, 51–52 / 133.7–13, 60.2–3 / 133.11–12, 67.15–16 / 153.3–4. On emanation in al-Ghaza¯lı¯, particularly in the Mishka¯t al- anwa¯r , see Davidson, Alfarabi, Avicenna, and Averroes, on Intellect , 135–36, 151; and Frank, Creation , 83. 44. Lazarus-Yafeh, Studies in Al-Ghazzali , 307–12. Gairdner, “Al-Ghaza¯lı¯’s Mishka¯t al-Anwa¯r,” 138–39, had developed a similar argument based on the use of prepositions by al-Ghaza¯lı¯. 45. In the often-quoted passage from Mı¯za¯n al- ¶amal , 161–64 / 405–9, in which al-Ghaza¯lı¯ describes three different levels of outspokenness a scholar might have with regard to his teachings, he actually rejects the described attitude. He refers to a group of scholars who express one set of teachings in public disputations, another group who
not e s to page s 2 8 2 – 2 8 6 3 5 9 express their teachings while instructing their students, and a third group who keep it secret between themselves and God. Al-Ghaza¯lı¯ contrasts this attitude with the posi- tion to thoroughly investigate the subject in question, to develop one position, and to teach that in all circumstances to all people. The latter is the attitude to be favored. Ibn T.ufayl’s remark ( H.ayy ibn Yaqz.a¯n , 16.2–6) that the attitude described in this section is the root of some apparent contradictions in al-Ghaza¯lı¯’s works has had a very mislead- ing infl uence on many later interpreters. 46. Al-Ghaza¯lı¯, Ih.ya¯ 7 , 1:44–61 / 49–70. 47. See, for instance, Strauss, Persecution and the Art of Writing , 38–78. bibliogr aphy 1. Only the fi rst part of the Nas.ı¯h.at al-mulu¯k (pp. 1–79 in Huma¯ 7ı¯’s edition) is authored by al-Ghaza¯lı¯; the second part (pp. 81–287) is by another, unknown author of the sixth/twelfth century. See Crone, “Did al-Ghaza¯li Write a Mirror for Princes?”; Download 4.03 Mb. Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: 
|