al-ghazzali s final word on kalam

7/24/2019 Al-Ghazzali s Final Word on Kalam

1/23

Fiazuddin Shuayb is PhD Candidate in Islamic Studies, UCLA. Email:[email protected].

Islam &Science,Vol. 9 (Winter 2011) No. 2ISSN 1703-7603 (Print); ISSN 1703-7602X (Online)

Al-Ghazzls Final Word onKalm

Fiazuddin Shuayb

Al-Ghazzls last work on speculative theologyIljmal- awm an ilm al-kalm(Saving Muslims from Specu-lative Theology)reflects a significant departure fromthe Ashar school of thought and arrival at the way ofthesalaf (madhhab al-salaf). This so-calledsalafpath es-poused inIljmis indicative of the theological approachof Traditionalists, especially anbals, which vehementlyrejectedKalmand allegorical interpretations of divineattributes. In Iljm, his opponents are not so much theMu tazils as they are the ashw anthropomorphists. Al-

though he still recognizedKalmas a scholastic disciplinethat basically met the goal of protecting the Sunn creedand defending it against heresies, he was convinced thatits method ultimately failed to delineate a decisive her-meneutic path to intimately knowing God and His attri-butes. This paper briefly examines al-GhazzlsIljm, itskey theological constructs, its relative importance withinthe Sunn corpus onKalm, and the scholarly debate overthe meaning of the Way of the Salaf.

Keywords:Ashar interpretation; al-Ghazzl;Iljm;Kalm; Way of theSalaf; common folk.

Introduction

Al-Ghazzl1(d. 505 /1111), one of the most famous of all Muslim theologians,authored several Sunn treatises on speculative or scholastic theology ( ilm

1. Scholars have long differed on the proper pronunciation and writing of hisname: al-Ghazzl, al-Ghazl, al-Gazel, etc. I adhere to the first, thatis, al-Ghazzl, based on the majority opinion of Muslim historiansand genealogists who follow Ibn al-Athrs rendition. See Murta al-Zabd, Itf al-sdat al-muttaqnbi shar Iy ulm al-dn (Beirut:Muassasa al-Trikh al-Arab, 1994), vol. 1, 18.


2/23

152nIslam& Science nVol. 9 (Winter 2011) No. 2

al-kalm)2, includingal-Risla al-qudsiyya f qaw id al-aqid (The JerusalemEpistle)3,al-Arba n f ul al-dn(Forty Points on Islamic Orthodoxy)4,al-

Iqtid fil-i tiqd(The Golden Mean in Belief)5,Fayal al-tafriqa baynal-Islm

wal-zandaqa (The Criterion of Distinction between Islam and ClandestineUnbelief)6, andal-Maqad al-asn f shar asm Allh al-usn (The BrilliantAim of Explaining Allahs Beautiful Names).7These works generally set forthhis pro-Ashar8viewpoint. His final work onKalm,entitledIljm al-awm anilm al-kalm(Saving Muslims from Scholastic Theology),9however, marks a

2. I translate ilm al-kalm, or simply Kalm, here as scholastic theologyreservedly, since scholasticism proper developed as an intellectualmethod and system in an entirely different cultural context; namely,

within the western church, particularly Roman Catholicism.

Nevertheless, Muslim Kalm and Christian scholastic theologyshare a hermeneutic approach in common, seeking to understandreligious faith through rational proofs while integrating theologyand philosophy. As for the origins of the term ilm al-kalm,according to Ibn Khaldn, there are two theories: (i) it arose fromthe argumentation over heresies, which is a type of speech exchange(kalm arf) and does not rebound upon action, or (ii) it stemmedfrom the dispute of theologians over affirmation ofal-kalm al-nafs(speech of the soul or self). See Ibn Khaldn,al-Muqaddima(Cairo:Dr al-Fajr, 2004), 559.

3. Translated by Nabih Faris and published as The Foundations of the Articles ofFaith (Lahore: Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, 1999).

4. Available in Arabic print.

5. A partial translation was done by A. Abu Zayd and published asAl-Ghazalion Divine Predicates (Lahore: Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, 1970).

6. Translated by Sherman A. Jackson and published as On the Boundaries ofTheological Tolerance in Islam: Ab mid al-Ghazls Fayal al-Tafriqa(Karachi: Oxford University Press, 2002).

7. Translated by David Burrell and Nazih Daher and published asAl-Ghazali

on the Ninety-nine Beautiful Names of God (Cambridge: The IslamicTexts Society, 1992).

8. The Ash ar theological school of thought is named after its founder Ablasan al-Ashar (d. 334/945) who was a former Mutazil. He is oneof the original founders of Sunn Kalmin opposition to Mutazil

Kalm. His works include the well knownMqalt al-islmiyyn, Rislafitisn al-khaw f ilm al-kalm, and al-Ibna an ul al-diynawhich are available in Arabic print; the second work was translatedand published asA Vindication of the Science of Kalm in Richard J.McCarthy, The Theology of Al-Ashar(Beirut: Imprimerie Catholique,

1953).9. Al-Ghazzl,Iljm al- awm an ilm al-kalm,ed. M. al-Mutaim bi-Llh


3/23

Fiazuddin Shuaybn153

departure from Asharism and arrival at the so-called Way of theSalaf (madhhabal-salaf). His eventual embrace of the Salaf theological method, hitherto, hasnot received the attention that it deserves in the scholarly discourse onkalm.

Although noting thatkalm still had utility for some people on certain matters,he posited that its method had ultimately failed to pave a clear hermeneuticway to God and His attributes; therefore, he no longer recommended itforthe common folk (al-awm). This paper briefly examines al-GhazzlsIljm,highlights its key theological constructs and relationship to his earlierkalmtreatises, and explores his advocacy ofmadhhab al-salaf.

Authenticity ofIljm

Al-Ghazzl wroteIljmal-awm an ilm al-kalmshortly before he died. The

work is cited in several listings of authentic works attributed to him, includingjuddn al-Subks (d. 771/1370) abaqt al-shfiyya al-kubr (in which it isentitledIljm al- awm f(instead of an)ilm al-kalm),10Ibn Q Shuhbas(d. 779/1448)abaqt al-shafiyya,11al-Zabds (d. 1205/1790)Itf al-sdat al-

muttaqn bi shar Iy ulm al-dn,12and al-ussayn al-Wsis (d. 776/1374)al-abaqt al-uly.13Under the heading Later Dogmatic Works in his articleThe Authenticity of Works Attributed to Al-Ghazali, W. Montgomery Wattcited the 1309 AH Cairo edition ofIljm.14In hisRevised Chronology of GhazalisWritings, George F. Hourani included it with the following note: Iljam al-awamm an ilm al-kalam (Cairo 1309 = 1891/92, Maymuniyya Press). Thiswork is dated precisely by a colophon as having been completed in the firstdays of Jumada II, 505, i.e., a few days before Ghazalis death on the 14th ofthat month (December 18, 1111). The colophon is in a very early manuscript,Istanbul: Shehid Ali 1712: 1, which gives its own date of completion asthe middle of Shabn, 507=113.15 This citation agrees with Houranis

Morony (UCLA), but has not yet been published.10. Al-Subk, al-abaqt al-shfi iyya al-kubr, 5th ed. (Cairo: Dr Iy al-

Kutub al-Arab), vol. 6, 225.

11. Ibn Q Shuhba, abaqt al-shfiiyya (Hyderabad: Dira Marif al-Uthmniyya, 1978), vol. 1, 328.

12. Al-Zabd,Itf, vol. 1, 41.

13. See the biography of al-Ghazzl in al-Wsis al-abaqt al- uliyya inAbdul al-Amr al-A sam,al-Faylasf al-Ghazzl, 2nd ed. (Beirut: Dral-Andalus, 1981), 181.

14. W. Montgomery Watt, The Authenticity of Works Attributed to Al-Ghazali,JRAS(1952): 44.


4/23


information on it in an earlier listing of al-Ghazzls works.16ExaminingIljm,Frank Griffel opined that both the early date of the manuscript as well as thenotice [i.e. the colophon] about the dating of the text may have been inserted

later in order to increase its marked value.17

This speculation is baseless.18

Inhis Arabic listing of al-Ghazzls writings, Mashhad al-Allf noted thatIljmisa book on the Way of the Salafand is the last book that al-Ghazzl wrote atthe beginning of Jamd al-khira, 505 AH, that is, shortly before his death onMonday, Jamd al-khira 14, 505 AH (December 18, 1111) by no more thantwo weeks. He added: It is considered a very important work of Imam al-Ghazzl because you can clearly read in it that his method was the same as thatof the righteous predecessors (al-salaf al-li), so much so thatIljmis namedin some manuscripts asRisla f madhhab ahl al-salaf(A Treatise on the Way of

the Salaf)in which he emphasized Imam Mliks (d. 179/795) statement19as the foundation of his subject [of interpreting Divine Attributes], stickingto it, and repeating it in a number of places.20Under the first section ofhisMuallaft al-Ghazzl, headlined Works Attributed to al-Ghazzl that areDefinitely Authentic, Abdul Ramn Badaw confirmed the aforementionedentries on Iljm, giving additional listings of it in Brockelmann, the BritishMuseum, and several other sources.21Iljmhas been published several timesin Arabic: Istanbul (1278/1861); Cairo (1303/1885; 1309/1891; 1328/1910;

1350/1932; 1351/1932); and Beirut (1406/1985). A Spanish translation ofIljm

16. George F. Hourani, The Chronology of Ghazls Writings,Journal ofthe American Oriental Society79, no. 4 (OctoberDecember 1959): 233.

17. Frank Griffel, Al-Ghazls Philosophical Theology (New York: OxfordUniversity Press, 2009), 266.

18. Cf. W. Montgomery Watt, The Study of al-Ghazl, Oriens 13/14(1960/1961): 124 n. 1.

19. It is reported that Mlik b. Anas was once asked, What isistiw ? Hereplied: Al-istiw is known; its modality is unknown; faith in it isobligatory; and questioning it is heresy. The word is found in theQurn in several places, such as[He] has applied His design (istaw) tothe heaven (Q 2:29).Istaw is polysemic, having several meanings in

Arabic, such as seeking symmetry, evenness, or equality in things,to own, and the like. See discussion of this below. See al-Ghazzl,

Iy ulmal-dn(Beirut: Dr al-Kutub al-Ilmiyya, 1992), 12324;al-Bayw,al-Tafsr(Beirut: Dr Iy al-Turth al-Arab), vol. 1, 66.

20. Mashhad al-Allf, Kutub al-imm al-Ghazzl al-thbit minh wal-manhl

(2002), http://www.ghazali.org/biblio/AuthenticityofGhazaliWorks-AR.htm.


5/23


exists22and, more recently, an English translation of it has been published forpopular consumption.23There is no dispute thatIljmis an authentic work ofal-Ghazzl.

Kalm under al-Ghazzl

Kalm,as defined by Ibn Khaldn (d. 808/1406), is the science that involvesarguments with rational proofs in defense of the articles of faith and refutationsagainst heresies opposed to ways of the earlier Muslim generations (madhhib

al-salaf) and Sunn orthodoxy (ahl al-sunna).24Al-Ghazzl had viewedKalmin a similar way,25holding it to be a collective duty (far al-kifya) upon theMuslim community but not necessarily binding on every individual member(far al-ayn). He himself evaluated most of his own writings on Kalm. In

Iy al-ulmal-dn, for example, he wrote, We turn now to ilm al-kalmand say that it has advantages and disadvantages, usefulness and harm. Withregard to its usefulness, whenever it is useful it is lawful, commendable, orobligatory, as the occasion demands. As for its harm, whenever it is harmful itis unlawful; and its harm lies in raising doubts and undermining the articlesof faith, removing them from the realms of certitude and decisiveness. Thesethings get lost at first and restoring them by means of proof is dubious andvaries among individuals.26Thus, a theologian (mutakallim) should act like aphysician, adeptly administering strong medicine to the sick in the right dose,at the right time, and at the right place. He urged that his brief statement onthe Sunn creed (tarjama aqda ahl-sunna), which is found in hisIyand isstraightforward and free of arguments, be taught to those who are exposedto one dominant school of theology and rarely encounter heresies. In anenvironment in which heresies are prevalent, however, he advised that childrenshould be taught hisJerusalem Epistle instead. But If [the youth] was bright

22. El justo medio en la creencia, trans. Miguel Asin Palacios (Madrid: Compendiode teleologa dogmatic, 1929); see Badaw,Mu allaft al-Ghazzl, 139.

23. Abdullah bin Hamid Ali, A Return to Purity of Creed (Philadelphia:Lamppost Publications, 2008). Ali is of the view that al-Ghazzl didnot repudiate any opinion that he held about the Ashar school orthe science of Kalm. I discuss the various ways in which Iljmhasbeen received in the section below entitled Reactions toIljmand the

Way of the Salaf of this paper.

24. Ibn Khaldn, al-Muqaddima, 551. Cf. al-Qinawwj, Abjad al- ulm(Damascus: Wizrat al-Thaqfa wal-Irshd al-Qawm, 1978), vol. 2,44053; Louis Gardet, Ilm al-Kalm inEncyclopedia of Islam, 2nd

ed.(Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1971), vol. 3.25. See W. Montgomery Watt, The Faith and Practice of Al-Ghazl(London:

G All & Ud i L d 1952) 27


6/23


but became aware of a certain question or grew skeptical about somethingin his mind, then the dreaded disease [of skepticism] has appeared and themalady has become visible. There is no harm, then, to promote [the youth]

to reading the equivalent of that which we have included in the book entitledThe Golden Mean in Belief, equaling about fifty folios and free of any departurefrom discussing foundations of the articles of faith to other investigations of thescholastic theologians.27If doubt still persists after the foregoing pedagogicalmeasures are taken, he believed that the malady had become chronicandthatKalmis then useless in actually fostering belief in the fundamental articlesof faith. Revisiting the discourse in hisal-Munqidh min al-all (Deliverancefrom Error)28, al-Ghazzl acknowledged the aim ofKalmbut, at the sametime, criticized its methodology:

Theologians performed the task to which God invited them; theysuccessfully preserved orthodoxy, defended the creed receivedfrom the prophetic source, and rectified heretical innovations.Nevertheless in so doing they based their arguments on premises

which they took from their opponents and which they werecompelled to admit by nave belief (taqlid), or the consensus ofthe community, or bare acceptance of Quran and Traditions.For the most part their efforts were devoted to making explicitthe contradictions of their opponents and criticizing them inrespect of the logical consequences of what they admitted. This

was of little use in the case of one who admitted nothing at allsave logically necessary truths.29

In the west, there is no scholarly consensus on al-Ghazzls final theology.Wolfson observed that with regard to theKalam, while he disapproved of itsmethods, he approved of its views, whereas, with regard to philosophy, quite theoppositewhile he disapproved of its views, he approved of its methods. This,on the whole, may also be considered as a characterization of philosophizedAsh ariteKalam.30Wensinck remarked that al-Ghazl did not radically reject

Kalm, and so Aristotelianism kept its place side by side with Platonism.31

Onal-Ghazzls attitude towardKalmand Sufism, Watt commented that therewas no radical change in his theological views when he became a Sufi mystic,only a change in his interests, and that some of his earlier works in the field

27. Ibid.; cf. Arent J. Wensinck, The Muslim Creed: Its Genesis and HistoricalDevelopment(New York: Barnes & Noble, Inc, 1965), 95101.

28. Translated as Watt,Faith and Practice.

29. Ibid., 28.30. Harry A. Wolfson, The Philosophy of the Kalam(Massachusetts: Harvard

U i i P 1976) 42


7/23


of dogmatics are quoted with approval inal-Munqidh.32Investigating aspectsofKalmin which he believed al-Ghazzl was considered innovative amongAsh ars (e.g. his denial of the theory of optimum, atomism, and the theory ofthe soul), Nakamura argued that he had stepped out of traditional Asharismor did not faithfully adhere to it in every respect.33Marmura held that al-Ghazzls position remained basically Ash ar, albeit pointing toward gnosis,and that he was generally and, at times, highly critical of theKalmmethod.34Frank, who investigated his open conflicts with Ash ars and rejection of their

Kalm, opined that it would be extremely difficult to discern any notabletheoretical development or evolution in al- Ghazzls theologyif any,indeed, there befromMaqidtoIljm.35Griffel, building on the views ofWensinck and others before him, went so far as to dismiss the notion that al-

Ghazzl embraced Traditionalism (i.e. what was claimed as the Way of theSalaf) before he died,36but the preponderant evidence inIljmis against him,as will be discussed shortly.

Iljm contrasts sharply with al-Ghazzls earlier Kalm works in twosignificant ways. The first is that it represents his most scathing disapprovalof Kalm. In Iljm, he argued that although Kalm-type propositions andarguments constitute an epistemological path to belief in Divinity, it did notreflect the highest or best standard of knowledge on the subject. For faithin God, His attributes, and His works can be acquired by the speculative

proofs of Kalm based on propositions that are acceptable only because oftheir popularity with leading scholars, the ignominy involved in repudiatingthem, and the peoples aversion to any dissemination of doubt in them. In thismanner, the science ofKalmis useful in some theological matters, constitutinga justified belief (tadq jzim) for the few who do not perceive the possibility ofits contradiction.37Beyond that, al-Ghazzl saw little or no benefit inKalm,advocating instead the teaching of Qurnic proofs to the common folk.38Thesecond way is thatIljmdistanced itself from the Ashar approach to Divine

Attributes based on figurative interpretation (tawl), thereby aligning with theTraditionalists (like anbals) who strictly prohibited allegorical renditions of

32. Watt,Faith and Practice, 12.

33. Kojiro Nakamura, Was Ghazl an Asharite? The Memoirs of the ResearchDepartment of Toyo Bunko51 (1993): 45.

34. Michael E. Marmura, Ghazali and Ash arism Revisited,Arabic Sciencesand Philosophy12 (2002): 9294.

35. R.M. Frank,Al-Ghazali and the Ash arite School(London: Duke UniversityPress, 1994), 91.

36. Griffel,Al-Ghazls Philosophical Theology, 266.

37 Ilj 112


8/23


divine attributes and who were mainly identified with the Salaf theologicalmethod. In al-Ghazzls own words inIljm, I say that it is unlawful (arm)for preachers on the pulpits to answer questions [from the common folk] thatdelve into

tawland elaborateness [on divine attributes]; rather, the preachers

duty is to confine themselves to what we have mentioned here as well as thesalaf, strongly emphasizing Allahs sanctity and negating anthropomorphism(tashbh).39

Post-Ashar al-Ghazzl

Throughout its long timeline, from the fourth/ninth century to the eighth/thirteenth century, theKalmdiscourse was largely dominated by the dialecticsof Ashars, Traditionalists, Mutazils, and Shis (especially Zayds and

Ismals to some extent). During this contentious period and beyond, manyleading Muslim scholars, representing the majority Traditionalist orthodoxy,40were adamantly opposed to the ideas ofKalm. Several compilations of theirnames have been made. Among them were Ab anfa (d. 150/769)41, Sufynal-Thawr (d. 161/778), Mlik b. Anas (d. 179/795), Ab Ysuf (d. 182/798), al-Shfi (d. 204/819), Amad b. anbal (d. 241/855), al-Balkh (d. ca. 309/921or 319/931), Ibn al-al (d. 643/1245), al-Qurub (d. 671/1272), al-Nawaw(d. 676/1277), Ibn al-Wazr (d. 840/1436), al-Shawkn (d. 1250/1834), andmany more too numerous to mention here.42 Specifically on the issue of

interpreting divine attributes, Mutazils43 categorically denied them (tal),

39. Ibid., 64.

40. George Makdisi, Ashar and the Ash arites in Islamic Religious HistoryI, Studia Islamica17 (1962): 49.

41. The evidence is indirect in respect of Ab anfa, since there is no recordof him, as far as I know, specifically condemningKalm,unlike manyof his Traditionalist contemporaries; rather, his opposition to it hasbeen deduced from his reported dislike for disputation, far less

sophistry, to promote religious truths. See al-Qr, Mina al-rawal-azhr (known as Shar al-fiqh al-akbr) (Beirut: Dr al-Bashir al-Islmiyya, 1998), 3233.

42. For more on Traditionalists opposed toKalm, seeIy , vol. 1, 114; Faris,Foundations of the Articles of Faith, 1620; al-Dhahab,Mukhtaar al- ulwli al al-ghaffr, ed. al-Albn (Damascus: al-Maktab al-Islm, 1981),135286; Ibn al-Wazr, Tarj aslb al-Qurn ala al-aslb al-yunn(Cairo edition, 1930), 2427; al-Suy, Itmm ad-dirya li qurr al-

naqya(Calcutta: Mahar al- Aj ib, 1864), 23; al-Qr, Shar al-fiqhal-akbr, 2942; iddq . Khan al-Qinnawj, Qad al-sabl il dhamm

al-kalm wal-ta wl(Beirut: Dar Ibn Hazm, 2000), 4656.43. Muslim heresiographers list the Mu tazils as a Muslim sect known by


9/23


explaining away these predicates figuratively (tawl): Gods hand symbolizesHis power,istiw His seizure or occupation of a thing by force, and the like,whereas Ashars affirmed Gods attributes like knowledge ( ilm), will

(irda), power (qudra), life (ayt), hearing (sam), sight (baar), speech(kalm), face (wajh), eyes (a yun), and so forth, linking them to the eternaldivine essence (dht) but without asking how (bi-l kayf).44It is believed bysome that al-Ashar also opened the door of tawlas regards divine attributes,leading them to the opinion that he had a two-faced position, two schoolsof thought, or followed two middle-of-the-road theological positions.45LaterAshar scholars like al-Bqilln (d. 403/1012), Ibn Frak, al-Baghdd, al-Qushayr, and others among the Nishapur Ashars are believed to have alsopermitted and applied tawl to divine attributes if deemed necessary.46But

others have argued that al-Ashar, al-Bqilln, et al abandoned tawlin theend, falling back on the Traditionalist bi-l kayf.47This debate is perennial.Suffice it to say that it is possible that al-Ashar and al-Bqilln allowedtawlat one time and disavowed it at another time, suggesting evolutionaryphases of their theology and not necessarily simultaneous adherence to two

Islamic Monotheism). One of their founders was Wil b. A (d.131/748). He differed with al-asan al-Bar (d. 110/728) on a numberof issues and separated (i tazala) from him; hence the label Mu tazils.

Their opponents associated Mutazilitism with a five article creed: i)tawd(Islamic Monotheism, which espoused creation of the Qurn,negation of Divine Attributes through figurative interpretations, etc.);ii) adl(Justice); iii)inqdh al-wa d(Salvation through Fulfillmentof Gods Promise); iv) bayna l-manzilatayn(Between Two Positions);and v)al-amr bil-ma rf wa nahy anil-munkar(Enjoining Good andForbidding Evil). Mu tazils were not a monolithic group, splinteringinto some 20 schisms over time. See al-Shahrastn,al-Milal wal-nial,2nd ed. (Beirut: Dar al-Ma rifa, 1993), vol. 1, 5663;Mawsa kashshf

iilat al-funn wal-ulm, ed. Rafic al-Ajam (Beirut: Librairie duLiban Publishers, 1996), vol. 2, 157475.

44. Al-Bqilln,al-Inf f m yajib i tiqdahu wa l yajz al-jahl bih, 2nd ed.(Cairo: al-Makataba al-Azhariyya lil-Turth, 2000), 25.

45. Al-Sharastn, al-Milal wal-nial, vol. 1, 106; al-Subk, al-abaqt al-shfi iyya al-kubr, vol. 4, 33; Makdisi, Ashar and the Asharites I,4244.

46. W. Montgomery Watt,Islamic Philosophy and Theology: An Extended Survey(Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1985), 7984; Nakamura,Was Ghazl an Ash arite?5.

47. Al-Dhahab, Mukhtaar al- ulw li al al-ghaffr, 25859; Ibn Darbs,Risla fil-Dhabb an Ab al-asan al-Ashar inal-Arba n f dal il

al-tawd, ed. Ali b. Nir (KSA: Islamic University of Madina, 1984),


10/23


schools or positions. In any case, al-Ghazzl undoubtedly had in mind Asharproponents of tawlwhen he wrote, Another group advocated the middle ofthe road position and permitted allegorical interpretation in everything which

relates to the attributes of God but have taken the things which pertain to thehereafter in a literal sense and forbade their allegorical interpretation. Theadvocates of this position are the Ashars. The Mutazils go further. Theyexplain away the possibility of seeing God and His being possessed of hearingand sight.48His repudiation of tawlfor the common folk comes to the foreinIljm.

Returning to its form and content, al-Ghazzl openedIljms first sectionwith the words [Know] that the truth with people of insight, in which there isno doubt, is themadhhab al-salaf. By that, I mean the way of the Companions

and the Followers (al-tbi n). I hereby present its explanation and proof.49The wordsalafis polysemous, having several meanings in Muslim tradition.Etymologically, salaf denotes such as have gone before, preceded, orpreceding generations as expressed in the Qurn: And We made them [a

people] of the past (salaf)and an example to later ages.50In Islamic parlance, atleast within the Sunn narrative,salafrefers to the early Muslim generationsup to the era of the Followers or the generation after them (i.e. tbiut al-tbin); hencemadhhab al-salaf, the tenets of the early Muslim generations.51Salafiyyn (followers of the Salaf or Salafists) is loosely applied to those whoimitate their religious belief and practice, though not in a monolithic fashion.Since the 2nd/8th century,salafand its derivatives (salaf,salafiyya, etc.) havebeen appropriated by many thinkers and groups to reclaim in diverse waysan imagined past utopia when Islam was best understood and implementedby pious Muslims. Thus, we find that the ashwiyya,52 who were identifiedwith anthropomorphism and apparently were still around in al-Ghazzlstime, claimed to be Salafiyyn53; among the three major schisms of Immiyya

48. Iy , vol. 1, 123; Faris,Foundations of the Articles of Faith, 51; cf. al-Ghazzl,al-Maqad al-asn f shar ma n asm Allh al-usn,ed. Fadlou A.Shehadi (Beirut: Dr al-Mashriq, 1971), 192.

49. Iljm, 53.

50. Q 43:56 (Y. Ali translation). See also Ibn Manr,Lisn al- Arab(Cairo: Dral-Marif, n.d.), vol. 3, 206970.

51. Edward Lane,Arabic-English Lexicon(London: Williams & Norgate, 1863),1408.

52. Here al-Ghazzl uses ashwiyya pejoratively for anthropomorphists

in general. For further information on the term, see the articleashwiyya (ashawiyya, ushwiyya, or Ahl al-ashw) inE l di f I l 2 d d (L id E J B ill)


11/23

Fiazuddin Shu aybn161

Shi ism, one group called themselvesal-Salafiyya(the other two were known fortheir Mutazila and Mushabbaha, i.e. tashbh, orientations)54; in Ibn Taymiyyasworks, adherence to the path ofal-salaf al-liis a major theme; more recently,the

SalafiyyaSchool in Egypt was pioneered by Muammad Abduh (d. 1905);

and the contemporary Wahhab-Salaf religious phenomenon, originatingin Saudi Arabia, is the latest manifestation of the Salaf trend almost as oldas Islam itself. By madhhab al-salaf, al-Ghazzl clarified in Iljm, hemeantthe following: The reality of the Way of the Salaf, which is correct to us, isthat every lay person, who comes across an ambiguous tradition [concerningDivine Attributes], is obliged to do seven things: (i) sanctification (taqds), (ii)acceptance (tasdq), (iii) confession of inability (i tirf bil- ajaz),(iv) silence(sukt), (v) restraint (imsk), (vi) abstinence (kaff),and(vii) deference to the

people of gnosis (al-taslm li-ahl al-ma rifa).These are the seven principlesthat the Salafcollectively believed are incumbent on the common folk. It isimproper to think that they believed otherwise.55

Why does this particular theological approach, which shunsanthropomorphism (tashbh) and denial (ta l), constitute the Way of theSalafand correct understanding of divine attributes inIljm? To support hisclaims, al-Ghazzl provided two arguments based respectively on logical andtheological proofs. The rational proof is that the Prophet is better acquaintedwith God and His revelation than anyone else, that he faithfully disclosed the

Guidance to the people, and that he never endorsed speculative inquiry intothe nature of divine attributes; therefore, his Sunna as regards these mattersought to be followed. As for the theological proof, al-Ghazzl expressed it insyllogistic form:

The Way of the Salafis true and is opposite to heresy (bida), which isblameworthy,

The common folks delving into interpretation (tawl) of divineattributes is a blameworthy bida,

Therefore, opposition to itabstinence from speculative inquiry intoDivine Attributes (i.e.Kalm)is recommended and praiseworthy.56

Therefore, every time a layperson raises a question on the nature ofdivine attributes, al-Ghazzls advice is that Mliks classic response should begiven, so as to shut the door on the strife (fitna) of theological controversiesand fanaticism in society. Recall that when Mlik was asked, What isistiw ?he answered, Istiw is known (ma lm); its modality unknown (majhl); faith

54. Muammad Al Tahnaw,Mawsa kashshf iilat al-funn wal- ulm(Beirut: Dar Sader, 1996), vol. 1, 96869.

55 Ilj 51


12/23


in it is obligatory (wjib); and questioning it is heresy (bida).57Moreover, al-Ghazzl required laypersons to affirm that istiw in the proof-texts doesnot refer to sitting or settled, fixity of location, which are attributes ofmaterial bodies; rather, they should recognize that the actual meaning of

istaw is unknown to them and they should not feel obliged to inquire into itsknowledge, accepting as true the Qurnic words the Most Gracious (istaw )onthe Throne of His almightiness.58That, in a nutshell, is al-Ghazzls explanationof the Way of the Salafupon which he embarked in Iljm, sailing a middlecourse between outright denial of divine attributes (ta l) and ta wl, on theone hand, and anthropomorphism (tashbh), on the other. Divine Attributesare to be affirmed to the common folk just as they are reported in the Qurnand adth, without filtering them through figurative or literal interpretation.

Thus, al-Ghazzls Salaf approach with regard to explaining divineattributes to the common folk (as expressed inIljm) differed from the Asharposition mainly in its retention of bi-l kayf, avoidance of ta wl, and rejection of

Kalm; it differed from the anthropomorphists in its repudiation of tashbh.59

The Scope ofIljm

Iljm is a concise treatise. It addresses three major themes interspersed withrhetorical exchanges with an interlocutor. The first theme explains the realityof the Way of the Salafconcerning certain ambiguous traditions (i.e.,adth)

on divine attributes. The second theme discusses the proof that the Way of theSalafis correct and devoid of error and that opposition to it constitutes heresy(bida). The third theme addresses ancillary issues pertaining to understandingdivine attributes within the context of Islamic axial texts, the Qurn and adth.Al-Ghazzls hermeneutic approach is two-fold, involving (i) the acceptance oftextual descriptions of God, His attributes, and His works at face value, and (ii)the application of reason to prune them of anthropomorphic, negating, andfigurative readings. According to this rational conceptual framework, wherever

God is described in the proof-texts, for example, as having eyes, hands,and the like, and a being that ascends and descends, these descriptionsought to be accepted verbatim; at the same time, it should be understood thatDivine Attributes neither resemble human attributes in essence or function norare they metaphors for speculative abstract realities or allegories.

Here is a typical example fromIljm:

57. Iy , vol. 1, 12324.

58. Q 20:5 (M. Asad translation). Altogether, the verbal form ofistaw in the

third person singular is mentioned in the same context in twelveplaces in the Qurn: 2:29; 7:54; 10:3; 13:2; 20:5; 25:59; 28:14; 32:4;41 11 48 29 53 6 d 57 4


13/23

Fiazuddin Shu aybn163

When [the believer] hears the wordabovein the words of Allah,He (Allah) is the Irresistible, [watching] from above (fawq) over Hisworshippers,60orThey all revere their Lord, high above (fawq)them,61let him know thatfawqis multivocal, designating two meanings.

Firstly,fawqrefers to a bodys relationship to another, such thatthe one is above and the other below; that is, higher in relationto lower. Secondly,fawqalso expresses rank, as in the statementthe caliph is above (fawq) the sultan, and the sultan is above(fawq) the vizier. The former invokes two bodies in [spatial]relationship to each other; the latter does not. Therefore, letthe faithful firmly believe that the first meaning is not intendedand is inconceivable in respect of Allah, since it is a contingencyof bodies or accidents of bodies. If a person is aware of thenegation of this unthinkable reference in relation to the Divinity,

then nothing more is required of him if he does not know whyit is expressed in such a manner or what is meant by it. Nowcompare what we have mentioned here with that which we havenot.62

Iljm is replete with such examples, which Frank considered to be oftenredundant and repetitious polemic.63 Under closer scrutiny, however, suchrepetitiveness appears not to be woodenly repeated or pointless but is a literarystyle utilized by al-Ghazzl to underline his concern about grave theologicalissues, namely, the believers ascription of wrong or false beliefs to God and

the necessity of heightening awareness of the errors of anthropomorphismand denial of divine attributes. Given the oft-repeated condemnationsof anthropomorphism in Iljm, Frank suggested that one could take itthat the work is directed, at least in part, against the Karramiyya and theanbalites. It is plain, however, that they lie only marginally within his lineof fire. Al-Ghazalis principal aim is to distinguish those to whom it is givento have knowledge of the divine things, so as to understand the metaphoricaldescriptions of God, such as those who share his higher theology, from those towhom it is not.64But it is apparent from the text that the common folk were hisprime audience, as is evident from the full title of his work (Iljm al- awm anilm al-kalm; literally, Saving the Common Folk from Scholastic Theology),which brings us to the question: who are they? Curiously, al-Ghazzl regardedthe common folk as not only laypersons but also scholars of the exoteric Islamicsciences, including jurists (fuqah ), theologians (mutakallimn), exegetes(mufassirn),adthscholars (muhadiththn), grammarians (nut), and the like.

60. Q 6:18 (Y. Ali translation).

61. Q 16:50 (Y. Ali translation).

62. Iljm, 5859.

63 F k Al Gh li d h A h i S h l 83


14/23


All of them are in need of rescue from the dangers ofKalm, which encouragesspeculation, which in turn leads to abominable interpretation or, worse, denialof Divine Attributes contrary to the Way of the Salaf. Because of its probabilistictendency, given the polysemous nature of descriptions,

ta lis more difficult

to treat than tashbh,65 since the latter can easily be refuted with Qurnicproofs likenothing is like unto Him(laysa ka-mithlihi shay).66The only class ofpeople that al-Ghazzl exempted from the broad category of the commonfolk are the skilled divers into gnosis (ma rifa) who, by shortening theirlives, renouncing the life of the world and passions, and abandoning wealth,glory, and pleasures, learned how to swim in its oceans; they are sincere toGod in knowledge and deed, executing the ordinances of Islamic law (shar a)and etiquette as regards obedience and disobedience, emptying their hearts

collectively from everything besides God, and disdaining the worldly life, eventhe hereafter and the highest abode in Paradise, purely for the sake of Godslove; nevertheless, they too are in grave peril in which nine out of ten diversperish, save the one who is happy, having obtained the hidden pearl andtreasured secret.67For this class of successful peoplethe skilled divers ofgnosisGod has decreedal-usn,or, the best outcome:And thy Lord knows

all that their hearts conceal and all that they reveal.68

The preceding passage indicates al-Ghazzls contention, to wit, that onlythose favored with the mystical experience, intuition, or union with God can

truly apprehend the secrets and mysteries of divine attributes. These specialpeople include of course the prophets, the veracious ones (iddiqn), the Salaf(who, as he defined them, were the Prophets Companions and Followers),the people of gnosis (ahl al-ma rifa), and the friends (awliy ) of God. Asfor the scholars (specialists in exoteric Islam) and laypeople who strive tobe acquainted with God and His ways, they should avoid the perplexity of

Kalmthe abstruse discussion on Divine Attributes, involving philosophicalconcepts of essence, bodies, accidents, substance, disputation, and its rational

framework of speculative theologyapplying themselves assiduously to hisseven-point guideline based onmadhhab al-salaf, lest they go astray, stumblinginto esoteric pathways beyond their threshold of comprehension.

Reactions toIljmand the Way of the Salaf

Al-Ghazzls late Salaf theological re-orientation and advocacy have longsince won the plaudits of Traditionalists in the Sunn world. In his book on theunlawfulness ofKalm, the anaf scholar Sirjuddn al-Qazwn (d. 750/1349)

65. Iljm, 100, 10304.

66. Q 42:11.

67 Ilj 67 68


15/23


mentioned that al-Ghazzl came around to accepting that (tawl) was unlawfulafter he had praised it.69In hisIrshd al-ful min ilm al-ul, al-Shawkn(d. 1250/1834) recounted Ab Amr b. al-als (d. 643/1245) statement that

there were three schools of theological thought as regards interpreting divineattributes: one group figuratively explained their apparent meanings; anothergroup anthropomorphized them; and a third group presumed that the DivineLawgiver would not have expressed them in such a manner unless He deemedits usage permissible and its outward acceptance properthus they declaredGods sanctification (taqds), transcendence (tanzh), and exoneration (tabarr)from all limitations, including anthropomorphism. The latter was the wayof the first part (adr) of the Ummah, the Muslims and their leaders, whichprominentfuqah andmuhaddithnlater adopted and which none of the great

muttakallimn ignored or rejected.70 Ibn al-al further stated, In severalplaces, al-Ghazzl eloquently articulated fleeing from everything besidesthis path, and ultimately reined in every scholar and layperson to it with hisbridlei.e., his bookIljm al- awm an ilm al-kalm. It is definitely the lastbook of al-Ghazzl, in which he urged them to adhere to the Way of the Salafand those who followed them.71Al-Shawkn added this comment:

Al-Dhahab (d. 748/1374), in his [Siyar] al-nubal , on thebiographical profile of Fakruddn al-Rz (d. 606/1209), statedthat he recognized it (the Way of the Salaf) toward the end ofhis life, saying I have reflected on the methods ofKalmand thephilosophers but did not see them curing the sick or soothinggrief; but I did see that the nearest path [to it] is that of theQuran. For I read in it about affirming (ithbt) that the MostGracious, established (istaw) on the throne of His almightiness?72;

unto Him ascend all good words.73I also read therein about negation(nafyi): there is nothing like unto Him.74Whosoever experiences

what I have experienced will know what I have learnt [about theambiguity of Divine Attributes].75On al-Juwayns (d. 478/1085)biographical profile, al-Dhahab wrote that he explained [in

his al-Risla al-nimiyya f al-arkn al-islmiyya (The Nimite

69. Al-Qr, Shar al-fiqh al-akbr, 30.

70. Cf. Ibn Khaldn,al-Muqadimma, 55758.

71. Al-Shawkni,Irshd al-ful(Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyya, 1999), vol.2, 47.

72. Q 20:5 (M. Asad translation).

73. Q 35:10 (M. Asad translation).74. Q 42:11 (M. Asad translation).


16/23


Treatise on the Islamic Pillars)76] that the learned among theSalaf rigidly abstained from figurative interpretation (tawl),accepting the apparent sense of the texts, and committing themeanings to the Lord, May He be exalted! (i.e., they declined

the mortal responsibility of interpreting them). As for theopinion that satisfies us and by which we are devoted to Allah asa duty, it is emulation of the Salafof this Umma. That is how theauthor of al-Nubal reported it,77adding that al-Juwayn also

wrote you must bear witness that I have turned away from everystatement that contradicts the Salaf.78These three scholarsImean, al-Juwayn, al-Ghazzl, and al-Rz, who greatly extendedthe discourse on tawlultimately returned to the Way of theSalaf, as you have learnt herein.79

According to Makdisi, Bqilln and Juwain, insofar as they adoptedthe way of the Ancestors (salaf), would appear to be againstKalm. And thisattitude against Kalm carries itself further down the line to a student ofJuwain, Ghazzl, whose fame surpassed that of the master.80

The reactions of Ashars to al-Ghazzls apparent adoption of the Wayof the Salafvaried: they either belittled his knowledge ofKalmor persistedin typecasting him as a proponent of Ashar thought. The latter is obviousin the works of Ibn Askir (d. 1176), al-Subk (d. 1370), and Ibn Khaldn (d.808/1406), to name a fewan apologist trend that continues today, as found in

ussayn AthysMawqif al-Ghazzl min ilm al-kalm, Sad Abdul Laf FdasMawqif al-imm al-Ghazzl min ilm al-kalm, and others. Ghazzls hostileattitude towardKalmis well known, Makdisi wrote. His work entitledIljm

al- awmm an ilm al-kalm(The Reining of the common people from the scienceof kalm) was a source of embarrassment to the Asharite propagandists whoreacted to it in various waysthe Asharite apologists (in general) do notmention GhazzlsIljmitself, though their concern about it and his referenceto Shfi in theIy as prohibitingKalmis evident.81The Mlik scholaral-Mzar (d. 530/1136), for example, when asked about al-Ghazzls theology,said As for ilm al-kalm, which constitutes the foundations of the religion (ul

76. See al-Juwayn, al- Aqda al-nimiyya f al-arkn al-islmiyya, ed.Muammad Zhid al-Kawthar (Cairo: al-Maktaba al-Azhar lil-Turth, 1992), 3234.

77. Al-Dhahab, Siyar, vol. 18, 47274.

78. Ibid., vol. 18, 473.

79. Al-Shawkni,Irshd al-ful, vol. 2, 48; al-Qinawwj, Qad al-sabl, 65.80. George Makdisi, Ash ar and the Ash arites in Islamic Religious History

II S di I l i 18 (1963) 32


17/23


al-dn),82al-Ghazzl also wrote on it but did not expatiate it or attain mastery(mustabir) of it. I investigated the reason, discovering that it was due to his studyof philosophy (falsafa) before achieving mastery inul al-dn; consequently, his

reading offalsafacaused him to take an audacious approach on semantics butwas lax toward realities. That is becausefalsafaproceeds on its own thoughtsungoverned by rulings ofshar aor without fear of contradicting the leaderswho follow it.83This critique of al-Ghazzl was robustly deflected by al-Subk:I concur with al-Mzars statement that he was not proficient (mustabir)in

Kalm, but I argue that his feet were firmly rooted in it, though not to the sameextent as they were in the other sciences; so his opinion is speculative. As forhis statement that al-Ghazzl was preoccupied withfalsafabefore he engaged

ul al-dn, it is not so; rather, he did not studyfalsafauntil after he had delved

intoul al-dn, as he himself clearly explained in al-Munqidhmin al-alla(Deliverance from Error).84Furthermore, al-Mzars claim that al-Ghazzlreadfalsafabefore becoming proficient (mustabir)inul al-dn, which comesafter his previous statement that he was not proficient (mustabir)inul al-

dn, is contradictory.85Indeed, despite being widely acknowledged as one ofthe greatest scholars of Islam (kibr al- ulam ), al-Ghazzl had his fair shareof critics among Shis, Mutazils, Zandiqa86, and Sunns, such as al-Mzar,al-arsh (d. 520/1127), Ibn al (d. 643/1245), Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728/1327),

Ibn Qayyim (d. 751/1350), and others who differed with him on a wide rangeof issues, including Arabic grammar, philosophy, Sufism (taawwuf), adth,andKalm.

In the western scholarly discourse on Muslim theology, the post-AsharSalaf phase of al-Ghazzls reflection onKalmis often overlooked. Wolfson

82. Ul al-dn(like ilm al-kalmoral- aq id(sing. aqda) is another term forMuslim theology.

83. Al-Subk,al-abaqt al-shafi iyya, vol. 6, 24041.

84. Al-Ghazzl,al-Munqidh minal-alla, ed. Mamd Bj, 2nd ed. (Amman:Dr al-Fat, 1992), 3740; Watt,Faith and Practice, 2729.

85. Al-Subk,al-abaqt al-shfi iyya, vol. 6, 247; al-Zabd,Itf, 29.

86. Zandiqa (sing.zindq) is Arabized from the Persian, meaning Manichaean;originally, it referred to a follower of Mazdek, a Zoroastrian highpriest, who preached that women and wealth are to be enjoyed andshared, and in whose time appeared the book Zendhencezandorthe Arabizedzindq(pl.zandaqa). The term was broadly applied toa person without religion, one who believes in the eternity of time, adisbeliever in the Hereafter, or simply non-Muslim heretics. See al-Khwrizm,Maft al- ulm, 2nd ed. (Beirut: Dr al-Kitb al-Arab,1989), 56; Ibn Manr,Lisn al- arab(Cairo: Dr al-Marif), vol. 3,


18/23


did not refer to it or theIljminThe Philosophy of the Kalam.Wensinck omittedit in The Muslim Creed. Nagel, in hisHistoryof Islamic Theology, presented al-Ghazzl as an innovative Asharite theologian87 and did not detect any

paradigm shift in his theology. Marmura, apart from a lone footnote onIljm in his Ghazali and Asharism Revisited, was preoccupied with the pre-Iljmworks. The list goes on. Al-Allf took umbrage at this seemingly glaringomission by Wolfson et al, suspecting it as part and parcel of an Orientalistagenda: This book (Iljm) is one of the most authentic books attributed to[al-Ghazzl], yet Orientalists eschewed it because of its commitment to theSunna, maxims, and lessons pertaining to the unification of Muslim ranksand their guidance to the straight path. Orientalists tried to disregard it andmisdirect students of knowledge away from it.88Al-Allf is right regarding

the oversight of al-Ghazzls Salaf position inIljm on the part of some non-Muslim scholars (as on the part of many Muslim scholars), but he misreadstheir reasons. First, some Islamicists information on Iljmmight have beensecondhand or they may not have inquired into it in the first place. Second,it is also possible that al-Ghazzls discussion of the Way of the Salaf hassimply been overshadowed by the long established conventional image of himas an Ashar thinker, causing many not to notice his late theological emphasisor underestimate it. Third, several scholars in the west have discussedIljm,

holding conflicting assessments of its thesis. Take Watt, for instance, whoacknowledged thatIljmis al-Ghazzls final work, insisting that he remainedan Ashar. A few days before his death he completed a short work (roughlywithin the field of jurisprudence89) in which he maintained that it was wrongto communicate the subtleties ofKalmto ordinary people. From these factsit seems certain that al-Ghazl remained a Shf ite and Ash arite to the endof his life, though he was using philosophical methods to defend Asharitedoctrine.90 Watt later revised his opinion: It has now received powerfulconfirmation from the discovery by Bouyges of a date for the Ilcm (Iljm)

which makes it the latest of all al-Ghazls works; for theIljm is concernedwith problems of tabh (anthropomorphism) which are essentially withinthe universe of discourse on scholastic theology.91 Griffel had first-handinformation on Iljm, even examining one of its manuscripts in order to

87. Tilman Nagel,Historyof Islamic Theology from Muhammad to the Present(Princeton: Markus Wiener Publishers, 2006), 195.

88. Al-Allf,Kutub al-imm al-Ghazzl; see note 19 above.

89. Watt mischaracterized Iljm as a work of jurisprudence. Unmistakably,Iljmis a work on Muslim theology.

90 W I l i Phil h d Th l 92


19/23


determine its authenticity, as noted earlier, but he was primarily interested intraces of changes in al-Ghazzls cosmology inIljm.92Frank treatedIljminhisAl-Ghazali and the Ash arite Schoolsubstantively, observing that al-Ghazalis

break with the school traditionhis isolation from scholars in the traditionin which he had been formedseems to have preoccupied him, for Iljm,written at the very end of his life, appears to be another response, albeit froma somewhat different angle.93As for Nakamura, he argued that because hisofficial theological viewpoint in a work from his final years, theIljm, is nodifferent from his early one [as expressed inIy andMizn, for example],we may conclude that Ghazl had two standpoints since a fairly early period:one was the official view of Asharism and the other was the teachings of theelite.94

In the final analysis, al-Ghazzls gravitation to the Way of the Salafwas not sudden or erratic, far less unintellectual95or child-like.96Indeed,he left us clues to this position scattered throughout hisKalmtreatises, someof which were examined here. To buttress this point, we find al-Ghazzl, inhis Fayal al-tafriqa bayna-l Islm wal-zandiqa (The Criterion of Distinctionbetween Islam and Clandestine Unbelief), outlining the Salaf method (inmuch the same way that his teacher Imam al-aramayn al-Juwayn had donein his The Nim Treatise on the Islamic Pillars97) as follows:

For the Common Folk, the truth [concerning tawl] lies infollowing the Way of the Salafand their refrain from changing thetexts apparent [meaning], innovating interpretations (tawlt)that did not issue from the Companions, questioning [theseambiguities], delving intoKalm, and examining ambiguities inthe Qurn and the Sunnah. As for those thinkers who aretroubled by their inherited beliefs, their investigation of theseissues should only be carried out as a necessity and their leavingaside the apparent [meaning of the text] by definite proof.Some people have hastened to tawltout of speculation, not

certainty. If the issues are unconnected with fundamentalarticles of faith, such people should not be judged unbelieversor blameworthy innovators in the religion. Nevertheless, werethe door [of tawlt] opened and its articulation permitted, it

would confuse the minds of the common folk, causing them tocommit innovation in all that has been related from the Salaf.

92. Griffel,Al-Ghazls Philosophical Theology, 266.

93. Frank,Al-Ghazali and the Ash arite School, 80.

94. Nakamura, Was Ghazl an Ash arite? 16.

95. Nagel,Historyof Islamic Theology, 195.

96 W I l i Phil h d Th l 83


20/23


But if the tawlt are connected with fundamental articles offaith, then it is mandatory to declare them unbelievers whohave changed the apparent meaning [of a proof-text] withoutany decisive evidencesuch as their denial of the resurrection

of bodies and physical punishments in the Hereafter based onsheer speculation and conjecture, since there is no proof thatthe return of souls to bodies is an impossibility98

In short, it appears that al-Ghazzls eventual turn to the Way of theSalaf was the culmination of a gradual realization, to wit, that the reconditemethod ofKalmwas essentially speculative, confusing, and did not promoteintimate knowledge of God and His divine attributes.Kalmdid not expandconsciousness of God in the hearts or minds of common believers or causethem to imbibefar less inculcatedivine attributes; therefore, his ruling isthat they should abandon it in terms of seeking to know God, His Attributes,and His works.

Is Sunn Theology Ashar or Salaf?

Iljm is not a mystical or Sufistic but a theological work, slightly intimating atthe path to gnosis. Al-Ghazzls treatment of divine attributes through theconceptual framework of the Salaf method makes his perennially popularAshar label a dubious distinction. Whatever was the trigger for this radically

modified view onKalm, he seemed to have realized that its disadvantagesdefinitely outweighed its advantages for those he called the common folk.Iljmwas his last-ditch effort to establish a hermeneutic approach to DivineAttributes on a didactic foundation, substituting the clichd ilm al-kalmwiththe Way of the Salaf.The gravitation of so many leading Muslim scholars inthe past to the Salaf method corroborates the findings of Makdisi and othersthat Asharism was never the mainstream, far less the dominant orthodoxy ofSunn Islam. Thus, one can hardly speak of a universally agreed upon SunnMuslim orthodoxy. As far as al-Ghazzl is concerned, his ultimate theology is

nuanced: he had some things in common with Traditionalists that he did notshare with Ashars; in the same way, he had some things in common with bothAshars and Traditionalists that he did not share with Mu tazils (see fig. 1).

98. Al-Ghazzl, Fayal al-tafriqa bayna al-islm wal-zandiqa, ed. M. Bejou


21/23


Al-Ghazzl on Divine Predicates

Ash ariyya

tawl kalm

Salafiyya

no tawl no kalm bi-l-kayf

Fig.1: Illustrated above is al-Ghazzls final interpretive methodon Divine Attributes as presented in this paper. On the right isthe Way of the Salafcircle, representing his theological thoughts

distinct from the Ashariyya, the circle on the left, insofar asIljm

is concerned. In the intersection, where the two circles meet,are found tenets and principles that al-Ghazzl shared with

Ashars, such as a basic identification with Sunnism, rejectionof tal and tashbh, belief in the Qurans uncreatedness,opposition to Mutazils, and so forth.

NB: The Ashariyya circle can be further elaborated with manyother differences that al-Ghazzl had with Ashars scholarsand which Makdisi, Frank, Nakamura, et al have discussed intheir works, such as gnosis, atomism, denial of the theory of theoptimum, theory of the soul, etc., but which were beyond thescope of this paper.

In the final analysis, being the towering intellectual figure that he is inMuslim history, it is apparent that different schools of religious thought, sects,scholars, believers and unbelievers alikeindeed, students of al-Ghazzl ingeneraltend to make him over into their own images. Thus, he remains anadept mystic to Sufis, amutakallimto Ashars, a Muslim philosopher (faylasf)to those interested in Islams relationship with Neo-Platonic philosophy, an

ul (legal theorist) to proponents of ulal-fiqh, a Shfi faqh (legist) toadherents of al-Shfi s (d. 205/820) school of law, and asalafto Traditionalistsinsofar asul al-dnor Sunn orthodoxy is concerned. He was probably all ofthat and more. His complex theology is perhaps best understood by mappingits trajectories found in his own writings, as I have attempted to do here.Nevertheless, like many luminaries of Islam, al-Ghazzl journeyed throughseveral stages of intellectual inquiry and maturation, continually revising andrefining his thoughts and ideas right up to his death. His last moments werereportedly spent poring over the aadth collections of al-Bukhr andal-Muslim.99

My final suggestion here is that it is likely that master scholars such as al-


22/23


Juwayn, al-Ghazzl, al-Rz, et al, while being fully cognizant of the Way ofthe Salaf as is plain in their writings, embraced theKalmmethod temporarily,infusing it with a philosophical outlook,100largely for polemic reasons. Theiropponents the Mutazils propagated their theology principally through

Kalm and were joined in that by the Ashars, practically challenging theirdetractors to use the masters tools to destroy his house; for no sooner werethese scholars satisfied and confident that they had repudiated the dogmaticpositions of Mu tazils, anthropomorphists, and others, meeting the dialecticaim ofKalm, which is to preserve the faith and protect it against heresies,than they began to expose its shortcomings and frown upon it as a validhermeneutic approach to knowing Godas if to acknowledge that the timehad come to move on with the more important task of instructing believers

to become acquainted with Divinity through the simple albeit correct Wayof the Salaf, as they espoused it.Iljmis the primary and best documentaryevidence that we have of al-Ghazzls switch in theological method fromAsh arism to Salafism in respect of understanding divine attributes. Todaythe question or challenge to us is whether his ultimate theological orientationis to be evaluated on the basis of his earlier works or his final word onKalm.


23/23

Reproducedwithpermissionof thecopyrightowner. Further reproductionprohibitedwithoutpermission.

al-ghazzali s final word on kalam

Documents