Why Al-Ghazali Attacked Philosophy So Fiercely - Essay Example

AlL-Ghazali Introduction In the context of Islamic literature, the al-Ghazali is synonymous with critique. This is owed to the fact that, al-Ghazali’s critique is credited with instigating the collapse of Islamic philosophy. Prior to attacking Islamic philosophy, al-Ghazali dedicated himself to understanding this discipline. This might have been aided, in part, by his dedicated nature and independent mind. In order to be objective, in this quest of understanding the rationale behind his critique, it is imperative for al-Ghazali to be placed in the relevant appropriate historical context. This paper will explicate on the essential question of whether al-Ghazali attacked philosophy out of self ambitions or he was safeguarding Islam from moral corruption by Islamic philosophy. First, The Incoherence of Philosophers, a text via which he voices his disregard for Islamic philosophy, must be analyzed. Despite the fact that philosophy had a small following, it was swiftly gaining momentum. Second, it is essential to point out that al-Ghazali did not harbor any qualms with the philosophy, falsafa, rather he had reservations pertaining to its application in answering certain religious questions. He questioned the methodology with which philosophy was being applied in the Islamic religion. His attack on Islamic philosophy might be sourced from; his ambitions for reviving Islamic science, his belief that Islamic philosophers did not comprehend the basis for third, it s important to show that Aristotle’s teachings and his opinion that Islamic philosophy was propagating moral corruption. Third, the analysis will show that his critique of philosophy is fashioned in three fronts: eternity of the world, resurrection of the body and knowledge of God on particulars. Analysis In an effort to comprehend the framework within which al-Ghazali attacked philosophy, it is essential to understand the history of philosophy in the Islamic religion. Philosophy was introduced into the Arab world via translation of Greek texts by Christian scholars (Armstrong, K. 2002). This act of translation was further compounded by writing commentary texts on the Greek articles. All these factors, combined, culminated in a slow but steady assimilation of Greek scientific and philosophical learning. The explanation for the significantly low number of adherents of this discipline is sourced from the difficulties that were encountered when training in this philosophy. Al-Ghazali’s main target in his attack of philosophy was centered on philosophers Ibn Sina and al-Farabi (Netton, 1999). To the uniformed reader, these two individuals might appear ignorant and unworthy of the title scholars. However, these two were renowned Muslim scholars and philosophers, who according to al-Ghazali had committed serious mistakes and errors in the arguments they gave for their beliefs (Martin, 2004). It is evident that both of these Muslim philosophers loved Islam and philosophy altogether. It is in this situation where they tried, albeit unsuccessfully, to reconcile Islam and philosophy. They endeavored to achieve this based on their understanding of the principles of Islam. It is vital to note that their intentions were sincere from the heart. However, their intentions motivated them to extend beyond the acceptable limit of Islam. Prior to embarking on philosophical issues, that characterized al-Ghazali’s critique of Islamic philosophy; it is imperative to expound on personal reasons for his criticism. There have been reservations as to the incentive for al-Ghazali to fiercely attack philosophy. Critics falsely assert that he wanted to become popular. The supporters of this notion discredit the intellectual thought that was fronted by his attack on philosophy. However, it would be flawed for this paper not to expound on this discussion herein. It is thought that his intent was to surpass the popularity of his fellow Muslim scholars at the time. The implications of this assertion are extensive. Critics want the world to believe that he had not been sincere in his objective to teach. Additionally, they say that he was motivated by selfish gains. It is true that he wanted to ascend to a higher academic position and become a great academic scholar. However, these were his motivations in life. Man is useless without having a goal in life. As such, it would be prejudicial to castigate al-Ghazali simply because he had ambitions in life. Ultimately he was able to realize his goals. He eventually was appointed a professor at the prestigious Nizamiyyah Madrassa. At the time, this position had been highly sought after by his colleagues. Critiques site that after accomplishing this goal, he ventured out to achieve success by attacking philosophy. This is also a false assertion propagated by Islamic philosophers. They assert that al-Ghazali was not contended with being a professor at the Madrasa; thus he attacked philosophy as a discipline. This is a trivial attempt to waylay the true in intentions of al-Ghazali. His true intent was to rid Islam of moral corruption that was being sourced from Islamic philosophy. In the absence of his input, Islamic philosophy might have reined supreme much to the detriment of Islam as a religion. When al-Ghazali’s life and works are critically analyzed, it becomes clear that his attack on Islamic philosophers was not motivated by greed for success (Griffel, 2009). It is, only when he abandoned his desire for fame did he achieve worldly happiness. As such, the rationale propagated by the critics is a misconstrued attempt to downplay his role in Islamic religion. His previous actions may have been motivated by the desire for popularity, but his later actions were merely on a theological perspective. Al-Ghazali saw himself as the first Muslim scholar to attack, effectively, philosophy (Khalidi, 2005). He believed that none of his predecessors accorded philosophy the attention and seriousness it necessitated. Furthermore, he declared their methodologies to be flawed thus permitting philosophy to maintain its momentum. As such, it is probable that he thought himself the first since he had the zeal coupled with an efficient methodology structured in his attack. Al-Ghazali adopted a unique methodology in his criticism of philosophy. Instead of attacking the Islamic philosophers via their stance on theological issues, he chose to criticize and discredit philosophical issues. True to his word, his attack is the most memorable and the most successful of all the others. He devoted all his time and attention towards philosophy: that is a period in his life. He then proceeded to criticize, intensely, the ideas and conclusions of the Islamic philosophers. He attacked philosophy since he believed that it was a detrimental element in Muslim faith (Shihadeh, 2005). He branded all Muslim philosophers as infidels since they resulted to rationalizing religion with their own intellect which a contravention to the principles of Islam, specifically the Islamic law (Mcginnis & Reisman, 2007). In this context, al-Farabi states that the faculty of intellect ushers certainty while the Islamic law offers satisfaction (Fārābī & Zimmermann, 1982). As such, al-Farabi seems to be in favor of intellect at the expense of religion. It is thoughts such as these that motivated al-Ghazali’s attack on philosophy. He asserted that the matters pertaining to God should not be discussed purely on an intellectual basis; the way philosophers were prone to doing (Ghazali, 2000). He justified this thought by citing the inclination of human intellect to fall into error coupled with its limited power. Additionally, the human intellect is unable to comprehend the mysteries that are associated with divine power. Al-Ghazali attacked philosophers on twenty particulars. He then continued to label seventeen of these as heresy (bid’ah). The remaining three he categorized as unbelieving (Kufr) (Ghazali, 2000). Therefore, the rationale for labeling them infidels is hinged on the fact that they were unbelieving of the prophetic information. In this context, they were thus unfit to speak for Islam. This fashioned the core error committed by the Islamic philosophers. He chose to discount all other actions they were committing, citing that they were not relevant to the practice of Islam and its subsequent principles. In his work, The Incoherence of Philosophers, al-Ghazali is seen to adopt the notion that, the Islamic philosophers did not comprehend the basis for the theories fronted by Aristotle (Anjum, 2012). The Islamic philosophers in question are, primarily, al-Farabi and Ibn Sina. This is plausible as al-Ghazali had already familiarized himself with the ideologies that they were propagating. He, however, did not appreciate their level of understanding of the philosophical agendas owed to Aristotle. It is arguable that he espoused such stances as he thought himself of greater mindset when contrasted with the two philosophers. This can be a valuable trait in some instances but, a detrimental aspect in separate cases. In simple terms, the criticism by al-Ghazali is the sole rationale for the decline of Islamic philosophy (Griffel, 2009). However, his relationship with philosophy is much more complex. Al-Ghazali chose to attack the whole discipline of philosophy by primarily focusing on al-Farabi and Ibn Sina. However, do these two individuals truly reflect the tradition of philosophy? It would be effective if al-Ghazali had indeed attacked philosophy in its full context. However, at that time, only these two philosophers were the epitome of philosophy. This is hinged on the fact that these two philosophers largely propagated the principles of Aristotle. Al-Ghazali, clearly, does not ignore this important fact. However, he rationalizes this by promoting the notion that the Islamic philosophers were embracing philosophy but were hiding this fact (Ghazali, 2000). This proves the hypocritical nature of Islamic philosophers. They propagated the notion that they had differences with philosophy as a discipline, but they were, in fact, embracing its teachings. This then advances the thought that al-Ghazali was indeed attacking the individual philosophers (Watt, 2002). He barely hints on the Islamic philosophers’ act of deceiving Islamists on their doctrines being in line with the religion, while in fact, nothing could be further. The philosophers were using the teachings of Islam to cover up their real intentions. In retaliation to this school of thought, al-Ghazali believes and accuses Ibn Sina of conjuring up half baked assertions while failing to adhere and strictly follow the teachings of Aristotle (Ghazali, 2000). The fact that Islamic philosophers failed to follow, wholly, Greek Philosophy proves the flaw in their philosophy. This is the main source of their double truths, talbis. The attack by al-Ghazali has roots in his belief of causation. Causation entails the existence of science and the cause effect model. Instinctively, his denunciation of causation might be thought of as a complete refutation of the cause effect coupled with foundations of science. However, this might not necessarily have been the case. He appears to be primarily motivated by his endeavor to preserve the divine attributes associated with free will and power. Al-Ghazali notes that the model of causation adopted by Ibn Sina impedes on the attributes given to God (Ghazali, 2000). In his work, al-Ghazali captivatingly expounds on causality at substantial lengths. In order to discredit the views of the philosophers, he endeavors to produce multiple alternating theories. While attempting to defend the existence of miracles, he addresses the theories of cause and effect. He explains the rationale bend the objection of the existence of miracles by the philosophers. He explains that the philosophers reject miracles since they contradict the natural order of cause and effect (Ghazali, 2000). However, edicts of natural law dictate that a certain cause should not be denied its natural effect. In this context, al-Ghazali deems the philosophers guilty of being to hasty in identifying the cause and effect model in their environment. They always relate two things that happen consecutively as the prior being the cause and the subsequent being the effect. This is contrary to the principles of Islamic teachings. Al-Ghazali contradicts this model of thought by propagating the assumption that there must be a distinction between an event occurring in conjunction with a separate event and an event occurring by another separate event. The former scenario explicates that the two events are independent of each other. However, the latter scenario explicates a scenario whereby one event is the sole source of the subsequent event. According to al-Ghazali, the world should appreciate events that occur with one another and not strictly as dependent on each other. In conclusion, he asserts that it is not irrational for a cause event to occur but the consequent effect not to occur (Nasr & Leaman, 1996). Translating to mean that an event the world relates as a cause effect might occur but an expected effect event not to occur. This discussion sums up his view on causality. As such, this is the rationale behind the existence of miracles. An event is classified as being miraculous in nature if it goes against common expectations and breaks the principles of the natural law. Al-Ghazali insists that God is the only cause of each and every event that occurs in the world (Ghazali, 2000). Thus, God decides on the exact cause event and the subsequent effect event. Al-Ghazali explains that God has chosen to act in a consistent manner. As such, this is the rationale he propagates for the existence of a natural pattern to events in the world. It is because of this that one can predict certain events in the world. Al-Ghazali denies the existence of causality, but then how does he relate God and the world? The answer to this is sourced from the fact that al-Ghazali views God as not being the cause of the world, rather its creator. As such, he wanted assert that the description of causation of the Islamic philosophers does to exclude the existence of God in the causal connection (Whittingham, 2007). Al-Ghazali is seen as a reviver of Islamic science. He believed in the existence of logic behind every accepted belief. As such, his conflict with philosophy might be hinged on the absence of logic in most of its ideologies. Philosophers expected Islamic faithful to acknowledge reason devoid of logic. This, however, was in contradiction to the stringent belief held by al-Ghazali who believed that reason must be coupled with logic. Causation epitomized the chief source of conflict between al-Ghazali and philosophy. Observing this belief impedes the mere existence of natural science. Aside from this angle, al-Ghazali disclaimed philosophy for its input in enabling moral corruption (Sheik, 1961). Moral corruption in this context is in a sense of blind following. It encouraged Islamic faithful to accept beliefs blindly. This is witnessed by the Islamic philosophers who accepted Aristotle’s philosophy without sufficient thought. Additionally, the Islamic philosophy did not follow, austerely, the Greek philosophies (Leaman & Leaman, 2002). Rather, it transformed pre-established philosophies into ideologies that suited the selfish beliefs of the respective philosophers. In his endeavor to be objective, he divided the Islamic philosophers into three groups. These three groups were the materialists, theists and naturalists. The materialists were the ones who believed and subsequently propagated the notion that the universe had existed without the influence of the creator. They believed that the universe is self-perpetuating and is aided by its own laws. On the other hand, the naturalists admitted the existence of the Creator; however, they did not accept the idea of spirituality and immortality of the human soul. Their justification for the human soul is that, the soul can be justified and explained purely on naturalistic terms of the body, and thus, the death of the body translated to mean that the soul is essentially non-existent (Ghazali, 2000). Finally, the theists, he discussed this group in length. He primarily focused on this group since, he believed they espoused a final stance on philosophy and thus, attacking them will also be exposing the defects of the materialists and the naturalists. Theists were characterized by Socrates, Plato and Aristotle (Ghazali, 2000). He concentrated on Aristotle judging by the fact that Aristotle had discredited his predecessors and, most of all, his teacher. A majority of the Muslim philosophers were thus endeavoring to translate his works. However, none of them had made significant accomplishments as compared to Ibn Sina and al-Farabi (Sheik, 1961). In the Islamic world, these two were probably the most faithful and capable translators. The translations of other philosophers were characterized by significant errors and disorder (Sheik, 1961). However, this was not the case with translations and commentaries by Ibn Sina and al-Farabi. As such, criticizing them would be to criticize the epitome of Islamic philosophy. For some reason, he focused biased attention on Ibn Sina (Griffel, 2009). Al-Ghazali divided philosophy into several disciplines: mathematics, logic, physics, politics, ethics and metaphysics. In studying all the rationales behind these disciplines, he found no reasonable qualms with these disciplines except with their metaphysical views. His justification for this appears grounded on the fact that, unlike natural sciences, these were not hinged on reason or positive inquiry: rather they were hinged on conjectures and speculations (Quasem & Watt, 1975). This assertion is supported by the fact that theists philosophers could not agree on metaphysical issues just like they agreed on issues of natural sciences (Leaman & Leaman, 2002). The philosophies of Ibn Sina and Al-Farabi could not function on their own in the absence of justification from the Islamic religion and specifically the Quran. He believed that these philosophies should be able to be interpreted and understood on a solitary basis (Griffel, 2009). Al-Ghazali believed that the principles of the Islam should not be sacrificed at the expense of philosophies pegged on metaphysical speculations (Ghazali, 2000). Islamic philosophers were unable to propagate their ideals independent of the Islamic religion. As such, this fashioned a core source of al-Ghazali’s dissatisfaction with Islamic philosophy. Al-Ghazali attacks philosophy on three core fronts: eternity of the world, their denial of the knowledge of God on the particulars and denial of the resurrection of the body. In his text, eternity of the world is accorded a quarter of the volume. This shows the significance he accorded to eternity. Eternity fashions a core element of conflict between philosophy and religion (Anjum, 2012). The philosophers believed in the immortality of the world. They, therefore, could not comprehend that the world had not existed at a certain time and was consequently created out of nothingness (Martin, 2004). Philosophers adopted the notion that the world has coexisted with God. According to them, if the world was not immortal then it is susceptible to change. However, relating change with God is impossible as He is unchanging and thus immortal. Therefore, the world is immortal since philosophers believe both God and the World must have the same attributes. This was their rationale for eternity of the world (Khalidi, 2005). Al-Ghazali discredited their rationale by citing that God created the world out of his own will. As such, the world is a product of is immortal will. Thus, the world is separate from God. Secondly, their assertion that noting could have existed in the pre-eternity is termed as baseless. God existed before the world since He is the one solely responsible for its existence. The Islamic religion hinges its principles on the basis of monotheism. As such, any assertion that does not conform to this principle falls out of the contravention of Islam. The theists believe something could be co-eternal with God has far reaching implications. It breaches on the absolute infinity of God. As such, the view of materialists as the world being self-sustaining is supported (Ghazali, 2000). This was against all the theological; beliefs propagated by Al-Ghazali. Islamic philosophers did not discount the existence of an eternal God; however, they believe that there are factors within the universe that aid in the existence of the world (Khalidi, 2005). It is these factors that philosophers believe to be eternal. However, according to al-Ghazali, nothing should coexist eternally with God. Theologians, like al-Ghazali, believe that God created the world out of nothingness. He created all matter and forms and thus these could not be co-eternal with God. Al-Ghazali refutes the ideologies of the Islamic philosophers as being logically false and entertaining unfounded assumptions. Al-Ghazali endeavors to prove that these beliefs cannot be demonstrated logically nor are they justifiable via intuition. He asserts that the Muslim philosophers ignorantly accepted these beliefs solely because they were supported by Aristotelian philosophy. According to al-Ghazali, relying on Aristotle’s view of eternity means that the there exists an infinity of earthly species and souls. He extends to point that even the philosophers deny the existence of any form of infinity (Ghazali, 2000). The second issue where al-Ghazali contradicted with the philosophers is on the issue of God being unaware of changing particulars. The Islamic philosophers believed that God was unaware of the changing particulars of the world (Fārābī & Zimmermann, 1982). However, al-Ghazali asserts that God’s knowledge is entirely independent of time: He knows all. His knowledge does not alter with time, He knows the present, past and the future (Ghazali, 2000). However, philosophers were of the opinion that God’s knowledge is constant and thus cannot change with time. They believed that associating any form of change with God will be impeding on His Holiness and Power (Yapp, 1975). The argument by the philosophers is based on the model of knowledge and known. In a situation where the known changes: it consequently changes the knowledge at that instance. This, in turn, changes the knower. In this context, the knower is God who cannot be associated with change (Fārābī, A., & Zimmermann, 1982). The response, to this rationale, given by al-Ghazali is rather brief and succinct. He explains that regardless of the justifications propagated by the Islamic philosophers, the principles of religion should be followed. These principles assert that God knows everything. As such, the values of the philosophers are in complete disregard of the religion. Nothing can be hidden away from the sight and knowledge of God (Ghazali, 2000). In the context of man, what he regards as new knowledge was already known by God. The world is such that, man encounters knowledge that is not previously known to him, but it is God who planned the time when man was to discover this knowledge. However, there has been doubt as to the objectivity of al-Ghazali with regard to Ibn Sina’s perception of God and particulars. It has not been substantiated that Ibn Sina rejected the knowledge of God on particulars (Nasr & Leaman, 1996). This is especially pertinent since he is the principal target of al-Ghazali when he expounds on this subject. The third issue with Islamic philosophers was their stance on the resurrection of the body on the day of resurrection. Al-Ghazali believed that the punishment and enjoyment were to be felt by both body and soul on the Day of Judgment (Ghazali, 2000). However, the Islamic philosophers believed that punishment and enjoyment was to be felt only the soul (Yapp, 1975). They both regarded the soul as immortal. However, al-Ghazali believed that this thought is in line with the principles of Islamic law and not the intellect as assumed by the philosophers. The philosophers had essentially rejected the idea of there being a heaven and subsequently hell. Al-Ghazali cited this as being in direct contravention with the teachings of the Islamic religion. To an observer, the views fronted by al-Ghazali and the philosophers, particularly Ibn Sina, were primarily the same. Ibn Sina asserted that the body is unlikely not to return the exact way it currently is but slightly different (Yapp, 1975). In the same context, al-Ghazali believed that what is resurrected is not the same body that died (Ghazali, 2000). The question now becomes then what exactly are they discrediting about each other? The answer to this lies in the source of knowledge. This is rather perplexing citing the fact that both arguments produce the same results. Al-Ghazali’s argument is sourced from the Islamic law. On the contrary, Ibn Sina’s knowledge is sourced from the intellect. Conclusion The Incoherence of the Philosophers is a significantly difficult text to comprehend. With regard to readers who are not accustomed to philosophy and its subsequent readings, reading this text is slow and extremely tedious. However, this text epitomizes the intellectual prowess of the medieval Arabic thought. The text engages the reader in several mentally challenging quests. It endeavors to clarify on some Islamic doctrines and brings to light theological issues present in medieval Islam. All in all, the text depicts al-Ghazali as a proficient and excellent thinker who revolutionized the Islamic world. Throughout, the entirety of his critique, al-Ghazali structures his arguments in a highly scientific and logical manner. Al Ghazali is known as the one who instigated the collapse of Islamic philosophy. As such, it is vital to understand the rationale that instigated his bold actions. It should be noted that he was not against philosophy as a discipline, but rather its application in the Islamic context. To prove he was not against philosophy as a discipline, he cites that the truth should be accepted irrespective of its origin. The fact that something has been propagated by Islamic philosophers should not be enough grounds for rejection. At first his text appears to be a critique of philosophy. However, on closer analysis of the context of the critique, it becomes apparent that he is, in fact, attacking the arguments propagated by the philosophers. The principal rationale for his critique is based on his intentions to preserve the divine attributes. The primary concern harbored by al-Ghazali is that the assumptions and subsequent flaws of Islamic philosophy undermine the basic foundation of Islamic doctrine. Al-Ghazali attacks the arguments made by the philosophers simply because of their source. The philosophers relied on the intellect, to provide justification for their beliefs. Al-Ghazali justified his criticism, of their source of knowledge, by citing the fact that matters of religion cannot, and should not, be justified by human intellect since it is limited in its approach. Al-Ghazali believed that Islamic law must be perceived as being in conjunction with intellect. One cannot stand without the aid of the other: theirs is a dependent relationship. As such, they should not be regarded as different but should be embraced as one. In rejecting the role of intellect in religion, the philosophers were being ignorant of the foundation of religion. Thus, according to al-Ghazali, when the philosophers rejected to acknowledge the relationship between both, they simply rejected Islam. Al-Ghazali encourages the Muslims to explore Greek knowledge since all knowledge is from God. The text by al-Ghazali teaches Muslims the importance of giving arguments based on Islamic teachings. It is only in this way, will Islam grow in the decades to come. Reference ANJUM, O., 2012. Politics, Law, and Community in Islamic Thought the Taymiyyan Moment. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Armstrong, K. 2002. Islam: A Short History. New York ; Westminster: Modern Library Imprint; Random House Publishing Group; Random House, Incorporated Distributor. Ghazzali A. H. 2000. The Incoherence of the Philosophers: A Parallel English-Arabic Text. Trans. by M. E. Marmura. Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press. Griffel, F. 2009. Al-Ghazalis Philosophical Theology. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. Retrieved on 5th March 2013 from http://Catalog.Hathitrust.Org/Api/Volumes/Oclc/234176238. KHALIDI, M. A. 2005. Medieval Islamic philosophical writings. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. LEAMAN, O., & LEAMAN, O. 2002. An introduction to classical Islamic philosophy. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press. Retrieved on 4th March 2013 from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=112550. Martin, R. C. 2004. Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim World [Online]. New York: Macmillan Reference USA. MCGINNIS, J., & REISMAN, D. C. 2007. Classical Arabic philosophy: an anthology of sources. Indianapolis, Hackett Pub. Co. Nasr, S. H. & Leaman, O. eds., 1996. History of Islamic Philosophy, London [Etc]. Routledge. Netton, I. R. 1999. Al-Farabi and His School [Online]. Richmond, Surrey: Curzon Retrieved on 4th March from http://Www.Myilibrary.Com?Id=21690. QUASEM, M. A., & WATT, W. M., 1975. The ethics of alGhazālī: a composite ethics in Islam. Selangor, Quasem. Sheik, M. S. 1961. Al-Ghazali—Mysticism. A History of Muslim Philosophy. Delhi: Low Price Publications. SHIHADEH, AYMAN. (n.d.). From al-Ghazali to al-Razi: 6th/12th Century Developments in Muslim Philosophical Theology. Shihadeh, Ayman (2005) From Al-Ghazali to Al-Razi: 6th/12th Century Developments in Muslim Philosophical Theology. Arabic Sciences and Philosophy, 15 (1). Pp. 141-179. Cambridge University Press. http://eprints.soas.ac.uk/6470/1 WATT, W. M. 2002. Muslim intellectual: a study of al-Ghazali. [S.l.], ABC International Group. WHITTINGHAM, M., 2007. Al-Ghazālī and the Qurān one book, many meanings. London, Routledge. Retrieved on 5th March 2013 from http://www.myilibrary.com?id=80311. Read More