Claiming that Al-Ghazali is
not an ashari is like claiming that Al-Ashari himself is not an ashari. This is
similar to the salfi claim in their attempt at re writing history. They have
claimed that many of the scholars who were ashari were in fact not ashari at
all. Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani (famed author of Fath al-Bari, the commentary on
Sahih al-Bukhari) as well as an-Nawawi (famed author of forty hadith, Riyad as-Salheen
and a commentary on Sahih Muslim. They have also went so far as to claim that
al-Ashari himself has recanted many of his positions towards the end of his life
and therefore not an ashari. This kind of thought would require that asharism to
be a solid monolithic or to have some sort of standard set of tentants. Not that
I claim that it does not, but it is not as solid as some would claim. It has
went through a lot of back and forth and re-thinking as well. However it can all
be called asharism. There were always be purist who want to have everyone
subscribe to their brand of asharism. This is also true of salafism. There are
purist that go so far as to nearly claim that Ibn Taymiyah himself is not a
salafi. This is never actually said but it is close. Ibn Taymiyah has become
recently something of an untouchable. The only ones who virulently attack him
are the Sufis, although he did in fact have a very spiritual side to him. He
also spoke well of the major teachers of Sufism. He only had problems with some
of the more fringe elements of Sufism. Back to ashari, so viewed in wider sense
all the scholars who are asharis are simply asharis. There is no twisting of it
just call a spade a spade. Further, these scholars of al-Ghazali’s rank, were
true mujtahids who were able to re-think many of the ideas of the school of
thought.
Al-Ghazali
has had to answer to a higher authority when writing his trilogy “Tahfut” (مقاصد
الفلاسفة و
تهافت
الفلاسفة
ومعيار العلم)
namely his own consciousness. This is clear from his autobiography. He was
searching for the truth and he did not know where it would lead him. When he
left everything behind and just went his self exile, hiatus, he was not running
away from death, he was running away from life. For his own consciousness he had
to live that kind of life. He needed to truly divorce himself from everything
worldly. While each of his works stood the test of time on their own, some must
be read together in order to understand them better. Or if you want to
understand the true position of al-Ghazali you would have a tough time without
reading everything that he wrote on that topic. Further you can never really
assume that it is the true position of al-Ghazali for the following reason, al-Ghazali
gave a position, stance based on the situation and the audience. ( لكل
مقامً مقال) He also followed
the maxim which says: (حدثو
الناس على قدر
عقولهم ) namely to speak to the audience at the level
in which they can understand. Therefore he would write differently when he was
writing his Mustasfa, the work on Isul, as well as in when he is writing his
rebuttal of the philosophers. He would also change when he is writing the Ihya,
as well his creed, and his letters to his student. This has led to some
confusion among al-Ghazali scholars to attack him rather unfairly. A scholar
from the first half of the twentieth century has written his thesis on this very
issue, Truth in the opinion of Ghazali. (سليمان
دنيا: الحقيقة
في نظر
الغزالي)
Al-Ghazali
did not deal the final blow to philosophy but rather redefined it on his own
terms. He claimed some of it as legitimate and other parts illegitimate, in
modern terms he islamized it. Philosophy continued to be studied in the Muslim
lands but on Ghazali’s terms. Ibn Rushd’s answer to al-Ghazali did not
convince many as did al-Ghazli’s work. It only raised the disscusion one notch
up. Many works continued to be written to try to find out just what is
transpired between the two. Two works were commissioned during the life of the
Othmani sultan Muhammad al-Fath, Many works have been written since then on who
won the argument. It depends on who you read you will get a different answer.
The two groups are firmly divided into two camps, the Rushdites and Ghazalians.
To be continued…
P.S.
Let me know what you think by e-mail
Last updated on 6/13/01