Al-Ghazālī and the Ashʽarite School

165 Pages·1994·7.82 MB·English

by  Richard M. Frank

AI-GJraziiliaNd the Ash~arite School
DukeMonogrllphs in
MedintUIImlRenllissllnceStudies:cS
Editorial Committee:
Caroline Bruze1ius,ArthurB. Ferguson, JoanM. Ferrante,
EdwardP. Mahoney(Chairman),DavidC. Steinmetz,
BroceW.Wardropper,Ronald G.Witt
AI-Ghaziilrand the Ash1arite School
R.M. FraHk
Duke Unil1ersityPress DurhamandlAndon
1994
© 1994DukeUniversityPress
Allrightsreserved
PrintedontheUnitedStatesofAmerica
onadd-freepaper
00
DesignedbyCherieH.Westmordand
TypesetinGalliardwithTrajanusdisplay
byTsengInformationSystems,Inc.
LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData
onthelastprintedpageofthisbook
IH Memoryof
Carol Putnam
(d.April16, 1993)
aHd of
Tom Prufer
(d. March23, 1993)
COHteHts
Preface ix
INtroductioN
TheProblem
KalamintheTraditionalView S
0"
2. AI-Ghwlf the PltUeofKillamAHfONgst
the ReligiousScieNces 7
KalamAccordingtotheTraditional
Classification 7
EssentialNatures, Logic,andtheLawfulnessof
SecondaryCauses 15
KalamintheClassificationoftheReligious
Sciencesin1!?yR''u1ibnai-dIn 22
3. Two "Ash'arite"TrtUts: al-Iqti~ad fi
1-I'tiqadandal-Qudisivvah 2ll
Al-Iqtifad 28
MoralObligation,AgainsttheMu'tazila 32
CreationandSecondaryCauses 36
ExegesisofPropheticTextsConcerningthe
CosmicSystem 39
\/jjj CONteNts
TheHumanPowerofVoluntaryActions 42
God'sEssentialAttributes 4-7
CreatedBeings,MaterialandImmaterial 4-8
TheRationalEvidenceofProphecy 67
Al-Qudsiyyah 68
Summary 71
4. OpeN CONflictwith theAslc'anteSchoo' 76
Fay~aJaJ-tafiiqahandaJ-MunqidhminaJ-rjalaJ 76
[ljamaJ-<mviimm'an<ilmal-JurUim 80
5. COHt'USiOHS 86
TheRhetoricofHarmonization 86
Al-GhazalI'sRelationtotheAsh'ariteSchoolasReflectedinthe
ChronologicalSequenceofHisWritings 91
Notes 103
References 137
IndexofProperNames '+3
IndexofSubjects 145
IndexofArabicWords 1+9
Preface
Thepresentstudy,thoughfromonestandpointlongin
preparation, camenonetheless forth quite unlooked for. I had long
feltthatalthoughtherehadbeen,andcontinuedtobe,muchlearned
talkconcerning al-GhazalI's adaptation and adoption ofelements of
Aristotelian philosophy~thelogicinparticulac~in suchawayasto
updateand in modestmeasure torectifY someofthe earlierlogical,
conceptual, andtheoreticalshoncomings oftraditionalMuslimthe
ology, there had been all toolittlethorough andsystematicstudyof
thetextswithregardtothemostsignificantissuesinvolved. Sugges
tions and assertions concerningthe matterwere madewith greater
assurancethanseemedwarrantedbythefoundations onwhichthey
rested. The primary focus ofmy own work was, however, concen
trated in classical kalam; al-Ghazali was therefore ofonly marginal
interest and I had little inclination to take up the question oftheir
relationship.That the relarionofhis theology to thatoftraditional
Ashcarismwasatleastambiguous andrequiredserious investigation
was, however, broughtacutelytomyattentionwhen, inpreparinga
rather general lectureon predestination in Islam for a nearbycom
munity college in the spring of1985, I reread Book XXXV ofIhyti'
cuJumai-dinfor thefirst timeinmanyyears. Ashorttime laterthen,
on readingaJ-Maq~adaI-llSnaforthefirsttime, it becamealtogether
cleartomethathisformalconunitment toAsh<aritcorthodoxywas
tenuousintheextreme.AccordinglyJortheParis·Penn-Dumbarton
Oaks Colloquiumoninheritance and borrowing in the middle ages
(Heritage et emprunts eu1turels au Moyen Age) hdd in Morigny
in the fail of1986) I prepared a paper entitled "AI-GhazaIrs use of
Avicenna's Philosophy" as akindofpreliminary studyofone major
aspectofthe question.Thatwasabeginning. Subsequendy,in1988,
inthecourseofpreparingapaperentidedC<al-GhazalionTaqlid,"my
attention wasdrawn to further aspectsofthe problemofthe status
andlocationofal-Ghazali'stheologyrelativetotraditionalAshearism
and I decided that the somewhat tentative studydone in twoyears
earlier, the likelihood ofwhose eventual appearance seemed ever
moreremotc,l hadto bemorefullyelaborated.Withthepublication
ofCreation lind the Cosmic System in1992, my interest in al-Ghazali
waswaningrapidly.Theapparentinconsistencyofthethingshesays
explicitlyconcerningkalamcontinued,however, totroubleme and,
not having examined the data ofthe texts with this question spe
cifically inmind, I fancied thatbymakingafew appropriatedistinc
tions the mattercould belaidquietlytorestonthe basisofmaterial
alreadyassembled.Alas,thingsareseldomsosimpleastheyappearat
adistance.Al-GhazaJrsexplicitstatementsconcerningkalamandhis
allusions to the Ash<arite school proved inevitablyto be imbedded
in contexts that precluded a simple analysis within the formally re
strictedframeworkoriginallyprojected.Thoughtheaimofthestudy
remainedessentially the same, the questions to be addressed multi
plied and theweb oftheir interrelationships became more difficult
tomapastheyspreadmorewidelythroughthefabric ofal-Ghazili's
works.Beneaththesurfaceofanoriginallyrathersimplequestionlay
somethingmoreserious, andmoreinteresting.
Al-Ghazalishowshimselfinhiswritingtobe averycomplexand
problematic personality, intellectually pompous, yet beset by inner
uncertaintiesandoftenconspicuouslysuperficialinhis treatment of
important questions. Unable to achieve complete confidence in the
truth of his speculative theories, he turned to sufi asceticism and