al-ghazali and his influence

7/29/2019 Al-Ghazali and His Influence

1/9

December 9 - 10, 2011 Yale University, New Haven

Organized by the Council on Middle East Studies at Yale University

Participants Schedule Abstracts Venue Home Middle East Studies

Abstracts

A. David K. Owen, Harvard University

Al-Mukhtar al-Shinqiti (d. 1973) and the Reception of al-Ghazali'sLegal Methodology in Saudi Arabia: A Case Study"

In a series of articles culminating with "Logic, Formal Arguments and

Formalization of Arguments in Sunni Jurisprudence," Wael Hallaq has shown

the decisive influence enjoyed by al-Ghazalis work on legal argumentation up

to the time of the much commented upon Ibn al-Hajib, in particular by focusing

on the logical introduction that begins the Mustasfa and a number of usul

al-fiqh texts thereafter. In this paper, I aim to further Hallaqs project through

an analysis of the legal logic of Muhammad al-Amin ibn Muhammad al-Mukhtar

al-Shinqiti (d. 1973), a prominent teacher ofusul al-fiqh in Riyadh and Medina

in Saudi Arabia during much of the twentieth century. In so doing, I show that

in Islamic jurisprudence the Ghazalian synthesis has survived until recent

times.

Focusing on al-Mukhtar al-Shinqitis treatment of qiyas in his Mudhakkira fi usul al-fiqh, itself a

commentary on the Rawdat al-nazir of Ibn Qudama, I first characterize this work as an

explanatory commentary, and demonstrate that the Mudhakkira, like the Rawdat, is heavily

influenced by al-Ghazalis treatment of legal logic in the Mustasfa. But why, in a commentary that

never shrinks from addressing aqli themes, does al-Mukhtar al-Shinqiti forgo the Ghazalian

tradition of beginning his usulwork with an introduction on logic? The answer lies, at least in

part, in an independent treatise by al-Mukhtar al-Shinqiti Adab al-bahth wa l-munazara, which

includes a separate chapter on logic for use in the religious sciences. I compare the treatment of

burhan in Adab al-bahth with the treatment of qiyas in Mudhakkira, I show the possible

antecedents for this method of organization in earlier commentaries on al-Ghazalis Mustasfa, and

I close by speculating about the authors purpose in separating the two.

Ahmed El Shamsy, University of Chicago

hazali and His Influence http://www.yale.edu/macmillan/cmes/alGhazali/abst

9/25/2013


2/9

Al-Ghazalis Empiricist Ethics: Reading The Wisdom in Gods Creations (al-Hikma fi

makhluqat Allah)

Both modern scholars of Muslim theology and medieval critics of Asharism have claimed that

Asharite voluntarism necessarily implies a view of God as an arbitrary and aimless ruler over

creation. According to this argument, al-Ghazali's insistence on a God whose creation and law

serve intelligible aims is inconsistent. This paper argues that an examination of al-Ghazali's

hitherto overlooked treatise on The Wisdom in Gods Creations (al-Hikma fi makhluqat Allah)reveals what might be termed an empiricist approach to divine creation. This approach also

structures al-Ghazalis ethical and legal thought and allows him to avoid embracing Mutazilite

rationalist ethics in order to justify a belief in divine purposefulness. There is evidence to suggest

that al-Ghazalis theory was influenced by an engagement with the thought of Galen, especially

the latters De usu partium.

Anna Ayse Akasoy, Oxford University

Al-Ghazali, Religionswissenschaft, and Inter-religious Dialogue

In 1991, Hermann Landolt published an interpretation of al-Ghazalis Mishkat al-anwar in an

article with the title Al-Ghazali and Religionswissenschaft. By using the German term for

religious sciences, Landolt conjured up the Zeitgeist of nineteenth-century Western Europe. At

the beginning of his article, he suggests that al-Ghazali presented himself in his al-Munqidh min

al-dalalas a comparative religionist of sorts, meaning that he was interested in distinguishing

the original belief (intuition, fitra) from what individuals acquired per taqlid from their parents.

To justify his association of the medieval Muslim author and the modern academic discipline,

Landolt used a distinction in Religionswissenschaft discussed by Charles Adams according to

which comparative views of religion are characterized by two elements: epoch, the irenic

bracketing of ones own religious convictions, and the attempt to develop a taxonomy which

reflects ones own background. Both, Landolt claimed, are represented in the veil section at the

end of the Mishkat al-anwar.

A pre-modern author whose approach to religious diversity has been described in similar terms is

Ramon Llull (12321316) who incorporated some of al-Ghazalis philosophical ideas. Not unlike

al-Ghazali, the Catalan missionary intended to defend the truth of his religion with the help of

universal rational principles rather than simply referring to scripture. Llulls Art, a quasi-

mathematical method to describe all of reality, is meant to accomplish this.

In addition to the parallels and direct connections, both authors appear as positive examples ofmedieval rational approaches to religion among modern representatives of their respective faiths,

but also in inter-religious dialogue. For many Muslim participants in debates about the

relationship between Islam and the West, al-Ghazali is an attractive figure. He elicits positive

responses among many fellow Muslims, both traditional and liberal, as well as among Christians

who often acknowledge the significance of al-Ghazali in Islamic intellectual history and the

transmission of philosophical knowledge from the Muslim world to the Latin West. Tariq

Ramadans modernizing, yet traditional interpretation of Islam, for example, is sometimes

identified with al-Ghazalis conservative combination of rationalism and spirituality. Some of


9/25/2013


3/9

Ramadans critics, somewhat reviving the medieval Tahafutcontroversy, defend Ibn Rushd as the

more appropriate model for the twenty-first century and see in al-Ghazali a symbol of intellectual

stagnation.

In my contribution, I would like to address two main questions. First, I would like to critically

assess Landolts association of al-Ghazali and Religionswissenschaft. Particular attention will be

paid to the ways Religious Studies in the West have responded to the greater prominence of

religion in public life. I will argue that there are significant parallels between al-Ghazalisapproach to religion and religious diversity and that of those modern representatives of

Religionswissenschaft who deliberately incorporate the insiders point of view. Such a shape of

Religionswissenschaft, however, is controversial. Second, I would like to discuss al-Ghazalis role

in inter-religious dialogue or debates about Islam and the West, in particular for Tariq

Ramadan and his critics and in comparison with the role of Ramon Llull for Catholic participants

in inter-religious dialogue.

Ayman Shihadeh, School of Oriental and African Studies, London

Al-Ghazali on Human Ontology

This paper will examine a small number of key Ghazalian works to establish al-Ghazalis stance

on the problem of human ontology. It will seek to show exactly why he found it extremely

problematic and precarious to defend an Avicennan-inspired body-soul dualism within a classical

Asharite environment, in which a materialist human ontology was accepted. The paper will show

how the difficulty lies not in the doctrine itself, but in its implications on the most fundamental

cornerstones of Asharite theology.

Jules Janssens, CNRS Paris and De Wulf-Mansioncentrum, Leuven, Belgium

Al-Ghazalis Commentary on the Light Verse (in the Mishkat al-Anwar) and itsinfluence on Fakhr al-Din al-Razi

In the second part of the Mishkat al-anwar, al-Ghazali offers a rather detailed analysis of the

Light verse (Q 24:35), which, in spite of obvious differences, has been inspired by Avicennas

commentary on the same verse in his al-Isharat wa-l-tanbihat. But already in the first part of his

work, al-Ghazali develops ideas that easily can be linked with the very same verse. When he

comes to deal with this verse in his great Tafsir, Fakhr al-Din al-Razi (d. 606/1210) makes no

less than twice explicit mention of his famous predecessor. The first time, he does so in the

explanation of the identification of God with Light. He starts with an almost literal quotation

taken from a passage near to the beginnings of the first part of the Mishkat al-anwar. But in whatfollows, he clearly continues to use al-Ghazalis expos of this first part, sometimes by way of

parphrasis, sometimes by way of more literal quotation, while now and then omitting as well

some elements. Later on, when explicitly dealing with the symbolism that is present in the rest of

the verse, he presents, although in a somewhat abbreviated form, al-Ghazalis interpretation, as

developed in the second part of the Mishkat al-anwar, as one of the existing interpretations that

are worthy of attention (after al-Ghazalis, he adds Avicennas interpretation). All this will be

examined in great detail so as to determine the exact nature of the influence of al-Ghazali on

al-Razi, insofar as the exegetical commentary on the Light-verse is concerned.


9/25/2013


4/9

Katharina Vlker, University of Otago, New Zealand

The Ghazali-Reception Among Muslim Intellectuals Living in Western Countries

By portraying some contemporary Muslim accounts of al-Ghazalis work and influence, I am

attempting in this paper to determine a) the context in which al-Ghazali is referred to, b) those of

his works and ideas which are mainly referred to and c) the importance and influence that

modern thinkers attribute to al-Ghazali. I shall reflect on such contemporary Muslim intellectualswho deal in more detail with al-Ghazali and who also have significance for the present religious

discourse on Islam in the West. I shall select two or three thinkers whose Ghazali-reception will

be compared. Their views on al-Ghazali might range from acceptance through critique to

rejection. Some of these notions may refer to different fields of al-Ghazalis work (ethics,

theology, exegesis, philosophy, and mysticism). For example, his incorporation of mystical

experience within a broader definition of rationality, might be positively received by some,

while other choose to reject al-Ghazalis idea that God can be known only through pure or

philosophical rationality. For some thinkers al-Ghazalis stance on philosophical reasoning

represents a fatal limitation of the capabilities of human reason. There is quite a large group of

contemporary Muslim intellectuals, which detects negative influences of al-Ghazalis thinking on

developments in Muslim thought. One needs however to assess decisively their arguments andthe coherence of their understanding of al-Ghazali.

One contemporary thinker Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd (19432010) proposes a welcoming sort of

rationality (to use Arkouns terminology) which goes beyond pure reason and incorporates a

common moral premise. For Abu Zayd an advanced aql always leads towards a search for

righteous thinking and acting. Pure rational thinking does not necessarily have this result. Abu

Zayd intensely reflects on al-Ghazalis work (in his Mafhum al-nass) and attributes to him a

number of consequences for Islamic thought (in his Naqd al-khitab al-dini). He also critically

assesses such consequences and draws conclusions for a change in current Muslim discourse.

Abu Zayd seems to sympathize with al-Ghazalis inclusion of mystical knowledge into thedefinition of rationally acquired knowledge, but on the other hand he is critical of limiting

philosophical thinking in its attempt to acquire knowledge about God. Hence, Abu Zayds

interesting portrayal of al-Ghazalis influence on Islamic thought is one possible goal of this

paper.

Again, it will be interesting how far Muslim intellectuals such as e.g. Abu Zayd, Ebrahim Moosa,

Fazlur Rahman, and Muhammad Arkoun perceive al-Ghazali and with what justification they reject

or accept his ideas. Other possible outcomes of this paper are a) the identification of specific

problems in evaluating al-Ghazalis influence on the present-day Islamic discourse, and b) the

classification of al-Ghazalis ideas to which most of the thinkers refer.

Kenneth Garden, Tufts University

Al-Ghazali in Contemporary Lebanon: Suad al-Hakims Project of Rereading His

Revival

Dozens of epitomes and Commentaries on al-Ghazalis Revival of the Religious Sciences have


9/25/2013


5/9

been written over the past 900 years, beginning with those of al-Ghazali himself and continuing

through the present day. Often these synopses and commentaries aim as much to claim the Proof

of Islams authority for their own contemporary agendas as to convey the content of the Ihya

with concision. This paper will examine the most recent of these efforts, the 2004 The Revival of

the Religious Sciences in the Twenty-first Century (Ihya ulum al-din fi-l-qarn al-wahid

wa-l-ashrin) by the Lebanese scholar of Sufism, Suad al-Hakim. In this 700-page tome,

al-Hakim meditates on the balance between temporal engagement with the contemporary world

and the eternal guidance of divine revelation through the medium of the book she considers the

best synthesis of the Islamic tradition. One of her major aims is to confront what she sees as the

alienation of contemporary Muslims from Islam. To this end, she rearranges the order of the

Ihya, abridges its content, and simplifies its presentation to make it more accessible. She also

removes, comments on, or clarifies what she calls its defects (shawaib) to make it acceptable

to both jurists and Sufis. By comparing al-Ghazalis work with al-Hakims re-working, I hope to

shed light on the interplay of commentary and original that makes up a religious tradition.

M. Afifi al-Akiti, Oxford University

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of falsafa According to al-Ghazali

In this paper I will present some of the results from my recent and ground-breaking doctoral

thesis on al-Ghazali. The thesis identified and systematically considered for the first time a group

of esoteric philosophical writings called the Madnun corpus, now to be firmly attributed to

al-Ghazali. The discoveries are based on an investigation of around 40 manuscripts, many of

which were unidentified or wrongly identified, and almost all of which were previously

unstudied. The results of my work on the Madnun develop and establish definitively the tendency

in recent Ghazalian scholarship (by Frank, Janssens, Griffel, and al-Akiti, among others) that has

argued for al-Ghazali's reliance on Avicenna. The Madnun writings now provide the most

important textual evidence for that tendency. Besides acquainting scholars with a remarkable new

body of source material, the thesis presents a critical edition of the most advanced and technical

work of this corpus, the manual on metaphysics and natural philosophy called the Major

Madnun. I can show that this Madnun work, in particular, complements perfectly the Tahafut

al-falasifa and the Maqasid al-falasifa, respectively the good, the bad and the ugly of Avicennian

falsafa.

Martin Riexinger, Aarhus University, Denmark

Al-Ghazali and the 19th Century Reception of the Modern Sciences in the Islamic

World

In the later part of the 20th century the orientalist image of al-Ghazali as an arch-opponent of

rationalism became widespread among modernist Muslims. In the late 19th

and early 20th centuries, however, one particular argument made by al-Ghazali was crucial for

the acceptance of modern astronomy. In the preface to his Tahafut al-falasifa, al-Ghazali l ines out

that in that refutation of philosophical teaching he will not address the philosophers teachings on

astronomy as they are based on the observation of nature and on sound mathematical proofs.

Whoever objects to them with reference to the literal meaning of a Quranic verse or a hadith

does a disservice to religion, so al-Ghazali, since he would ridicule it in the eyes of the educated.


9/25/2013


6/9

Hence the respective texts have to be interpreted allegorically.

Already in pre-modern times this argument was used to defend Ptolemaic astronomy against a

sunna-cosmology which was systematized and propagated by al-Suyuti (d. 1505), for instance.

An example for this is the Ottoman cosmographer and historian Katib elebi (d. 1657).

When post-Copernican astronomy became known in the Islamic world al-Ghazalis argument wasused in various geographical contexts to demonstrate that the new cosmology can be reconciled

with Islam. The first example was probably the Ottoman scholar Erzurumlu brahim Hakk from

the mid-18th century. Following or rather updating al-Ghazali, some scholars in the late 19th

century argued that not only can modern astronomy be reconciled with Islam but rather one must

do so in order to avoid that the new class of secularly educated Muslims falls afoul of religion

and indulges into materialism. Examples for this way of arguing can be found in the writings of

the Kurdish scholar Said Nursi (18781960) from Late Ottoman/ Early Republican Turkey and in

articles by M. Rashid Rida (d. 1935), who responded to request from his readers who themselves

confronted opponents with conservative views.

This way of arguing, however, did not remain uncontested as is shown by a conflict that arose

within the Ahl-i hadith movement in British India shortly after 1900. This puritan movement drew

its inspiration primarily from Ibn Taymiyya, hence most of their scholars advocated to understand

the term istiwa (sitting upright) that appears in a number of Quranic verses in reference to

Gods throne, as affirming the sunna-cosmology of al-Suyuti and other. Thana Allah Amritsari

(18681948), on the other hand, a scholar of the Ahl-i hadith with connections to Muslim

educational associations, propagated to interpret the istiwa-verses in the Quran allegorically as

a metaphor for Gods rule and by doing so he made reference to al-Ghazali. Amritsari, in turn,

was denounced as a philosopher and a jahmiuntil the dispute was settled in 1926 by the Saudi

ruler Abd al-Aziz ibn Saud, who himself had to face similar opposition from the Wahhabi ulama

when he introduced geography lessons in the new secular schools.

A second aspect which deserves consideration is that already in the late 19th century one scholar

in particular felt it necessary to make precautions preventing al-Ghazalis ideas from being used

to re-interpret Quranic verses along the lines of modern scientific concepts. In 1888 the

Lebanese Ottoman Husayn al-Jisr al-Tarabulsi (18451909) published his apologetic tract

al-Risala al-Hamidiyya. Apart from defending Islamic rituals and practices al-Jisr differentiates

between acceptable and non-acceptable scientific theories. His objections to the theory of

evolution influence Muslim opinions until present. Whereas al-Jisr justifies the adaptation of

modern astronomy using the arguments we mentioned above, he warns against accepting the

view that humans descend from animals. In this case, al-Jisr asserts, the allegorical

interpretation of Quranic verses cannot be justified because the arguments in favor of the theory

of evolution are only conjectural. Thus, it is not permissible to interpret allegorically the Quranic

verses that refer to the creation of Adam from inanimate matter.

Mohammad Hassan Khalil, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI

Reinterpreting al-Ghazali and Rethinking the Fate of Others:

The Case of Rashid Rida (d. 1935)


9/25/2013


7/9

In his Faysal al-tafriqa bayna al-Islam wa-l-zandaqa, al-Ghazali delineates three categories of

non-Muslims: (1) those who never heard of the Prophet; (2) damned unbelievers who learned of

the Prophets true nature but were arrogant, resistant, or negligent in looking into his message;

and (3) those who heard only negative things about the Prophet. The first and third group,

al-Ghazali asserts, will not be condemned on Judgment Day. In fact, the same is true of

non-Muslims who learned of the Prophets miracles and then investigated it with sincerity

even i f they passed away as non-Muslims. Not so fortunate, however, are non-Muslims who

encountered the Islamic message in its true form yet rejected it because its truth was not clear tothem.

This criterion for non-Muslim salvation was adopted and revised considerably over eight centuries

later by Muhammad Rashid Rida (d. 1935) in Tafsir al-Manar. Whereas al-Ghazali holds that

learning of the Prophets message, his attributes, and his miracles provides sincere

non-Muslims including those who had previously heard only negative things about the Prophet

with enough incentive to compel them to investigate, Rashid Rida in his Tafsir makes a

distinction between learning of these things and being provided with enough incentive to

investigate. This suggests that, according to Rashid Rida, the former does not necessarily lead to

the latter. In a September 1910 fatwa, Rashid Rida affirms this distinction (immediately afterciting al-Ghazali) when he notes that those things that motivate investigation into the Islamic

message vary from era to era. According to Rashid Rida, the only non-Muslims who are not

excused for remaining outside the fold of Islam are those for whom the truth of the Islamic

message is evident, yet rather than accept or investigate it, they resist it. Rida justifies this

position by invoking Q. 4:115: If anyone opposes the Messenger, after guidance has been made

clear to him [or her], and follows a path other than that of the believers, We shall leave him [or

her] on his [or her] chosen path We shall burn him [or her] in Hell, an evil destination.

In this paper, I shall I discuss the ways in which Rashid Rida modifies and reinterprets

al-Ghazalis criterion. I shall then explore the reasons for Rashid Ridas revisionism and itsimplications.

M. Sait zervarli, Yildiz Technical University, Istanbul

Ottoman Discussions on al-Ghazali, particularly during the 19th and Early 20th

Centuries

Al-Ghazali is one of the most influential Muslim philosopher-theologians in the Ottoman lands,

beginning from the classical to modern Ottoman periods. Early Ottoman scholars, such as

Khojazadah, Ala al-Din al-Tusi and Kemal Pashazadah wrote commentaries on his Tahafutal-falasifa, while his other major book Ihya ulum al-din was translated into Turkish by

Bostanzadah Mehmet Effendi in the 16th century. Al-Ghazali continued to be the focus of

attention throughout Ottoman intellectual history via commentaries, translations, quotations, and

in some cases criticisms, and he was rediscovered in the modern period as one of the sources of

revitalization in critical thinking. Apart from Arab reformists, modern Ottoman thinkers of the late

19th and early 20th centuries like Mehmed Ali Ayni, Izmirli Ismail Hakki, Filibeli Ahmed Hilmi in

the capital city of Istanbul intensively referred to al-Ghazali and the concept of ihya in their

efforts to revive modern kalam and philosophy. They were also influenced by the mystical


9/25/2013


8/9

dimension of his thought, as well as his legitimizing the use of logic in the mainstream traditions

of religious disciplines. Besides, Suleyman Tevfik published the first two books of ihya in

Turkish, and Musa Kazim highlighted some Tahafut issues in a journal article. There were also

modern criticisms of some of al-Ghazalis views, among them Mustafa Sabris points are most

significant. References and discussions went on in the Republican era although with

comparatively less emphasis. In my paper I will analyze these debates and influences among

modern Ottoman Turkish thinkers and examine the role of al-Ghazali in the scholarship of the

period.

Scott Michael Girdner, Randolph-Macon College, Ashland, VA

Al-Ghazalis Philosophical Promotion of Traditionalism in The Niche of Lights and Its

influence Within the Jewish Tradition

The paper argues that al-Ghazalis adapts the philosophical psychology of Ibn Sina in order to

present a novel articulation of traditionalist hermeneutics and theology with special attention to

al-Ghazalis interpretation of Q 24:40 in The Niche of Lights (Mishkat al-anwar) and Q 42:51 in

The Balance of Action (Mizan al-amal). It will then briefly outline the reception and influence of

these interpretations in Judeo-Arabic works such as Maimonides Eight Chapters (ShemonahPerakim) and in Hebrew translations and commentaries on al-Ghazalis works.

Taneli Kukkonen, University of Jyvskyl, Finland

Al-Ghazali on Reason Going Wrong

The notion of a sound innate disposition, or fitra, is central to al-Ghazali's explanation as to why

and how humans come to know God and reach salvation. The first half of this presentation will

explore the psychological underpinnings of Ghazali's conception of this innate disposition and

how it finds its place in the cosmic order. The second half explores a more pregnant question:how is it that our fitra is sometimes prevented from reaching its natural goal and perfection, and

why is it that its aims can become so fundamentally perverted as to lead one away from God and

towards perdition? The answer, it again turns out, is intimately intertwined with al-Ghazali's

conception of the cosmic order, which bears a strong Neoplatonic stamp. The way al-Ghazali that

employs the late antique classification of logic lends added interest to his account of reason

going wrong.

Ulrich Rudolph, University of Zurich, Switzerland

Al-Ghazalis Concept of Philosophy

In contrast to earlier authors, recent scholars tend to draw a more nuanced picture of al-Ghazalis

relationship with philosophy. According to them, he did not simply attack the falasifa, but at the

same time made ample use of their writings and shared quite a number of their positions. This

new scholarly consensus raises even more than the earlier one the question of al-Ghazalis

concept of philosophy. What was/is philosophy according to him? How did he conceive it and

define or, at least, describe it? And how was his description related to earlier conceptions of

philosophy, both by the falasifa and by their opponents, the mutakallimun?


9/25/2013


9/9

Ziad Bou Akl, Ecole Normale Suprieure, Paris

The Purposes of the Law in al-Ghazalis al-Mustasfa

In his last-written juridical summa al-Mustasfa min ilm al-usul, al-Ghazalidevelops a theory of

the purposes (maqasid) of the law which will have a great influence on later usuli literature:

every law aims at preserving for men their religion, soul, intellect, offspring and property. In this

paper, I propose to read these purposes of the law in relation with how al-Ghazali frames hisethical relativism notably at the beginning of the al-Mustasfa. Also, the paper will read the

al-Mustasfas parallel to the presentation of the purposes of the law in Averroes Bidayat

al-mujtahid. This will shed some light on the Asharite specitificy of al-Ghazls theory.

Sponsored by the Middle East Studies Council, the Edward J. and Dorothy Clarke Kempf Fund, and the MacMillan Center.

2011 The Council on Middle East Studies | The MacMillan Center | Yale University


al-ghazali and his influence

Documents