A Reconciliatory Reading of Al-Ghazal and Ibn Rushd
By: Mohammad Mahdi
The Idea of God and Thinkers in the Past:
The word that first existed was of God. And God existed besides this word. And God is the word. But which came first – God or the world? The core of Islamic tradition is the question that introduced the idea of what came first and what followed after. Thinkers from Al-Kindi, who is considered the first philosopher in the Muslim world, who tried to give explanations of Aristotelian logic and metaphysics, to Averroes, who is known as “the commentator”, tried to deliver a comprehensive and logical explanation of their religious scriptures mainly the Quran.
We need to discuss first what transpired in the Muslim world following the death of the Prophet to influence the Muslims’ interest in philosophy and intellectual debate before going into more depth about some of the essential points we find while reading these Muslim thinkers. Aristotle was made the universal hero during the period of Al-Mansur, the great Abbasid ruler when Greek literature was first imported into the Islamic world. They considered him “The Philosopher” for the ideas he introduced. It was a kind of divine revelation. However, some academics attempted to elevate Kalam to a significant source of knowledge and steered the public away from philosophy and toward religious texts. It occurred as a result of resorting to an unconventional interpretation of Islam. Later down the line, we can find the development of two academic schools: the Mutazilites and the Asharites. Al-Ghazali, whom we will discuss in this essay, was from Ashari school. Ibn Rushd never claimed himself as Ashari or Mutazili. He was a peripatetic. And also one of the significant figures who introduced Aristotle to the schoolmen of Europe.
Why Al-Ghazali and Ibn Rushd:
Why is it necessary to compare the two illustrious thinkers from the Middle Ages, who held diametrically opposed views on philosophy and God? Al-Ghazali was challenged by Ibn Rushd for his theories regarding the fundamental principle and his concepts of metaphysics. In order to address the issues that Al-Ghazali raised in his book ‘The Incoherence of the Philosophers,’ he wrote ‘The Incoherence of the Incoherence.’ The book tries to deliver disapproval of Al-Ghazali’s criticism of Aristotelian logic and metaphysics. There is a gap of about a century between both thinkers.
Additionally, Ibn Rushd and Al-Ghazali had a significant impact on academic philosophers. St. Aquinas, Albertus Magnus, and Roger Bacon are a few of them. Al-Ghazali, in his book ‘The Incoherence of the Philosophers, tried to dismantle the famous philosophers’ ideas and problems they had raised about God’s existence. His book’s opening chapter mainly concentrates on God and how philosophers muddle and complicate their theories to convince readers that there is no way to know whether the idea of God is certain. He also makes an effort to demonstrate and address some of the issues presented by classical philosophers on the origin of this universe and its creator. Did the world exist outside of God, or did He create it? And if he created the world, why did He not create it earlier?
Al-Ghazali talks about a phrase from Plato where he says God created this world in time. We can take it as a metaphor, but the question remains why He willed to create it at that particular time and not earlier. This book, The Incoherence of the Philosophers of Al-Ghazali, seems to have been written to disparage philosophical reasoning and point out how inconsistently philosophers define God and the fundamental principle (metaphysics). He also criticized Avicenna and Al-Farabi by considering their ideas detrimental to the Islamic faith. Recent scholarships conclude the efforts of Al-Ghazali as a revival of the Islamic faith that was very important in his times for the Muslims. Some claim that he is the individual most responsible for the decline of the arts and sciences in the Muslim world. Ibn Rushd, who came after him, tried to give answers to the problems Al-Ghazali raised. Ibn Rushd’s ‘Incoherence of the Incoherence’ critiques Al-Ghazali’s ideas. We can observe Al-Ghazali contradicting his own ideas that he wrote in his Incoherence later in his life. His later writings occasionally veer from the early beliefs he expressed in his early writings. Ibn Rushd criticizes not only Al-Ghazali but also Avicenna and several Neo-Platonists. In addition, Avicenna drives his version of the theory of emanation from the Neo-Platonists.
The other significant contribution of Al-Ghazali was the mystical ideas he developed later in his life. According to him, the Sufi way in which he concluded his life is the highest thing he achieved.
In this essay, we will mainly focus on the arguments about God and the existence of particular and universal. Al-Ghazali and Ibn Rushd propounded their philosophy on the basis of theQuran. And that is a problem that we face while reading and interpreting their works. It is confusing to find why both tried to follow philosophy and religion and tried to rationalize their religion by comparing it with the views of philosophers. The former tried to represent religion as supreme, the latter both religion and philosophy as sources of knowledge. Nevertheless, what went wrong is more interesting. And that is what is aimed to be explored in this essay.
Before we delve deeper, it is relevant to quote a few verses from the Quran to get some idea about the religious and intellectual milieu in which the two authors were operating. The Quran considers God an incomprehensible reality for the human mind. Although there are numerous verses that talk about God and the very word Allah appears 2699 times, we know very little about the nature of God: “If the sea were ink for the Words of my Lord, the sea would be spent before the Words of my Lord are spent…” (Quran 18:109, tr. Arberry). Yet at another place, the idea of God is explained through the parable of light: “God is the Light of the heavens and the earth; the likeness of His Light is as a niche wherein is a lamp (the lamp in a glass, the glass as it were a glittering star) kindled from a Blessed Tree, an olive that is neither of the East nor of the West whose oil well-nigh would shine, even if no fire touched it; Light upon Light; (God guides to His Light whom He will.) (And God strikes similitudes for men, and God has knowledge of everything).” (Quran 24:35, tr. Arberry) The light verse has been a matter of special interest to the mystics and philosophers of Islam who envision God as the first light, or the illuminator. God has 99 names or attributes but the 100th name is missing from the list which probably defines him.
What is Al-Ghazali’s Postulation of God
Why There is Something Rather Than Nothing?
In the opening chapters of his book, Al-Ghazali refutes three significant arguments that support the eternity of the world’s existence. He starts by introducing a question he claims was raised by philosophers of the past. The question is a derivation from the Aristotelian philosophy. “Why was the world not created before its creation?” The question raises many difficulties in answering the eternity of the universe’s existence. If God created the world, why did he fashion it at that particular time, and why not earlier? If the world is created anew that is different from God and not part of God, it means its creation is something new in space and time. But if God has created the world and He is eternal, why did He not act upon his will earlier? And if the will is created new in God, was it something different that came into God and became part of His being? Now, if the will is not something new and only God’s existence is in the first place, then the will must have existed from eternity. And if so, God must have acted in eternity to formulate this universe.
Al-Ghazali pointed out a problem for philosophers by saying their assumptions and conclusions rest upon the logical necessity of cause and effect. For the argumentation, they use the preposition that we need a cause for an effect. He tried to refute this idea by claiming that they neglected things that came in between the two occurring phenomena. Al-Ghazali gives his first proof that when a husband wants to divorce his wife, the utterance is the cause, and the prohibition of not entering his house by his wife is the effect. However, the cause, when uttered or came into existence, does not affect immediately. If the husband only utters the words for divorce without supposing it when it comes to application, the cause and effect have many ways of interaction. And if there is only one way, as philosophers say, then how is there the existence of many ways possible? It means there are things between cause and effect, totally neglected by philosophers.
What was God Doing Before the Creation of the Universe?
St. Augustine split the concept of the process of development and time into two parts for the first time ever in the history of philosophy (Hawking, 1988, pp.3-7). According to legend, a man visited Augustine to learn what God was up to before the world was made. At the time, the consensus among scholars was that God was hard at work creating heaven and hell before the world was created. St. Augustan responded to the man in a unique way that Al-Ghazali tried to incorporate into his writing. In response, he claimed that time did not exist before the creation of the planet. Therefore, it is illogical to assume that anything was made in the process when there was no time. God originated time. Furthermore, He is the one who remains outside the system of logic.
Al-Ghazali’s approach is not anti-philosophical. He is not against rational thought but against rationalism (Hossein Nasr, 2020, lecture). The core idea he wants to demonstrate in his works is why the world of perception is not the final version of knowledge. There is a higher dimension that we can understand with the help of tasawwuf (which refers to the inner mystical dimension of Islam). Life of aṣ-ṣūfiyya (Sufi), for which, in his later life, he advocated is the actual knowledge that a person must aim at. In doing so, Al-Ghazali restored the religious importance that philosophers of his time were lacking. In the Islamic world, he rose to prominence as a Mujaddid (reformer) (Grayling, 2020, p. 580). The influence of Al-Ghazali on people did not create an againstness among people for philosophy and sciences. Compared to people studying philosophy before Al-Ghazali in the Islamic world, we can find a more significant number of people interested in philosophy and sciences after his death. It is, therefore, unjustified to view him as a symbol of Islamic intellectualism’s demise.
Critiquing Al-Ghazali’s The Incoherence of the Philosophers
The arguments pointed out by Ibn Rushd (Averroes), who came hundred years after Al-Ghazali, wrote a book in response to Al-Ghazali’s The Incoherence of the Philosophers and penned his The Incoherence of the Incoherence, divided the arguments into three parts. He concluded Al-Ghazali’s position on three philosophies. First, Al-Ghazali is against Avicenna’s argument for the eternal existence of the world. Second, he challenges the claim that God is constrained by eternal facts. Third, he disagrees that a person cannot be resurrected physically (Grayling, 2020, p.585).
While Ibn Rushd’s criticism of Al-Ghazali had little impact on Muslim scholars, his analyses of Aristotle elevated him to notoriety in the Arab and European cultures. The followers of Al-Ghazali never bothered to see Ibn Rushd’s criticisms and only allowed him and his works to understand Aristotle. However, his ideas on the eternity of the universe which he borrowed from Aristotle and his concept of single universal mind existence created a new interpretation of Aristotle. His theories were counter to both Muslim and Christian theological principles. Ibn Rushd became a pivotal figure when he was introduced to European schoolmen in the 12th and 13th centuries. Two groups began to split apart. His impact on the Christian faith was so immense that Pope Gregory IX asked for an investigation into the veracity of his writings. Some academics began adopting Ibn Rushd’s theories. The term “Averroist” was applied to those who continued to uphold their allegiance to Ibn Rushd’s philosophy. Thomas Aquinas, who came after Ibn Rushd, found him a menace to the Christian faith and gave his interpretation of Aristotle. At that time, Greek texts were available in translation. Aquinas not only gave a new interpretation of Aristotle’s works but also baptized him and diverted many of his ideas to support the Christian faith.
The significant contribution of Ibn Rushd, which is not often acknowledged, was his refutation of Al-Ghazali. He criticized Al-Ghazali on many fronts, mainly claiming that his arguments were not rightly constructed. The major flaw in Al-Ghazali’s arguments related to the eternal will and existence of the world could be challenged on specific grounds. He gave an example by explaining how Al-Ghazali failed to distinguish between temporal and eternal will (Ibn Rushd, 2008, pp.13-14). In most cases, Al-Ghazali confused many arguments and tried to prove philosophers’ incoherence, which they usually exhibit to win an argument. According to Ibn Rushd, philosophy is not fit for everybody and he divides people into three groups. The Quran speaks of three paths for attaining knowledge.
- The one who tried to find truth from logic and proof, says Ibn Rushd, is a philosopher.
- The one who approaches ordinary speech for answers can be considered a theologian.
- And the third category is of masses. There way is rhetorical.
Ibn Rushd also opposed Ibn Sina on his emanation theory and provided an example of how the problem of the origin of the universe can be solved. He argued that it existed for eternity but was designed by God as we perceive it today in a particular time frame. The foundation for Ibn Rushd was both religion and philosophy. He mainly tried to reconcile the two spheres and concluded that there is a “double truth” that comes from both religion and philosophy. Religious doctrines can appear to conflict with philosophy at times. In such circumstances, we must interpret religious texts figuratively.
The Idea of Uncertainty: Believing in Many Gods
The crucial issue in interpreting Al-Ghazali and Ibn Rushd’s writings for a modern reader is their style of argumentation. Although we are not saying it, their arguments and defenses now look less compelling. However, we can discover how these philosophers defended their positions in terms of religion. Al-Ghazali and Ibn Rushd have a clear distinction: the former wants kalam to be the basis of knowledge, whilst the latter seeks to integrate religion and philosophy and believes philosophy to be superior.
Both philosophers tried to search for certainty and were followers of monotheism. But let’s pose a query anyway. Can we truly claim that there is only one God? It is the most important and fundamental principle shared by all semantic religions, and it sets Abrahamic religions apart from other faiths. But as we dug deeper, we discovered that the idea generates a lot of inconsistencies. Many Muslim and Jewish philosophers and thinkers throughout history have attempted to understand the idea of God as one supreme being. But how can we regard Him as one when our way of thinking forbids it? Let’s use an illustration to try to further illustrate this idea.
Suppose we say that there is only one God. It is a clear idea that only one God exists, and there is no other thing besides Him. When we consider God as one and then try to learn about Him in the religious texts, we find many of his different attributes. Now ask yourself, “Am I Still Believing in The Same God as I Believed When I Was Ten or Fifteen Years Old”. The answer is unambiguously no. It is because with age, the idea of God becomes more apparent, or we can say one gets more incites to understand that being. Even the reader of the Quran has two different viewpoints on God or Allah before and after reading the text.
Therefore, the idea that God is one even before we understand what that means is a form of assumption. It is also unclear to us if God is viewed as an idea or a thing if someone asserts that it is a form of progress through which we grasp one God. As we can say, this whole thing falls into the debate of God’s existence, but even the idea of oneness is not certain.
The Failure is the Real
There is a concept of sublime in Kantian and Hegelian philosophy. In the Kantian sense, it is a feeling that arises when we are aware of religious experiences. The experiences did not influence us directly but somewhat indirectly, having a more significant influence on our lives than ordinary experiences. Kant argues that this type of phenomenon is a kind of divinity or, we can say, a kind of nominal phenomenon that everyone acquires in life in some form. However, it is also possible for us to comprehend this idea from a different perspective. And that is what I have tried to do in this paper. We can define the Kantian sublime differently. Let us try to understand it with an example.
In the sonnets of William Shakespeare, we can find in many places the idea of how a person fails to explain the beauty of someone. For suppose if I say, “She is so beautiful that I cannot explain it to you”, the sentence shows a failure, but, in this failure, it provides us with some meaning. If I say, “I cannot explain the idea of God to you, “a person provides us with meaning in this failure of explanation. Now, if the beauty of a person is explained to us, it is true that it will lose its meaning. A true essence can only be found in the failure to explain that beauty. And the level of understanding in failure of explanation is higher than the explained beauty.
The idea of certainty, which both Al-Ghazali and Ibn Rushd tried to establish, is unimportant. Because there are things out there that can only be understood in uncertainty. Whether it is the concept of God, or the idea of love, or the idea of people which Hegel also figured out as illusory, all such concepts need a new explanation and a new theory of meaning that can explain to us how a failure to explain a true meaning justifies a higher meaning.
CONCLUSION
In this essay, I aimed to evaluate Al-Ghazali and Ibn Rushd’s efforts to explain the idea that the world and God exist indefinitely without judging their approaches as being constrained by a presupposed conception of God and philosophy.
We can challenge the postmodernist understanding of language and meaning and the flexibility of understanding by using the concept of sublime that we tried to establish. Derrida and Foucault, to a lesser extent, explains how language is fluid as they presuppose a higher metaphysical dimension. We can make sense of things even in ambiguous circumstances if we give up the notion that there is some sort of inaccessible dimension. The words used to describe God in the Quran, which we can see served as the foundation for both Al-Ghazali and Ibn Rushd, create an enigma regarding the nature of God. The book itself makes a claim that if all the trees on earth were pens and the ocean, with seven more oceans, were ink. To fully record all of God’s words, however, would not be sufficient. We discover a need for new hermeneutics that can help us understand the hysterical nature of human emotions in order to comprehend texts like the Bible, Quran, or Gita. The failure of comprehension in most cases give us a meaning of what it means to be faithful. Faith in other words is a failure of not practicing the corporal world, and instead focuses upon the nominal world of ambiguity. And this ambiguity provides us with meaning that we sometimes fail to understand directly. The inability to comprehend some things directly shows us what it truly means to be faithful.
The idea of eternity and infinity is a refuge from reality that Al-Ghazali tried to explain. But in his later years, he never accepted the idea that a human mind could understand God. Suppose this is the case, then we can ask a question to Al-Ghazali. If it is not possible for us to understand God, then is it possible to accept the idea of God as one? And if possible, can we say with certainty that religious people believe in that one God? If not, then it is from God that we must accept that everyone has a different awareness of God and terms like Muslim, Christian or Jew is only an idea of a group of people and not reality.
