his works and in the extracts which we have quoted, surely explains
in a large degree why his influence has been so deep and permanent,
far greater than that of the merely intellectual philosophers, such as
Averroes. While he discouraged scholastic philosophy, he encouraged
moral philosophy. The reader will remember how he carried a book of
ethics with him on his journeys. After his death several famous ethical
treatises were composed which derived much from him. Claud Field says
“the most important of these is the ‘Akhlaq-i-Jalali,’ by Jalaluddin
Asaʾad Aldawani, which has been ably translated into English by Mr. W.
F. Thompson. The ‘Akhlaq-i-Jalali’ itself is largely a translation into
Persian from the Arabic, the original of which appeared in the tenth
century under the name of ‘Kitab-ut-Taharat.’ Two centuries after it was
translated into Persian by Abu Nasr, and named ‘Akhlaq Nasiri,’ enriched
with some important additions from Avicenna. In the fifteenth century
it assumed a still further improved form under its present name, the
‘Akhlaq-i-Jalali.’”[60]
That Al-Ghazali was a careful student of nature is evident in all his
writings. Those portions of the Koran which deal with natural theology
and the proof of God’s existence from the starry heavens, from the
fertile ground, the animal creation, and the sea with its terrors,
especially seem to appeal to him. One of his books is entitled _Al Hikmat
fi Makhlukat Allah_ (The Wisdom of God Shown in the Marvels of Creation).
It is one of his shorter writings but full of beautiful passages on the
glory of the starry heavens, the earth and the sea, and the four primal
elements. One long chapter is devoted to embryology and the physical
wonders of the human frame. Another is on birds, another on quadrupeds
and on fishes. The conclusion of the whole treatise is the argument from
design, for the goodness and greatness of the Creator as shown in His
works. What he says in regard to the benefits to be obtained from gazing
into the starry vault may be compared with David’s words in the eighth
and the nineteenth Psalms. Says Al-Ghazali: “To look up into the vault of
heaven drives away anxiety, removes the whisperings of Satan, takes away
idle fear, reminds us of God, brings the heart to magnify Him, banishes
evil thoughts, cures pessimism, comforts the passionate, delights the
lover, and it is the best _Kibla_ for those who call to God in prayer.”
Al-Ghazali was also a dogmatic theologian and controversialist. He wrote
a commentary on the Koran in forty volumes, never printed; and a dozen
books against various heretics, including one entitled: “The Best Reply
to Those Who Have Tampered with the Gospel.” Al-Ghazali, who was himself
cursed for alleged heresy, is memorable among the theologians of Islam
in that by his breadth of sympathy he forbade the cursing of Yazid, the
notorious slayer of Hussein, Mohammed’s grandson, and gave his opinion in
these words: “It is forbidden to curse a Moslem: Yazid was a Moslem. It
is not certain that he slew Al-Husain, and it is forbidden to think ill
of a Moslem. We cannot be certain that he ordered his death; really we
cannot be certain of the cause of the death of any great man, especially
at such a distance of time. We have also to remember the party spirit
and false statements in this particular case. Again, if he did kill him,
he is not an unbeliever because of that; he is only disobedient to God.
Again, he may have repented before he died. Further, to abstain from
cursing is no crime. No one will be asked if he ever cursed Satan; if he
has cursed him he may be asked, Why? The only accursed ones of whom we
know are those who die infidels.”[61]
Among his books against the philosophers we must mention three which are
closely related to one another. They are the _Maqasid-ul-Falasifa_, a
statement of the true teachings of the philosophers and a presentation
of their views of the world; the _Tahafut ul Falasifa_ which overthrows
their views and shows that they are untenable to those who would follow
Islam with heart and mind; the _Qawaʾid_, which shows the truths that
must be built up to take the place of the errors of the philosophers. In
the first-named book, according to Macdonald, he “smites the philosophers
hip and thigh, turns their own weapons against them and goes to the
extreme of intellectual scepticism; seven hundred years before Hume he
cuts the bond of causality with the edge of his dialectic and proclaims
that we can know nothing of cause or effect, but simply that one thing
follows another.”
Al-Ghazali’s great work “The Revival of Religious Sciences,” caused
great scandal in Andalusia. There the intolerance of the learned passed
all bounds because of the narrowness of their views. Their theology was
limited to minute knowledge of Canon Law. They had no place for the
religion which Ghazali preached, which was personal and passionate, a
religion of the heart. When he attacked contemporary theologians busy
with questions of legality and the externals of religion, he touched
these pharisees of the law at the quick and they not only squirmed but
screamed loudly. According to Dozy, “the Kady of Cordova, Ibn Hamdin,
declared that any man who read Al-Ghazali’s book was an infidel ripe for
damnation, and he drew up a _fatwa_ condemning all copies of the book to
the flames. This _fatwa_, signed by the _Fakihs_ of Cordova, was formally
approved by ʾAli. Al-Ghazali’s book was accordingly burnt in Cordova
and all the other cities of the Empire, and possession of a copy was
interdicted on pain of death and confiscation of property.”
But this opinion was not shared by Moslems elsewhere. In his lifetime and
especially after his death his works against philosophy and his great
exposition of Islam found ever larger circles of readers and commentators.
He has been accused, and not without good reason, both by Moslem writers
and European critics, of carelessness and inaccuracy in his quotations
and references to other books.[62] One of the charges brought against him
by his assailants is that he falsified Tradition. Macdonald’s judgment
is very charitable when he says that “he quoted from memory too freely,
because he was a man of too large a calibre to watch his quotations and
they were loose to the end of his life.”
As-Subqi in his Tabakat-ash-Shafaʾiya al Kubra devotes a special section
to what is entitled “A List of all the Traditions given by Al-Ghazali
in his _Ihya_ which have no _isnad_, or pedigree, _i. e._, Traditions
_quoted by him as authoritative and yet which from the standpoint of
Moslem criticism are on this account absolutely worthless_.” This section
of the book referred to covers many pages and by actual count I found
over six hundred Traditions each catalogued by reference to the chapter
in which they occur. Now we have no reason to doubt that As-Subqi (d.
771 A. H.) was an admirer of Al-Ghazali and esteemed his teaching, yet
what shall we say when in this collection of the lives of the saints so
strong an indictment is made of Al-Ghazali’s inaccuracy by one of his own
disciples?
When reading this collection of “true sayings” of the Prophet (which are
after all often ascribed to him without any authority or foundation)
one is shocked both at the credulity and the lack of love for veracity
in this greatest of all Moslem apologists. If even Al-Ghazali handled
Tradition so carelessly as to ascribe to Mohammed so much that is
altogether puerile, fabulous and often immoral, what confidence can we
put in other and later tradition-mongers and how can we clear Al-Ghazali
from the charge of using pious falsehood?
We add another fact of great interest in regard to his writings.
Al-Ghazali exercised a commanding influence on Jewish thought in the
Middle Ages. In the appendix is a list of some of the translations of
his books made in Hebrew. Jewish students of philosophy, including
Maimonides, drew many of their theories from the _Maqasid_ and his other
works. Al-Ghazali’s attacks on philosophy were imitated by Judah ha-Levy
in his _Cuzari_; but it was chiefly his ethical teaching rather than
through his philosophy that Al-Ghazali attracted the Jewish thinkers.
Broyde says, “He approached the ethical ideal of Judaism to such an
extent that some supposed him to be actually drifting in that direction,
and his works were eagerly studied and used by Jewish writers. Abraham
ibn Ezra borrowed from Al-Ghazali’s _Mizan al ʿAmal_ his comparison
between the limbs of the human body and the functionaries of a king,
and used it for the subject of his beautiful admonition _Yeshene Leb_;
Abraham ibn Dawud borrowed from the same work the parable used by
Al-Ghazali to prove the difference in value between various branches of
science; and Simon Duran cites in his _Keshet_ a passage from the _Mozene
ha-ʾIyyunim_, which he calls _Mozene ha-Hokmah_.”[63]
The translations of his works into Hebrew were made as early as the
thirteenth century. Not less than _eleven_ Hebrew commentaries are known
on the _Maqasid_. “Johanan Alemanno recommends Ghazali’s hermeneutic
methods, and compares the order and graduation of lights in Ghazali’s
theory with those of the theory of the cabalists.”
In regard to science, Al-Ghazali’s views were naturally those of his
contemporaries. His world was built on the Ptolemaic system. There are
four elements only. Existence has three modes: the world of sense, the
world of God’s eternal decree, and the world of ideals or of God’s power.
In dreams and visions we are in contact with the two other worlds.
Al-Ghazali avoids the difficulties of concrete Moslem teaching by this
method. There may be things which are real and actual and yet do not
belong to the world of sense.[64]
Doctor Macdonald admirably summarizes his influence on Islam as
four-fold. “First of all he led men back from mere scholastic dogma to
a living contact with the Koran and the Traditions as the true source
of Islam. He might be called a Biblical theologian in our modern use
of the word, understanding by ‘Bible’ always the Moslem bible, namely
the Koran. Nearly every paragraph of his _Ihya_ begins with a Koran
quotation, and his interpretation of the book is not a slavish following
of the earlier commentators but a spiritual interpretation of the text.”
“In the second place he reintroduced into Islam the element of fear. In
the earliest days, as for example in the Koran itself, the terrors of the
day of judgment and the horrors of hell operated in order to lead men to
repentance. Al-Ghazali emphasized this part of the Moslem teaching to the
utmost, witness his little book _Al-Durra al-Fakhira_, which has to this
day great acceptance among pious Moslems.”
In the third place mysticism, already existing in Islam, but looked
upon in many quarters as heretical, received its birthright through
Al-Ghazali’s life and teachings, and from his day on held an assured
position in orthodox Islam.
Lastly, he brought philosophy within the range of the ordinary mind,
warning the people against its dangers as well as showing them its
fundamental principles and above all illustrating through his writings
how true philosophy and true Islam are not contradictory. In this respect
he resembles Raymond Lull who also desired to use philosophy as the
handmaid of Christianity.[65]
Macdonald thinks that of these four phases of his work and influence the
first and the third were undoubtedly the most important. These alone made
him a reformer of the first rank in the history of Islam.
VII
His Ethics
“The religion of Christ contains whole fields of morality and
whole realms of thought which are all but outside the religion
of Mohammed. It opens humility, purity of heart, forgiveness
of injuries, sacrifice of self to man’s moral nature; it
gives scope for toleration, development, boundless progress
to his mind; its motive power is stronger, even as a friend
is better than a king and love higher than obedience. Its
realized ideals in the various paths of human greatness have
been more commanding, more many-sided, more holy, as Averroes
is below Newton, Haroun below Alfred, and ʾAli below St. Paul.
Finally, the ideal life of all is far more elevating, far more
majestic, far more inspiring even as the life of the founder of
Mohammedanism is below the life of the Founder of Christianity.”
—_“Life of Mohammed,” R. Bosworth Smith._
VII
HIS ETHICS
Martensen defines Christian ethics as “the science of morals conditioned
by Christianity.” But the three fundamental concepts of Christian ethics
are all of them challenged by the teaching of Islam. The Mohammedan idea
of the Highest Good, of Virtue and of the Moral Law are not in accord
with those of Christianity. This is evident both from the character of
Mohammed himself and from his recorded sayings. Ideal virtue is to be
found through imitation of Mohammed. And the moral law is practically
abrogated because of loose views as to its real character, its teaching
and finality. “The ethics of Islam bear the character of an outwardly
and crudely conceived doctrine of righteousness; conscientiousness in
the sphere of the social relations, faithfulness to conviction and to
one’s word, and the bringing of an action into relation to God, are its
bright points; but there is a lack of heart-depth, of a basing of the
moral in love. The highest good is the very outwardly and very sensuously
conceived happiness of the individual.”[66]
This statement needs no proof to those who know Islam from its
original sources, the Koran and Tradition. Professor Margoliouth uses
language which is strong but not unfair when he says in regard to the
saints of the Moslem calendar—that is the companions and followers of
Mohammed—“Those who recount the history of Islam have to lay aside all
ordinary canons of morality, else the picture would have no lights; they
could not write at all if they let themselves be shocked by perfidy or
bloodthirstiness, by cruelty or lust, yet both the Koran and Tradition
forbid the first three, and assign some limits to the fourth.” A stream
cannot rise higher than its source; a tower cannot be broader than its
foundation. The measure of the moral stature of Mohammed is the source
and foundation of all moral ideals in Islam. His conduct is the standard
of character. We need not be surprised, therefore, that the ethical
standard is so low even in Al-Ghazali, although he ofttimes rises high
above the Koran and the Prophet.
In nearly every one of his books on morals the Prophet of Arabia is held
up as the highest ideal of character. In his “Precious Pearl,” however,
there is a passage quoted from a tradition in which he pays this high
tribute to Jesus Christ (page 24, Cairo Edition), “_Go to Jesus, on Him
be peace, for He is the truest of those who were sent as apostles, and
who knew most of God, and the most ascetic in life of them all, and the
most eloquent of all in wisdom, perchance He will intercede for you._”
The quotation, however, refers to the day of resurrection when the
various nations seek God’s favour and forgiveness.
When we consider the age in which Al-Ghazali lived and his Moslem
education in ethics, Macdonald says,[67] “the position of Al-Ghazali is a
simple one. All our laws and theories upon the subject, the analysis of
the qualities of the mind, good and bad, the tracing of hidden defects to
their causes, and the methods of combating these causes,—all these things
[Al-Ghazali teaches] we owe to the saints of God to whom God Himself has
revealed them. Of these there have been many at all times and in all
countries,—God has never left Himself without a witness,—and without them
and their labours and the light which God has vouchsafed to them we could
never know ourselves. Here as everywhere, comes out clearly Al-Ghazali’s
fundamental position that the ultimate source of all knowledge is
revelation from God. It may be major revelation, through accredited
prophets who come forward as teachers, divinely sent and supported by
miracles and by the evident truth of their message appealing to the human
heart; or it may be minor revelation—subsidiary and explanatory—through
the vast body of saints of different grades to whom God has granted
immediate knowledge of Himself. Where the saints leave off, the prophets
begin; and, apart from such teaching, man, even in physical science,
would be groping in the dark.”
But we must add to this clear statement of Al-Ghazali’s theory of ethics,
_lest it be wholly misunderstood_, that the revelation referred to is
the Koran and that “the saints” were the Moslem saints of the early
Caliphate, and their followers.
Moslem doctors of jurisprudence, including Al-Ghazali, define sin as
“a conscious act of a responsible being against known law.” Therefore
sins of ignorance and of childhood are not reckoned as real sin. They
divide sin into “great” and “little” sins. Some say there are seven
great sins: idolatry, murder, false charge of adultery, wasting the
substance of orphans, taking interest on money, desertion from _Jihad_
and disobedience to parents. Others say there are seventeen, and include
wine-drinking, witchcraft and perjury among them. The lack of all
distinction between the ceremonial and the moral law is very evident in
the traditional sayings of Mohammed, which are, of course, at the basis
of ethics. Take one example: “The Prophet, upon him be prayers and peace,
said, One _dirhem_ of usury which a man takes knowing it to be so is
more grievous than thirty-six fornications, and whosoever has done so is
worthy of hell-fire.”
Orthodox Moslems divide sins into greater and lesser. Al-Ghazali quotes
one who said, “There are no greater and lesser sins, but everything
which is contrary to God’s will is a great sin,” but gives Koran
passages contradicting this and then escapes the moral difficulty by
showing that the smaller sins may become great if we continue in them:
“like the dropping of water wearing away a stone”; and “when the servant
of God reckons his sin great, God reckons it small, and when he reckons
it small, then God reckons it great.”
He divides the sins which overcome the heart into four classes: egoistic,
satanic, brutal and cruel. Under the first he puts pride, conceit,
boasting, selfishness, etc.; envy, hatred, deceit, malice, corruption and
unbelief, belong to the second; while greed, gluttony, lust, adultery,
sodomy, theft, and the robbing of orphans are classed as brutal sins; and
anger, passion, abuse, cursing, murder, robbery, etc., are cruel.
Yet in all of Al-Ghazali’s works on ethics and many of his smaller
treatises are on this subject, there is no clear distinction made between
the ritual and the moral law. In fact one word used for ethics in Arabic
(_ʾadab_) refers to propriety of conduct, etiquette, politeness, and
decency in outward behaviour, reverence in the presence of superiors,
rather than to the keeping of the ten commandments or of the principles
that are fundamental to noble character. This becomes very clear when we
study the contents, for example, of one of his shorter books entitled
_Al-ʾAdab fi Din_ (Ethics in Religion).
The book begins by giving the basis of ethical teaching in these words:
“Praise be to God who created us and perfected our creation, and taught
us morals and beautified our morals, and honoured us by sending His
Prophet Mohammed (upon whom may God’s blessing rest), and hath taught
us how to honour him. Truly the most perfect element in character and
the most elevated, and the best of good works, and the most glorious, is
correct behaviour as regards religion, which teaches what a true believer
should know of the work of the Lord of the worlds and the Creator of the
prophets and apostles; and God hath taught us and clearly enlightened us
concerning this in the Koran, and hath given us the example of conduct
in his Prophet Mohammed according to his Traditions. He is our example,
and likewise are his companions and immediate followers. These have shown
us what it is necessary for us to follow in their conduct, which we have
here recorded for all those who would follow.”
The paragraphs or sections of this handbook are entitled: Ethics of the
believer in the presence of God; of the teacher; of the pupil; of those
who hear the Koran read; of the reader; of the school-teacher; of those
who seek to understand Tradition; of the scribe; of the preacher; of
the ascetic; of the nobleman; ethics of sleeping; of night-watching;
of fulfilling a call of nature; of the bath; of washing; of entering
the mosque; of the call to prayer; of prayer; of intercession; of the
Friday sermon; of the feast-days; of conduct during an eclipse; of
conduct during drought; of sickness; of funerals; of almsgiving; of the
rich and the poor; of fasting; of pilgrimage; of the merchant; of the
money-changer; of eating and drinking; of marriage (this has several
subdivisions); of sitting by the wayside; of the child with its parents;
of the parent with the child; of brothers; of neighbours; of the master
with the servant; of the Sultan with his subjects; of the Judge; of
the witness; of the prisoner. The final chapter of this interesting
treatise deals with miscellaneous maxims on polite behaviour under all
circumstances.
A translation of the section on eating, which is about the same length as
the other paragraphs, will give a clear idea of the contents: “One should
wash one’s hands before partaking of food and after, and pronounce the
name of God before beginning to eat, and eat with the right hand. Take
small portions from the dish, chew the food thoroughly, and do not look
into the faces of the other guests while you are eating; nor should you
recline nor eat to excess beyond the demands of hunger; and you should
ask to be excused as soon as you have had enough, so that your guest
may not be embarrassed or any one who has greater need. And one should
eat from the edge of the platter and not from the middle, and wipe his
fingers after the meal, and return praise to God. Nor should one mention
death at dinner for fear of bringing bad luck upon those who are present.”
All this is interesting and important, for the Moslem child, as table
etiquette. Obedience, humility in outward behaviour, reverence in the
mosque, respect “to those above us in age or station,” and many other
social virtues are likewise commended. But the omissions of the Book
surprise us. There is nothing on truth, heart-purity, moral courage or
the nobility of chivalry—_the things that make a man_.
One section of the _Ihya_ (Vol. III, p. 96 ff.) deals with the question
as to when lies are justifiable, and clearly shows that according to
Al-Ghazali, in the realm of truth at least, the end justifies the means.
“Know,” he says, “that a lie is not _haram_ (wrong) in itself, but only
because of the evil conclusions to which it leads the hearer, making
him believe something that is not really the case. Ignorance sometimes
is an advantage, and if a lie causes this kind of ignorance it may be
allowed. It is sometimes a duty to lie. Maimun Ibn Muhran said, ‘A lie
is sometimes better than truth: for instance, if you see a man seeking
for another in order to kill him, what do you reply to the question as to
where he is? Of course you will reply thus, for such a lie is lawful. We
say that the end justifies the means.’
“If lying and truth both lead to a good result, you must tell the truth,
for a lie is forbidden in this case. If a lie is the only way to reach a
good result, it is allowable (_hallal_). A lie is lawful when it is the
only path to duty. For example, if a Moslem flees from an unjust one and
you are asked about him, you are obliged to lie in order to save him.
If the outcome of war, reconciliation between two separated friends, or
the safety of an oppressed depends on a lie, then a lie is allowed. In
all cases we must be careful not to lie when there is no necessity for
it, lest it be _haram_ (wrong). If a wicked person asks a man about his
wealth he has to deny having any; and so if a sultan asks a man about a
crime he has committed, he has to deny it and say, ‘I have not stolen,’
when he did steal; ‘nor done any vice,’ when he has done. The Prophet
said, ‘He who has done a shameful deed must conceal it, for revealing one
disgrace is another disgrace.’ A person must deny the sins of others as
well. Making peace between wives is a duty, even by pretending to each of
them that she is loved the most, and by making promises to please her.
“We must lie when truth leads to unpleasant results, but tell the truth
when it leads to good results. Lying for one’s pleasure, or for increase
of wealth, or for fame is forbidden. One wife must not lie for her
husband to tease another wife. Lying is allowed in persuading children to
go to school; also false promises and false threats.”