1058-1128 Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali

Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali(1058-1128 C.E.)

Abu Hamid Ibn Muhammad Ibn Muhammad al-Tusi al-Shafi'i alGhazali was born in 1058 C.E. in Khorasan, Iran. His father died while he was still very young but he had the opportunity of getting education in the prevalent curriculum at Nishapur and Baghdad. Soon he acquired a high standard of scholarship in religion and philosophy and was honoured by his appointment as a Professor at the Nizamiyah University of Baghdad, which was recognised as one of the most reputed institutions of learning in the golden era of Muslim history. Muhammad al-Ghazali remains one of the most celebrated scholars in the history of Islamic thought. His exceptional life and works continue to be indispensable in the study of jurisprudence, theology, philosophy and mysticism. The tens of books that he left behind were the result of an inquisitive mind that began the quest for knowledge at a very early stage. In the introduction to his autobiographical work Deliverance from Error (Al-Munqidh min al-Dalal,p. 81), al-Ghazali said:  “The thirst for grasping the real meaning of things was indeed my habit and want from my early years and in the prime of my life. It was an instinctive, natural disposition placed in my makeup by Allah Most High, not something due to my own choosing and contriving. As a result, the fetters of servile conformism fell away from

me, and inherited beliefs lost their hold on me, when I was quite young.”

Al-Ghazali’s Life:

Al-Ghazali’s full name is Muhammad Ibn Muhammad Ibn Muhammad Ibn Ahmad al-Tusi. He was born in 450/1058 in Tus, Khurasan near Meshhad in present-day Iran. He bore the title of respect Hujjat al-Islam(Proof of Islam) for the role he played in defending Islam against the trends of thought that existed at the time. His father was a wool spinner (ghazzal) and thus, relative to this profession, al-Ghazali acquired this name. (al-Subki, Tabaqat al-Shafi`iyyah al-Kubra,vol. VI, pp. 191-193) Although he was born in Tus, a Persian, non-Arabic land, Al-Ghazali wrote the overwhelming majority of his works in Arabic, the lingua franca of his world.

Before his death, al-Ghazali’s father entrusted him and his brother Ahmad to a Sufi friend. He asked him to spend whatever little money he left behind, to teach them reading and writing.

When the money was finished, the Sufi asked them to join a school so that they might subsist. According to Al-Subki (Tabaqat, vol. VI, p.195), schools used to provide room, board and stipend.

Al-Ghazali began studying at Tus where his teacher was Ahmad Al- Radhakani. His next station was Jurjan where he wrote Al-Ta`liqahfrom the lectures of Abu Al-Qasim Al-Isma`ili Al-Jurjani. He returned to Tus for three years only to leave afterwards for Nishapur, where he joined the Nizamiyyah school and studied under Imam Al-Haramayn Al-Juwaini for eight years until the death of his teacher in 478 AH/1085 CE. (Al-Subki,

Tabaqat, vol. VI, pp. 195-196) During this period al-Ghazali excelled in all the Islamic sciences with the exception of the science of the Hadith; he confessed this in the last paragraph of his work Qanun al-Ta’wil (The Law of Metaphorical Exegesis). This may have been the reason for the presence of some unsound traditions in his works, such as the famous Ihya’ `Ulum al-Din (TheRevival of the Islamic Sciences).

After the death of Al-Juwaini, al-Ghazali went to the Camp (Al-Mu`askar) of vizier Nizam Al-Mulk who founded the Nizamiyyah schools. The Camp was reputed as a meeting place for scholars who debated in the Islamic sciences. al-Ghazali won the respect of other scholars and was assigned by Nizam AlMulk to be the teacher at the Nizamiyyah of Baghdad. He lectured there between 484 AH/1091 CE and 488 AH/1095 CE. (Al-Subki, Tabaqat, vol. VI, pp. 196-197) This position won him prestige, wealth and respect that even princes, kings and viziers could not match. (Al-Zubaydi, Ithaf, vol. I, p.7)

During this period, al-Ghazali studied philosophy on his own and wrote  Maqasid al-Falasifah(The Aims of the Philosophers) and appeared as if he was one of them. His critique of philosophy followed, in a book he called Tahafut AlFalasifah(The Incoherence of the Philosophers). Almost all scholars tend to generalize and say that al-Ghazali gave a coup de grace to philosophy in this book. Indeed, few notice that he was critical of Greek metaphysics and its spread in an “Islamic” dress at the hands of reputed Muslim philosophers such as Ibn Sina and Al-Farabi. A detailed discussion of al-Ghazali’s relationship with philosophy and science will follow.

The end of al-Ghazali’s career at the Nizamiyyah of Baghdad was unexpected. The circumstances surrounding this event became known as the “Spiritual Crisis” of al-Ghazali. He discussed the reason that prompted him to quit his position in Deliverance from Error. After discussing the methodologies of the Muslim theologians (Al-Mutakallimun), the philosophers and the esoterics (Al-Batiniyyah), he chose the Sufi path as the way to acquire indubitable knowledge. He noted though that this method has prerequisites; one should abandon all worldly attachments. Al-Ghazali thought that, in order to implement this, he should “shun fame, money and to run away from obstacles.” (AlMunqidh, p. 134) He made it clear that any deed that was not for the sake of Allah was an obstacle. Upon scrutinizing his activities,he decided that his motivation for teaching was not for the sake of Allah. (Al-Munqidh, p. 134) Of this al-Ghazali said:

“For nearly six months beginning with Rajab, 488 AH [July, 1095 CE], I was continuously tossed about between the attractions of worldly desires and the impulses towards eternal life. In that month the matter ceased to be one of choice and became one of compulsion.

(Allah) caused my tongue to dry up so that I was prevented from lecturing. One particular day I would make an effort to lecture in order to gratify the hearts of my following, but my tongue would not utter a single word nor could I accomplish anything at all.” (Hayman and Walsh, eds., Philosophy in the Middle Ages, p. 277)

Al-Ghazali’s health deteriorated and the physicians gave up any hope for they realized that the source of his problem was not physical. He “sought refuge with Allah who made it easy for his heart to turn away from position and wealth, from children and friends.” (Hayman and Walsh, p.278) He distributed his wealth  and departed from Baghdad to begin a spiritual journey that lasted for about eleven years. He went to Damascus, Jerusalem, Hebron, Madinah, Makkah and back to Baghdad where he stopped briefly. This part of the journey lasted until Jumada AlAkhirah, 490 AH/June, 1097 CE. He continued to Tus to spend the next nine years in seclusion (Khalwa). He ended his seclusion to teach for a short period at the Nizamiyyah of Nishapur in 499 AH/1106 CE. From there he returned to Tus where he remained until his death in Jumada Al-Akhirah, 505 AH/December, 1111 CE. (Abu Sway, M., al-Ghazali: A Study in Islamic Epistemology, p. 24)

Yet, before delving into al-Ghazali’s ideas, it is important to remember that he lived in what might be described as a postgolden age context. The production of the exact sciences faded away, the Islamic state had grown into a massive caliphate that faced disintegration as the provincial governors gained power. Just before al-Ghazali was born, the institution of the Sultan was introduced or rather forced on Baghdad. The year 450 Al marked the first time a split in power took place between theSultan, who was the actual ruler, and the Caliph whose role was reduced to dignitary functions. (Ibn Kathir, Al-Bidayah wa alNihayah, vol. XII, p. 66)

It was a classical case of a wealthy and powerful civilization that lost track of its sense of direction and lost sight of its roots, its source of power. The indulgence in material life had led many celebrities to abandon public life and to live in seclusion. It was a search for a meaning of life in asceticism. Sufism thrived before al-Ghazali was born and he ultimately subscribed to the mystics’ path.

Al-Ghazali’s Thought:

Al-Ghazali was an encyclopedic and prolific scholar. He was trained as a jurist in the Shafi`i school which is traditionally Ash`arite in its expression of Islamic faith. He contributed many

books to these fields. In addition, he wrote extensively about Islamic mysticism. He wrote about politics and the sects of the time, and he wrote poetry. Yet, in what follows, the discussion will be restricted to his position on science.

The early works of al-Ghazali were in the area of jurisprudence. Nevertheless, in Al-Mankhul fi `Ilm al-Usul, a book on usul al-fiqh. He devoted a chapter to a discussion of the nature of the sciences (al-kalam fi haqa’iq al-`ulum). It should be noted that alGhazali’s use of the word “sciences” is general and restricted to

the natural or physical sciences; it covers all subjects of knowledge including those of the Shari`ah. This chapter included important insights reflecting his position regarding science. One of these insights was regarding the definition of `ilm [science].

He said: “science cannot be defined” (inna al-`ilma la hadda lah).

He explained his statement by saying that it was possible to know science and that “our inability to define (science) does not indicate our ignorance about the same science”. (Al-Mankhul, p. 42)

Al-Ghazali divided the sciences or knowledge into eternal and accidental. Eternal knowledge belongs to God alone. He divided accidental knowledge into immediate (hajmiyy) and theoretical (nazariyy). The first is the kind of knowledge that one has to know with the beginning of reason, such as the existence of the self. On the other hand, theoretical knowledge is the result of sound thinking (al-nazar al-sahih). Related to this is al-Ghazali’s definition of reason. He said that it is “the qualification which enables the qualified [person] to perceive knowledge and to think about the cognizable.” (Al-Mankhul, pp. 44-45)

While al-Ghazali classified the senses into different categories in terms of their function in acquiring knowledge, he maintained that there were no differences between the sciences once knowledge is acquired, regardless of how difficult the subject of the science is. This view of al-Ghazali regarding the equality of the sciences, once they are achieved, is consistent with his position regarding his interchangeable use of the terms “science” and,“knowledge”. (Al-Mankhul, p. 48)

The first period of public teaching at the Nizamiyyah of Baghdad (478-488 AH/1085-1095 CE) was the time when alGhazali encountered philosophy. In Al-Munqidh min al-Dalal, a biographic work that he wrote towards the end of his life, he sketched his quest for knowledge. Al-Ghazali reduced the list of

the seekers for knowledge to four groups: the dialectical theologians (Al-Mutakallimun), the esoterics (al-Batiniyyah), the philosophers, and the Sufis (Al-Munqidh, p. 89). His discussion of philosophy is the most relevant to his position on science.

Al-Ghazali stated that in his quest for true knowledge he started studying philosophy after he was done with `ilm al-kalam, which did not provide “certain knowledge” (`ilm al-yaqin) he sought. In his introduction to the section on philosophy he outlined his approach to this new field. He wanted to pursue philosophy to a level higher than that of the most knowledgeable in the field. Only then, he argued, could one know the intricate depths of the science, as he referred to philosophy. (Al-Munqidh, p. 94)

Al-Ghazali was aware that he could not rely on secondary sources, such as those of the Mutakallimun, in order to study philosophy. For him, their books included fragmented philosophical words that were complex and contradictory to one another.

Instead, he decided to read books of philosophy directly without the assistance of a teacher. Although he was teaching three hundred students at the Nizamiyyah of Baghdad and writing on the

Islamic revealed sciences at the same time, in his spare time he was able to master philosophy in less than two years. He spent almost another year reflecting on it. (Freedom and Fulfillment, p. 70) al-Ghazali wanted the readers, through such a detailed account of his effort, to have confidence that he had a thorough grasp of philosophy and that his conclusions are trustworthy.

As a result of his study he wrote two books: Maqasid alFalasifah (The Aims of the Philosophers) and Tahafut al-Falasifah (The Incoherence of the Philosophers). It was al-Ghazali’s intention to write a book that would encompass the thought of the philosophers without criticizing or adding anything to it. Of this objective, he said:

“I thought that I should introduce, prior to the Tahafut, a concise account that will include the story of their aims (maqasid) which will be derived from their logical, natural and metaphysical sciences, without distinguishing between what is right and what is wrong, without additions and along with that they believed what they believed as their proofs.” (Maqasid, p. 31)

This book, which is a pioneer work in its attempt to deliberately present an objective account of the thought of adversaries, was followed by theTahafut, which included his critique of the contents of the first one. It was this latter work (i.e.Tahafut alFalasifah) that prompted Ibn Rushd to write Tahafut al-Tahafut

(The Incoherence of the Incoherence) which constituted a systematic rebuttal of al-Ghazali’s critique of this mélange of GrecoIslamic philosophy.

In Maqasid al-Falasifah, al-Ghazali divided the sciences of the philosophers into four major categories: mathematical (alriyadiyyat), logical (al-mantiqiyyat), natural (al-tabi`iyyat) and metaphysical (al-ilahiyyat). (Maqasid, p. 31) He listed politics, economy and ethics as subdivisions under metaphysics. In alMunqidh min al-Dalal, he listed politics and ethics as major sections along with the first four. (al-Munqidh, p. 100) Only mathematics and logic will be discussed here.

Regarding mathematics, al-Ghazali thought that it dealt with geometry and arithmetic. Neither of these subjects contradicted reason. As a result, he did not think that he ought to include a detailed account of mathematics in his book. (Maqasid, pp. 31-32)  Knowledge is divided, in the second section of the book of knowledge ofIhya’ `Ulum al-Din, into `ulum shar`iyyah(sciences of the Shari`ah) and ghayr-shar`iyyah(non-Shari`ah sciences). To the latter belongs mathematics and medicine, which al-Ghazali

described as praiseworthy sciences. The latter sciences are consideredfard kifayah(i.e. there should be enough Muslims who are experts in the concerned field to the degree that they can fulfill the needs of the Islamic society). Nevertheless, al-Ghazali criticized unnecessary studies in mathematics that do not have practical applications. (Ihya’, pp. 16-17)

The fact that al-Ghazali categorized mathematics and medicine as fard kifayah is a positive position. This means that the society at large would be committing a sin if they neglect any of these sciences to the degree the shortage would have negative impact on the society. In fact, he blamed the students of jurisprudence for their indulgence in minute details of the Shari`ah. The context indicates that they better study medicine instead of specializing in issues in jurisprudence that might never prove to be of any benefit. (Ihya’, vol. I, p. 21) Despite this positive stance, alGhazali did not remain consistent in his position.

Al-Ghazali had fears that though geometry and arithmetic are permissible, they might lead a person to blameworthy sciences. (Ihya’, vol. I, p.22) He did not discuss the reasons that led him to take such a position. It should be noted that this remark is atypical for al-Ghazali and does not reflect his general position regarding arithmetic, geometry and the exact sciences. The context itself might provide some insight as to why al-Ghazali was cautious in dealing with mathematics and the exact sciences.

During his time, there were no compartmentalized studies, and every student learned all branches of knowledge. Al-Ghazali was afraid that a student might be deceived by the accuracy of mathematics and then generalize and consider all the subjects included in philosophy, including metaphysics, to be as accurate.

In al-Mustasfa min `Ilm al-Usul, al-Ghazali stated that arithmetic and geometry are pure rational sciences that are not recommended for studying. They fluctuate between false, yet plausible guesses, and true knowledge that yields no practical applications. (Al-Mustasfa, p. 3) This shift from his early position that studying mathematics is fard `ayn might be attributed to his acceptance of the Sufi path. Al-Mustasfawas written towards the end of al-Ghazali’s life when he was deeply absorbed by tasawwuf.

Al-Ghazali did not see any practical application for the study of physics, and thus declared it useless. He knew that physics is concerned with substances and their properties, yet he stated that some of the input of the philosophers contradicted the Shari`ah. (The Book of knowledge, p. 54) Thus practical application, or rather the lack of it, caused al-Ghazali to reject a particular science as the above example, or at least criticize it (Ihya’, pp. 16-17). This position should be seen in the context of the civilizational development of the 5th century AH/11th century CE.

Regarding logic, he defined it as “the law (qanun) that distinguishes a sound premise and analogy from a false one, which leads to the discernment of true knowledge.” (Maqasid, p. 36) In reviewing the subjects of logic, which he believed to be neutral in its relationship with the Shari`ah, (al-Munqidh, p. 103) al-Ghazali stated that induction (istiqra’) could be correct only if all parts were covered. If only one part could be different, then induction in this case could not yield true knowledge.

Al-Ghazali criticized the philosophers on twenty accounts in the Tahafut. Of relevance to the discussion here is his position on issue number seventeen, causality. Long before David Hume, alGhazali said that, in his opinion, “the conjunction (al-‘qtiran) between what is conceived by way of habit (fi al`adah) as cause and effect is not necessary (laysa daruriyyan).” He provided a list of pairs that were usually thought of as cause and effect by the philosophers (e.g. fire and burning, light and sunrise, diarrhea and laxatives). For him, the conjunction between them was a result of the sequence in which Allah created them, not because this conjunction was necessary in itself. Moreover, he thought that it was possible for one of these pairs to exist without theother.

He did not see any contradiction since these pairs are the phenomena of nature and nature as such, according to the philosophers own admission, does not belong to the realm of necessity but that of possibility, which may or may not exist.  (Tahafut, p. 239)

Al-Ghazali criticized the philosophers’ proof of causality because it was limited to observation (mushahadah) which depends on the senses, a source of knowledge that he could not accept on its own merit. Thus his position regarding causality is consistent with his theory of knowledge. Using the example of fire and burning, he said that “observation could only prove that burning took place when there was fire, and not by the fire.” He held that inert and lifeless objects such as fire are incapable of action and thus cannot be the agent (al-fa`il) that causes burning.

To prove his point, al-Ghazali used a proof, which is neo-platonic in its tone, from the arguments of the philosophers. They held that accidents (a`rad) and incidents (hawadith) emanate at the time of contact between “bodies”, from the provider of forms (wahib al-suwar) whom they thought to be an angel. Accordingly, one cannot claim that fire is the agent of burning. In addition, he argued that the agent “creates” burning with his will (bi’iradatihi). al-Ghazali reduced the problem of causality to that of “will” which makes it rationally possible for the agent, whom he held to be Allah, not to create burning even though there is contact. (Tahafut, pp. 242-243)

Al-Ghazali presented this theory of causality in order to allow room for the existence of miracles (mu`jizat) that were associated with the prophets, without resorting to allegorical interpretations as the philosophers did. One of the miracles that he chose as an example was that of Prophet Ibrahim. The story was that his people attempted to burn him for breaking their idols by throwing him into fire but no burning took place. In theQur’an (21:69) it was Allah’s will that the fire would not harm Ibrahim. al-Ghazali maintained that Allah was the agent (fa`il) of every action, either directly or indirectly (i.e. by the angels). (Tahafut, pp. 243-247)

Al-Ghazali knew that he could not exhaust all the sciences in his writings. He had an insight that there are more sciences within reach of human beings. He said: “It appeared to me through clear insight and beyond doubt, that man is capable of acquiring several sciences that are still latent and not existent.” (Jawahir alQur’an, p. 28)

Al-Ghazali’s Impact on Islamic Thought and Beyond:

Al-Ghazali’s status in Islamic thought ranges from being the “Proof of Islam” and renewer (mujadded) of the fifth century AH, to being declared a non-believer by some of our contemporary “scholars” (Dimashqiyyah, Abu Hamid al-Ghazali wal-Tasawwuf). The unfortunate gap between the two positions reflects the war that ensued between the Sufis and the Salafis, a war that is almost as old as Islam itself. Al-Ghazali left behind a great number of books and treatises. According to Abdurrahman Badawi (Mu’allafat al-Ghazali)seventy-three are definitely his. One of the most celebrated books is the Ihya’ `Ulum Al-Din  (Revival of Islamic Sciences). al-Ghazali believed that Muslims became entrapped within the minute details of fiqh. This included scholars as well because to a certain extent they had lost sight of the original message of Islam. It is in this context that the Ihya’ poses a challenge to scholars, despite its own flaws that mostly arise from al-Ghazali’s lacked of sufficient knowledge in the science of

Hadith, as he admitted in Qanun al-Ta’wil. Al-Subki, an early historian of the Shafi`i school of jurisprudence, listed in Tabaqat alShafi`iyyah al-Kubramore than nine hundred weak or forged traditions that he detected in the Ihya’.

Al-Ghazali was the scholar per excellence in the Islamic world. He had literally hundreds of scholars attending his lectures at the Nizamiyyah school of Baghdad. His audience included scholars from other schools of jurisprudence. The list includes

Judge Abu Bakr Ibn Al-`Arabi who was Maliki, Al-Khattabi and  Abu Al-Wafa’ Ibn `Aqil who were Hanbalites.

Reflecting the influence of al-Ghazali on the Latin world, Manuel Alonso listed forty-four medieval philosophers and theologians who made reference to al-Ghazali. This included Thomas Aquinas who referred to Maqasid Al-Falasifahthirty-one times (Al-Andalus, XXIII). Needless to say, that al-Ghazali is still celebrated in many academic institutions in the West, with numerous orientalists writing about him and translating his books. `Uthman Ka`ak has related that he found a translated copy of Al-Munqidh min al-Dalalin Descartes’ library in Paris  with Descartes’ comments in the margin. The numerous similarities between Al-Munqidh and Discourse on Method support Ka`ak’s observations. Ka`ak passed away and I have attempted to locate the book that he mentioned by corresponding with several libraries in France that contain some of Descartes’ book collection, yet to no avail.

Conclusion:

Al-Ghazali rejected conformism or uncritical acceptance of any set of thought including that of the Shari’ah. He sketched his quest for peremptory knowledge (i.e. `ilm al-yaqin) and the ordeal he had to go through in order to achieve it. He reviewed the position of many Islamic groups and others who claimed to be the gate to the knowledge that he sought. His position regarding the sciences slightly differed from one to the other, and from time to time. A science, to be sought, has to be in conformity with the Shari`ah, and has to have practical applications which should prove to be beneficial to the society. It is apparent that by subscribing to the Sufi path, al-Ghazali detached himself from the material world including the exact sciences, which lost whatever status they held in his eyes at one point. Al-Ghazali had a great  spirit that roamed and wandered in search of truth. Though originally his search was not in the area of science per se, inculcating such a spirit might be a step in the right direction to scientific inquiry. I began this entry with a quotation from al-Ghazali and I would like to conclude with one that reflects this spirit and leave it open ended, he said:

“In the bloom of my life, from the time I reached puberty before I was

twenty until now, when I am over fifty, I have constantly been diving daringly into the depth of this profound sea and wading into its deep water like a bold man, not like a cautious coward. I would penetrate far into every mazy difficulty. I would scrutinize …!”

(Freedom and Fulfillment, p. 62)

Opposing "Jahiliyya"

Al-Ghazali wrote a scathing criticism of the period's greatest scholars for their fascination with "un-Islamic" Greek scholars rather than the Qur'ān. Eventually Al-Ghazali's opinion won out and the clergy censored all outside learning as "Jahiliyya" ignorance and temptation and demanded that the scholars only study "pure" Islamic subjects. The Imam described mathematics and medicine as Fard-E-Kefaya;35 he decisively placed those as secondary to religious-Ilm.36 We find Ghazali's mindset continuing today in the form of fundamentalist Bucailleists like Zakir Naik who are obsessed with finding science exclusively in the Qur'ān and Islamic history, while showing antagonism to people of other faiths. The great irony is that though they boast most loudly about the Golden Age of Islam, it is precisely their mindset that deprived the Golden Age of its openness and led to its decline. An example of this opposition to outside ideas and learning is seen in medieval Islam's response to the printing press.

Opposition to Printing Press

The printing press was not invented in Europe but in China, though China never put it to much practical use. When Johannes Gutenberg invented quality moveable type and printed his first book (the Bible), he started a global revolution in literacy, education and information dissemination. Gutenberg described his intentions clearly:

"Religious truth is captive in a small number of little manuscripts which guard the common treasures, instead of expanding them. Let us break the seal which binds these holy things; let us give wings to truth that it may fly with the Word, no longer prepared at vast expense, but multitudes everlastingly by a machine which never wearies to every soul which enters life."

"It is a press, certainly, but a press from which shall flow in inexhaustible streams...Through it, God will spread His Word. A spring of truth shall flow from it: like a new star it shall scatter the darkness of ignorance, and cause a light heretofore unknown to shine amongst men."

Gutenberg's prediction came true; as common people gained access to scriptures in their mother-tongue, there was a religious revival of piety, honesty and hard work throughout Europe which laid the foundation for the economic boom in Northern Europe in the 18th century. According to the agnostic father of modern sociology, Max Weber, the Protestant revival of Biblical teaching was responsible for the Industrial Revolution in Northern Europe.

Soon after Gutenberg's invention of the modern printing press, Sultan Bayezid II banned it from the Ottoman Empire in 1485, and no printing press was established in the Arab world for three hundred and fifty years. During that time, the only printing presses in the Near East were those run by Christians and Jews. This ban proved disastrous to the development of science and technology in the Arab world.

The Book of Nature and Book of Revelation

Both Christians and Muslims see two primary sources of knowledge; the Book of Nature (the natural world around us) and the Book of Revelation (Divine Scripture). Often people distinguish between these two ‘books', with scripture governing religious ritual and theology, while nature guides our understanding of natural science and technology, with Scripture as the primary authority. So how does religion affect scientific progress? Our approach to studying the Book of Revelation sets a pattern for how we approach and study the Book of Nature. How we study scripture determines how we study nature. This is dramatically illustrated in history, where a primary difference between Islam and Christianity is how they have used scripture. In Islam, scripture is for memorization and recitation in Arabic, not primarily for reading and personally interpreting like a normal book. Ijtihad, or personal interpretation, was not allowed for any major theological matters, and scripture interpretation was channeled through clerical authority. In fact, the decline of the Golden Age coincided with the "closing of the gates of Ijtihad" in the 12th century, when it was said that there was no more need for personal interpretation. So every aspect of religion was handed to the common man on a plate, and he was obligated to memorize and recite the Qur'ān , not challenge the religious authorities. There was no direct recourse to scripture for the common man. This attitude that there was "nothing more to be said" carried over to the study of nature, and, for the vast majority, academics became nothing more than dead memorization of ancient scholarship.

In Europe, there was a very similar situation before the Reformation. The priests controlled doctrine and very few people interpreted scriptures for themselves, simply obeying the clergy and reciting the scriptures in a foreign language. With the printing press, common people had direct access to scripture in their mother-language, and across Europe common families would read scripture aloud every night. Religion returned to the pattern of the early Christian Church, and it was believed that personal understanding and interpretation of scripture was a sacred duty for every person—a doctrine known as the "priesthood of all believers." This attitude of doubting human clerics and trusting only the Scriptures carried over to the scientific realm, where Protestants like Newton, Kepler and Boyle began to doubt the ancient authorities like Aristotle and interpret nature directly for themselves. This skepticism of religious authority led to skepticism of scientific authority, which caused the Scientific Revolution.

Bibliography (Partial List)

Major works by al-Ghazali arranged in chronological order:

1. Al-Mankhul min Ta`liqat al-Usul, ed., Muhammad Hasan Hitu (Damascus:

Dar Al-Fikr, 1970)

2. Al-Wajiz (Al-Ghuriyya: Matba`at Hush, 1318 AH [1901 CE])

3. Al-Wasit, ed., Ali Muhyi al-Din al-Qarah Daghi, 2 vols. (Cairo: Dar al-Nasr

li al-Tiba`ah al-Islamiyyah, 1984)

4. Fatawa, ed., Mustafa Abu Sway (Kuala Lumpur: ISTAC, 1996)

5. Maqasid al-Falasifah, ed., Suleiman Dunya (Cairo: Dar al-Ma`arif bi-Misr,

1961)

6. Tahafut al-Falasifah, ed., Suleiman Dunya, 7th ed. (Cairo: Dar al-Ma`arif biMisr, 1961)

7. Mi`yar al-`Ilm fi al-Mantiq, ed., Ahmad Shams al-Din (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub

al-`Ilmiyyah, 1990)

8. Mihak al-Nazar fi al-Mantiq, ed., Muhammad Badr Ad-Din al-Na`sani

(Beirut: Dar al-Nahdah al-Hadithah, 1966)

9. Mizan al-`Amal, ed., Suleiman Dunya (Cairo: Dar al-Ma`arif bi-Misr, 1964)

10. Al-Iqtisad fi Al-I`tiqad, ed., Muhammad Mustafa Abu al-`Ula (Cairo:

Maktabat al-Jindi, 1972)

11. Ihya’ `Ulum al-Din, 4 Vols. (Beirut: Dar al-Ma`rifah, n.d.)

12. Al-Maqsad al-Asna Sharh Asma’ Allah al-Husna, ed., Muhammad Mustafa

Abu al-`Ula (Cairo: Maktabat al-Jindi, 1968)

13. Bidayat al-Hidayah, ed. Muhammad al-Hajjar (Damascus: Dar al-Sabuni,

1986)

14. Jawahir al-Qur’an, ed., Muhammad Mustafa Abu al-`Ula (Cairo: Maktabat

al-Jindi, 1964)

15. “Al-Madnun bihi `ala Ghayri Ahlih”, Majmu`at Rasa’il al-Imam al-Ghazali,

vol. IV (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-`Ilmiyyah, 1986)

16. “Al-Qistas al-Mustaqim” Majmu`at Rasa’il al-Imam al-Ghazali, vol. III

(Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-`Ilmiyyah, 1986)

17. “Faisal al-Tafriqah bayn al-Islam wa al-Zandaqah” Majmu`at Rasa’il alImam al-Ghazali, vol. III (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-`Ilmiyyah,1986)

18. Qanun al-Ta’wil. Published with al-Ghazali’s Ma`arij al-Quds, ed.,

Muhammad Mustafa Abu al-`Ula (Cairo: Maktabat al-Jindi, 1968)

19. “Ayyuha al-Walad” Majmu`at Rasa’il al-Imam al-Ghazali, vol. III (Beirut:

Dar al-Kutub al-`Ilmiyyah, 1986)

20. Al-Tibr al-Masbuk fi Nsiyat al-Muluk (Cairo: Maktabat al-Kulliyyah alAzhariyyah)

21. “Al-Risalah al-Ladunniyyah”, Majmu`at Rasa’il al-Imam al-Ghazali, vol.

III (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-`Ilmiyyah, 1986)

22. Mishkat al-Anwar, ed., `Abd Al-`Aziz `Izz al-Din al-Siyarawan (Beirut:

`Alam al-Kutub, 1986)

23. Al-Kashf wa al-Tabyin fi Ghurur al-Khalq Ajma`in (Cairo: Matba`at

Mustafa Muhammad, n.d.) Published with `Abd al-Wahhab al-Sha`rani’s

Tanbih al-Mughtarrin.

24. Al-Munqidh min al-Dalal, eds., Jamil Saliba and Kamil `Aiyyad, 10th ed.

(Beirut: Dar al-Andalus, 1981)

25. Al-Mustasfa min `Ilm al-Usul, 2 vols. (Bulaq: Al-Matba’ah al-Amiriyyah,

1322 A.H.)

26. Al-Imla’ fi Mushkilat al-Ihya’, Appendix, Iyha’ `Ulum al-Din (Beirut: Dar

al-Ma`rifah, n.d.)

27. Al-Durrah al-Fakhirah fi Kashf `Ulum al-Akhirah. Published with alGhazali’s Sir al-`Alamin, ed., Muhammad Mustafa Abu al-`Ula (Cairo:

Maktabat al-Jindi, 1968)

28. Sir al-`Alamin wa Kashf ma fi al-Daryn, ed., Muhammad Mustafa Abu al-`Ula (Cairo: Maktabat al-Jindi, 1968)

29. Iljam al-`Awam `an `Ilm al-Kalam, ed., Muhammad al-Musta`sim Billah alBaghdadi (Beirut: Dar al-Kitab al-`Arabi, 1985)

30. Minhaj al-`Abidin, ed., Muhammad Mustafa Abu al-`Ula (Cairo: Maktabat

al-Jindi, 1968)

31. Ma`arij al-Quds fi Ma`rifat al-Nafs (Cairo: Maktabat al-Jindi, 1968)

Translated Works of al-Ghazali

1.  al-Ghazali, The Book of Knowledge (Kitab al-`Ilm of Ihya` `Ulum al-Din)

ed. and trans., Nabih Amin Faris (Lahore; Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, 1962)

2. On the Duties of Brotherhood. trans. Muhtar Holland (Woodstock,

NewYork: The Overlook Press, 1976)

3. Freedon and Fulfillment (Al-Munqidh min al-Dalal), Published with alGhazali’s “Fada’ih al-Batiniyyah wa Fada’il al-Mustazhiriyyah”. ed. and

trans., Richard J. McCarthy (Boston: Twayn Publishers, 1980)

4. Inner Dimensions of Islamic Worship (from Ihya’ `Ulum al-Din) trans.,

Muhtar Holland (Leicester: The Islamic Foundation, 1983)

5. The Just Balance (Al-Qistas al-Mustaqim), trans. and ed., D.P. Brewster

(Lahore: Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, 1978)

6. The Niche for Lights (Mishkat al-Anwar), trans. and ed., W.H.T. Gairdner

 (Lahore: Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, 1952)

7. The Ninety-Nine Beautiful Names of God (Al-Maqsad al-Asna Sharh Asma’

Allah Al-Husna) trans., David B. Burrell and Nazih Daher (Cambridge: The

Islamic Texts Society, 1992)

8. The Precious Pearl (Al-Durrah al-Fakhirah), trans. and ed., Jane Idleman

Smith (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1979)

9. Letters, trans., Abdul Qayyum (Lahore: Islamic Publications, 1976)

Other Works:

1. Abu Sway, Mustafa, al-Ghazali: A Study in Islamic Epistemology (Kuala

Lumpur, Dewan Bahasa Dan Pustaka, 1996)

2. Al-A`sam, `Abd al-Amir, Al-Faylasuf al-Ghazali (Beirut: Dar al-Andalus,

1981)

3. Badawi, `Abdurrahman, Mu’allafat al-Ghazali, 2nd ed. (Kuwait: Wakalat

al-Matbu`at, 1977)

4. Laoust, Henri, La Politique De Gazali (Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul

Geuthmer, 1970)

5. Al-Qaradawi, Yusuf, Al-Imam al-Ghazali bayn Madihih wa Naqidih (AlMansurah: Dar al-Wafa’, 1990)

6. Al-Sharabasi, Ahmad, al-Ghazali (Beirut: Dar al-Jil, 1975)

7. Al-`Uthman, `Abd al-Karim, Al-Dirasat al-Nafsiyyah `ind al-Muslimin wa

al-Ghazali bi Wajhin Khas, 2nd ed. (Cairo: Maktabat Wahbah, 1981)

8. Watt, W. Montgomery, Muslim Intellectual: A Study of al-Ghazali

(Edinburgh: The Edinburgh University Press, 1963)

9. Zaki, Mubarak, Al-Akhlaq `ind al-Ghazali (Beirut: Al-Maktabah al-`Asriyyah, n.d.)

10. Al-Zubaydiyy, Murtada, Ithaf al-Sadah al-Muttaqin bi Sharh Asrar Ihya’

`Ulum al-Din (Beirut: Dar Ihya’ al-Turath al-`Arabi, n.d.)