Post by ubaidullah on Mar 2, 2016 23:57:55 GMT
Book review:
Sherman A. Jackson, On the Boundaries of Theological Tolerance in Islam: Abu Hamid al-Ghazali's Faysal al-Tafriqa Bayna al-Islam wa al-Zandaqa, Oxford University Press, Karachi, 2002, pp. xiv + 156, hardback, ISBN: 0-19-579791-4.
Sherman A. Jackson, On the Boundaries of Theological Tolerance in Islam: Abu Hamid al-Ghazali's Faysal al-Tafriqa Bayna al-Islam wa al-Zandaqa, Oxford University Press, Karachi, 2002, pp. xiv + 156, hardback, ISBN: 0-19-579791-4.
Review By (Maulana) Ubaidullah Bapu
This book comprises of a translation by Sherman Jackson of Faysal al-Tafriqa Bayna al-Islam wa al-Zandaqa of al-Ghazali, who is perhaps one of the most well-known theologians in Islamic history. It begins with engaging introductory notes compiled by Jackson. Whilst dividing the introduction into two parts, Jackson opts for a thematic approach to enable an easier understanding of al-Ghazali's central arguments.
To begin with, Jackson initiates with the heading 'Theology Between Tolerance and Exclusivity,' and in doing so allows the reader to understand the impetus for al-Ghazali to pen Faysal in the final half decade of the latter's life. Jackson explains how a lamenting al-Ghazali critiques dogmatic approaches; namely "theological intolerance and theological laissez-faire" (pp. 5). Further clarification enables us to understand that theological laissez-faire was guised as tolerance, when in reality it was unjustified indifference. In stark contrast to this indifference was intolerance. Jackson identifies al-Ghazali's example of the renowned Ash'ari theologian al-Baqillani; indeed other theologians from the Ash'ari school were lenient on al-Baqillani, despite the latter going against some mainstream views of the school. Yet, views from other schools were deemed heretical regardless. Jackson correctly points out that it is this very attitude that al-Ghazali condemns in Faysal. This enables an understanding of intra-religious pluralism, particularly within theology, which is a pertinent issue currently, especially in light of the diverse social and intellectual modern world. In addition to this, it is imperative to find the moderate path between indifference and intolerance.
Successfully, Jackson explains al-Ghazali's "Rule of Figurative Interpretation (Qanun al-Ta'wil)" (pp. 49-50). Al-Ghazali explains that existence (wujud) can only subsist and thus understood on five levels: i) ontological (dhati), ii) sensory (hissi), iii) conceptual (khayali), iv) noetic ('aqli) and v) analogous (shabahi). Whilst al-Ghazali uses the somewhat archaic example of anger (p. 104), to explain the intricacies, function and boundaries of Qanun al-Ta'wil. Jackson utilises the concept of the sun 'setting' (pp. 50-51 n. 114), which is more appropriate and coherent, especially in light of modern developments within scientific enquiry. Through this, Jackson enables the reader to understand the frameworks and limits of ta'wil, by clarifying that it is only when a Qur'anic or Prophetic statement "cannot be sustained on the more proximate level can one move to a more remote level of figurative existence" (p. 51). The example of the sun 'setting' may be untrue in an ontological (dhati) sense to an individual who has an understanding of astronomy, yet it is still true on a sensory (hissi) level. Thus, Jackson shows how the Qanun al-Ta'wil was not only of great significance in al-Ghazali's time, but is also important in a modern context due to the plethora of sciences accessible and many intellectual developments which may supposedly 'challenge' theological perspectives.[1] It is also by utilising the model of Qanun al-Ta'wil through which Jackson justifies his understanding of Faysal neither advocating a state sponsored creed nor al-Ghazali allocating any implicit exclusivity to himself. Furthermore, this is also how al-Ghazali substantiates his critiques of indifference, by explicitly stating that ta'wil beyond this cannot be accepted.
It is under the theme of 'Theology Between Traditionalism and Rationalism' Jackson boldly claims Traditionalism and Rationalism "are better understood as different traditions of reason" (p. 17), and it is only by acknowledging this can one gain "a full appreciation of al-Ghazali's manner of proceeding in Faysal." To uphold this claim, Jackson proposes how Imam Ahmad initially stated the Qur'an is "'the word of God; I have nothing to say beyond this,'" yet the Traditionalist-Hanbali school would later assert the Qur'an is the uncreated word of God, in opposition of the Mu'tazilite doctrine. Indeed, Imam Ahmad also identified with the Traditionalist-Hanbali position, thus supporting Jackson's explanation that Traditionalism is not simply transmission of Tradition, rather it is "a process of selectively endorsing and suppressing old and new ideas and practices" (p. 27). Jackson also accurately highlights that Imam Ahmad was not versed in Aristotelian logic, and yet the latter 'explained' numerous verses of the Qur'an through what can be understood to be ta'wil. Related to Aristotelian logic is Jackson's argument that the Qur'an instructs tadabbur and tafakkur "but it never tell them how to do any of this" (p. 13). Whilst it is true that the Qur'an does not explicate the concepts of tadabbur and tafakkur in the logical Aristotelian sense, the notion of explanation must not be discarded completely. Indeed the Qur'an instructs its reader to deduce the existence of God by tadabbur and tafakkur through the use of one's senses.[2] It is also through this argument one can uphold that Traditionalism and Rationalism "are better understood as different traditions of reason."
This argument, coupled with al-Ghazali's Qanun al-Ta'wil is of utmost relevance to our time, as it supports Jackson's nuanced understanding of both schools being valid forms within the same tradition. This in turn enables a greater appreciation of the Traditionalists and the Rationalists and how both groups use accepted processes to arrive at the truth. It also further highlights the dogmatic approaches of many scholars, such as Abd al-Qahir al-Baghdadi (pp. 41-43) amongst others who were neither hesitant nor restrictive in their takfir, hence, al-Ghazali labels them as the 'Extremists'. The fact that the majority of Faysal is spent refuting these 'Extremists' highlights how rife takfir and exclusivist attitudes were in al-Ghazali's time. This further emphasises the importance of Jackson's work, through which he effectively asserts both Traditionalist and Rationalist theological approaches result in rhetoric and fictions about the opposition, when in reality both arrive at the truth through different traditions of reason. This assertion is well-grounded in al-Ghazali's statement: "Faith (iman) is to deem everything [the Prophet] brought to be true" (p.92). The emphasis both parties give in affirming the prophetic message collectively can be understood through this statement.
Although the bulk of Faysal discusses unreasonable, rigid extremist theology, to elaborate on the zanadiqa is equally as important. The translation by Jackson for this term is 'Crypto-Infidels' and an explanation of this choice demonstrates the suitability of the translation. Jackson clarifies that al-Ghazali's main concern with regards to these Crypto-Infidels was the fact that these individuals ascribed to "Unbelief that attempted to pass itself off as falling within the boundaries of Islam" (pp. 56-57). The manner by which the Crypto-Infidels attempted to do this is again related to al-Ghazali's Qanun al-Ta'wil. It is mentioned that the Crypto-Infidels referenced by al-Ghazali are the Neo-Platonist philosophers, such as Ibn Sina. They go beyond this framework of interpretation, which results in a notion of this group deeming the Prophet to have lied (takdhib al-Rasul). In an articulate manner, this is compared to nifaq (hypocrisy), and Jackson references Ibn Qudama and Ibn Taymiyyah to support this argument. Indeed, the crux of al-Ghazali's approach to charge someone with heresy or disbelief was to critically assess whether their beliefs indicated the Prophet to have lied. By determining this for the Neo-Platonist philosophers, amalgamated with the fact they attempted to pass this of as Islamic belief enables a greater appreciation of Jackson's translation 'Crypto-Infidel' and 'masked infidelity' for the terms zindiq and zandaqa respectively. Other translations of these terms - such as 'subversive/subversion' by Moosa - are not as accurate nor as clear as the term 'masked infidelity' in explaining the Neo-Platonist position. Certainly, these philosophers were not only holding subversive beliefs, but they also attempted to characterise it as belief. Additionally, Moosa praises Jackson for 'elegantly rendering' these translated terms.[3]
It is stated that al-Ghazali is "surprisingly brief in his treatment of the actual arguments of the falasifa" (pp. 57-59 n.124). Jackson proposes it is due to al-Ghazali knowing "the philosophers are guilty of takdhib by their own admission." Perhaps a finer explanation would have been al-Ghazali knew he had already refuted the philosophers thoroughly in his renowned Tahafut al-Falasifa. Although a note is rendered for this work, Jackson does not opt for this explanation in the text nor his notes. Nonetheless, through the discussions of intricate issues such as Qanun al-Ta'wil and takdhib al-Rasul, a clearer, more consistent understanding of what constitutes orthodox belief and what constitutes heresy/disbelief is established. A false narrative by Watt regarding there being no orthodoxy in Islam is also dismantled. Whilst Watt uses the analogy of formal authority in Christianity for (the lack of one in) Islam, Jackson rightly underlines that "Professor Watt overlooks what every member of a religious community knows by experience" (p.32). Specifically, this is stigmatising, ostracising and in some cases, verbal and physical attack, which can be as effective as formal excommunication. Although Jackson critiques Watt's position effectively in a logical manner, he fails to produce any example in this passage; perhaps the Nation of Islam (which he mentions by name in his preface - pp. xi-xii) or the Ahmadiyya sect would have sufficed as fitting examples from the past century.
The concepts discussed thus far primarily deal with intra-religious pluralism and its boundaries. Thus it is only fitting the final theme discussed in the introduction is 'The Limits of Experience and the Boundlessness of God's Mercy'. This theme discusses and counters "the exclusivism of some of the mutakallimun" (pp. 64-66). Due to their extremist theology, they became dogmatic and condemned any 'non-believer' to Hell, overlooking external factors. It is in this passage Jackson captures the essence of al-Ghazali's critique of the extremists. Using the concept of takdhib al-Rasul the latter explains that there are two factors the extremists overlook; the limits of experience - where an individuals may not hear about the Prophet, or does so in a distorted manner - and God's vast, all-encompassing mercy. As a result there are three groups: "1) those who never heard so much the name Muhammad; 2) those who heard his name and had access to concrete and authentic information about his life and mission; 3) those who heard of him but received wrong, insufficient or misleading information about his life and mission" (p. 65). In this regard, only the second group can be charged with kufr, whilst it does not contradict God's mercy for the first and last group to be saved. This is noteworthy with regards to the limits of religious pluralism and this explanation should not be equated to a perennial philosophy, such as that propounded by the likes of Schuon and Nasr.[4] This is because it is unmistakably highlighted that al-Ghazali defines kufr as deeming "anything the Prophet bought to be a lie" (p. 92), and Jackson rightly points out that Christians, Jews and many other world religions "deem one or more of the prophets to be a liar" (p. 46). Of course charging adherents of these religions with kufr is based on the premise they receive the message of the Prophet or access to it in an uncorrupted form to establish takdhib, otherwise they too can be included in God's mercy. Additionally, is due to the very principle of takdhib that Deists (translated accurately by Jackson as Deists - from the term Barahimah - rather than 'Brahmans') are deemed unbelievers on a fortiori grounds, along with atheists and Crypto-Infidels.
To conclude, by opting for a thematic account of Faysal, Jackson lucidly clarifies the importance of Islamic Traditionalism and Rationalism as the pathways between indifference and intolerance and enables the reader to appreciate the prevalent attitudes of the extremists and Crypto-Infidels during al-Ghazali's time, thus explaining why the latter penned the treatise. There were also some typographical errors; e.g. al-fisl should be al-fisal (p. 146). However, aside from these minor errors and the critiques mentioned above, this work is of immense importance for students of Islamic theology, especially in light of the existence of postmodern intellectual and plural societies today. And this simply emphasises al-Ghazali's relevance to the intellectual world in his time and ours.
[1] For further reading, see Jonathan Brown, Misquoting Muhammad: The Challenge and Choices of Interpreting the Prophet's Legacy, Oneworld Publications, London, 2014, pages 15-118
[2] This is understood from Qur'an [51:21], [59:2] and [88:17-20]. For further readings see Ahmad Mullajiwan al-Siddiqui, Nur al-Anwar: Sharh al-Manar, Maktaba al-Bushra, Karachi, 2010, vol. II, pages 4-6.
[3] Ebrahim Moosa, Ghazali & the Poetics of Imagination, University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC, 2005, pages 191-208.
[4] For further readings, see Frithjof Schuon, Seyyed Hossein Nasr & William Stoddart. Religion of the Heart. Foundation for Traditional Studies, Washington, D.C., 1991.
Bibliography
Al-Siddiqui, Ahmad Mullajiwan, Nur al-Anwar: Sharh al-Manar, Maktaba al-Bushra, Karachi, 2010, vol. II.
Brown, Jonathon A.C., Misquoting Muhammad: The Challenge and Choices of Interpreting the Prophet's Legacy, Oneworld Publications, London, 2014.
Jackson, Sherman A., On the Boundaries of Theological Tolerance in Islam: Abu Hamid al- Ghazali's Faysal al-Tafriqa Bayna al-Islam wa al-Zandaqa, Oxford University Press, Karachi, 2002.
Moosa, Ebrahim. Ghazali & The Poetics of Imagination. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC, 2005.
Schuon, Frithjof, Nasr, Seyyed Hossein & Stoddart, William, Religion Of The Heart, Foundation for Traditional Studies, Washington, D.C., 1991.