Al-Ghazali Story - Part 9 ( The End )

BIBLIOGRAPHY

So far the best sources for a bibliography on al-Ghazālī are Sayyid Murtada, Ittihaf al-Sadah, Cairo, 1311/1893, Vol. I, pp. 41-44; Carl Broekelmann, Geschichte der arabischen Litteratur, Weimar, 1898, Vol. I, pp. 419-26, Supplementbände Leiden, 1937, Vol. I, pp. 744 et sqq.; and Zweite den Supplementbänden angepasate Auflage, Vol. I. Leiden, 1943, pp. 535 et sqq. A list of articles on al-Ghazālī in English and some of the European languages published in the various periodicals etc., from 1906-1955 is to be found in Index Islamicus, Cambridge, 1958, pp. 150-52. A fairly comprehensive subject-wise classification of al-Ghazālī’s works and a topic-wise though brief, bibliography can be found in the article “Al-Ghazzālī” in the Encyclopaedia of Islam. In the three sections below an attempt has been made to list: (i) those of al-Ghazālī’s works which can be arranged-in a chronological order with some measure of certainty, (ii) works the authenticity of which has been doubted by the professional students of al-Ghazālī (for both these sections, cf. note No. 24 in the preceding chapter), and (iii) books (or sections thereof) and articles most of which have been referred to in the notes but which are not included in any of the sources mentioned above.



I. Maqāsid al-Falāsifah, 2nd edition, Egypt, 1355/1936 (statement of the teachings of the Muslim Peripatetics); Mi’yār al-`Ilm, Cairo, 1329/1911 (an elaborate treatise on logic); Tahāfut al-Falāsifah ed. M. Bouyges, S. J., Beyrouth, 1927 (against the philosophers); Mihakk al-Nazar, Cairo (a smaller work on logic); al-Mustazhiri, Leiden, 1916 (against the Batinites); al-Iqtisad fi al-Itiqād, Cairo, 1327/1909 (on speculative theology); Ihyā’ `Ulum al-Din 15 Vols Cairo, 1356/ 1937-1357/1938 (magnum opus, a compendium of al-Ghazali’s whole system); Bidayat al-Hidayah, Cairo, 1353/1934, 47 pp. (on religious conduct; the authenticity of the closing section, pp. 40-47, doubtful); al-Hikmah fi Makhlqat Allah Cairo, 1321/1903 (on evidence of God’s wisdom in His creation); al-Maqsad al-Asna fi Asmā’ Allah al-Husna, Cairo, 1322/1904 (an exhortation to imitation of the divine qualities); al-Imlā’ `an Ishkalāt al-Ihyā’ (reply to attacks on Ihyā’ can be found on the margin of Sayyid Murtada’s Ittihaf al-Sādah, Vol. I, pp. 41-252; the definitions of the Sufi terms in the introduction are perhaps not authentic); al-Madnūn bihi `ala-Ghairi Ahlihi, Cairo, 1309/1891 (an esoteric work to be kept from those unfit {640} for it); Jawahir al-Qur’an, Egypt (an exposition of the faith of the orthodox on the basis of the Qur’an); Kitab al-Arba῾in, Cairo, 1328/1910 (a second part of the preceding work); Kimiya-i Sa῾ddat (in Persian), lithograph edition, Bombay (a summary of Ihyā’; to be distinguished from a spurious work of the same title in Arabic); al-Qistas al-Mustaqim, Cairo, 1318/1900 (a smaller work against the Batinites) ; Iljam al-`Awamm `an ῾Ilm al-Kalam, Egypt, 1309/1891 (a work on the science of dogmatics); Ayyuha al-Walad, Egypt, 1343/1924 (advice in the sphere of ascetic theology); al-Munqidh min al-Dalal, Damascus, 1358/1939 (autobiographical); Mishkat al-Anwar, Egypt, 1343/ 1924 (on mysticism : an exposition of the light verse in the Qur’an; the authenticity of the veil-section at the end is questionable; cf. note No. 24 above).
II. Al-Durrat al-Fakhirah Kashf `Ulum al-Akhirah, ed. Gauthier, Leipzig 1877; Risalah Ladunniyah, Cairo, 1343/1924 (English translation by Margaret Smith): Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1938, pp. 177-200, 353-74; Raudat al-Tālibin wa `Umdat al-Salikin in Farā’id al-La’āli Cairo 1343/1924, pp. 121-261; Sirr al-`Alamain wa Kashf ma fi al-Darain, Cairo, 1328/1910; Kimiya’ al-Sa’ādah (Arabic) in al-Jawahir al-Ghawāli, Cairo, 1343/1924; al-Nafkh al-Taswīyyah (referred to by Sayyid Murtala in Ittihaf); al-Madnūn al-Saghir, also known as al-Ajwibah al-Ghazālīyyah fi al-Masa’il al-Ukhrawiyyah, Cairo, 1309/1891; al-Madnun bihi ῾ala Ghairi Ahlihi, Cairo, 1309/1891; Mankhūl (refutation of the Fiqh of abu Hanifah; referred to in Kashf al-Zunun); Mi’raj al-Salikin in Farā’id al-La’āli, Cairo, 1343/1924, pp. 1-99; Mukāshafat al-Qulūb, Cairo, 1300/1882; Minhaj al-`Abidin, Cairo, 1313/1895; Mizan al-`Amal, Cairo, 1328/1910.
III. (A) Books.---S. A. Kamali, al-Ghazālī’s Tahāfut al-Falāsifah (English translation), The Pakistan Philosophical Congress, Lahore, 1958; W. M. Watt, The Faith and Practice of al-Ghazālī (English translation of al-Munqidh min al-Dalal and Bidayat al-Hidayah), George Allen & Unwin, London, 1953; Muhammad Hanif Nadawi, Qadim Yunani Falsāfah (Urdu translation of Maqsaid al-Falāsifah), Majlis-i Taraqqi-i Adab, Lahore, 1959; Sarguahasht-i Ghazālī (Urdu translation of al-Munqidh min al-Dalal with an Introduction), Institute of Islamic Culture, Lahore, 1959; Afkar-I Ghazālī (al-Ghazālī’s teachings with regard to knowledge and faith based on Ihyā’ with an Introduction), Institute of Islamic Culture, Lahore, 1956 (Urdu); M. Ahsan, Madhdq al-῾Arifin (Urdu translation of Ihyā’) 4 Vols., Matba’ah Tejkumar, Lucknow, 1955 (seventh edition); M. ῾Inayat Allah, Kimiya-I Sa῾ādat (Urdu translation), Din Muhammadi Press, Lahore, n. d. (revised edition); Sayyid ῾Abd al-Quddus Hashimi Nadawi, al-Murshid al-Amin (summary of Ihyā’ in Urdu), Urdu Manzil, Karachi, 1955; Syed Nawab Ali, Some Moral and Religious Teachings of al-Ghazālī (English translation of extracts from Parts III and IV of Ihyā᾽ with Introduction by Alban G. Widgery), Shaikh Muhammad Ashraf, Lahore, 1946; Claud Field, The Alchemy of Happiness (English translation of some parts of Kimiya-i Sa῾ādat), Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, Lahore, n. d. (reprint from the Wisdom of the East Series); W. H. T. Gairdner, Mishkat al-Anwar, Sh. Muhammad Ashraf Lahore, 1952 (new edition); Sulaiman Dunya, Tahāfut al-Falāsifah li al-Ghazālī, Cairo, 1947; al-Haqiqah fi Nazar al-Ghazālī, Dar Ihyā’ al-Kutub al-`Arabiyyah, Cairo, n. d.; A. W. Zuhuri, Makatib-i Imam Ghazālī (Letters of al-Ghazālī in Urdu), Karachi, 1949; M. Umaruddin, The Ethical Philosophy of al-Ghazzālī, 4 Parts, published by the author Muslim University, Aligarh, 1949-1951; Some Fundamental Aspects of Imam Ghazzālī’s Thought, Irgkad Book Depot, Aligarh 1946; Nur al-Hasan Khan, Ghazālī ka Tasawwur-i Akhldq (Urdu translation of Dr. Zaki Mubarak’s al-Akhlaq `ind al-Ghazzālī), al-Maktabat al-`Ilmiyyah, Lahore, 1956; Shibli Nu’mani, al-Ghazālī, M. Thana Allah Khan, Lahore, 1956 (Urdu); Simon van den Bergh, Averroes’ Tahāfut al-Tahāfut (English translation with extensive notes), 2 Vols., Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1954. An Urdu {641} translation of ibn Rushd’s Tahāfut at-Tahāfut is under preparation, to be published by the Board for Advancement of Literature, Lahore.
(B) Sections of Books.-`Abd al-Salam Nadawi, Hukama’-i Islam, Azamgarh, 1953, Vol. I, pp. 386-408 (Urdu); abu al-Hasan ‘Ali, Tarikh-i Da’wat-a `Azimat, Azamgarh, 1375/1955, Part I, pp. 111-81 (Urdu); Majid Fakhry, Islamic Occasionaliam, George Allen & Unwin London 1958, chapter 2 and by index; M. M. Sharif, Muslim Thought: Its Origin and Achievements, Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, Lahore, 1951, pp. 75-80; F. Rahman Prophecy in Islam George Allen & Unwin, London. 1958, pp. 94-99; M. Saeed Sheikh, Studies in Muslim Philosophy (in press), Pakistan Philosophical Congress, Lahore, chapter on al-Ghazālī; D. M. Donaldson, Studies in Muslim Ethics, S. P. C. K., London 1953, chapter 6 and by index; A. J. Arberry, Sufism, George Allen & Unwin, London, 1956 (second impression), pp. 74-75, 79-83 and by index S. M. Afnan, Avicenna: His Life and Works, George Allen & Unwin London, 1958, pp. 235-41; E. I. J. Rosenthal, Political Thought in Medieval Islam Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1958, pp. 38-43 and by index; J. W. Sweetman, Islam and Christian Theology, Lutterworth Press, London, 1955, Part II, Vol. I, pp. 90-93, 262-309 and by index of authors; C. Hartshorne and W. L. Reese, Philosophers Speak of God, Chicago, 1953, pp. 106-11.
(C) Articles.-G. F. Hourani, “Al-Ghazālī and the Philosophers on the Origin of the World,” The Muslim World, 1958, Vol. XLVIII, Nos. 3 & 4, pp. 183-91, 308-14; Michael E. Marmura “Al-Ghazālī and the Argument of Time,” The Muslim World, 1959, Vol. XLIX No. 4 ; M. M. Sharif, “Muslim Philosophy and Western Thought,” Iqbal, July 1959, Vol. VIII, No. 1, pp. 7-14; M. Hanif Nadawi, “ Ghazālī ka Nazriyyah-i Ta’lil,” Thaqāfat (Urdu), Institute of Islamic Culture, Lahore, July 1959, Vol. VII, No. 7, pp. 11-19.
{642}
M. Saeed Sheikh, M. A.
Professor of Philosophy, Government College, Lahor (Pakistan)


1 For al-Ghazālī’s role as a renewer of religion, cf. abu al-Hasan ‘Ali, Tarikh-i Da’wat-a `Azimat, Azamgarh, 1375/1955, Part I, pp. 111-81 (Urdu); Shibli Nu’mam, al-Ghazālī, Lahore, 1956, pp. 279-352 (Urdu). Cf. also A. W. Zuhfiri (Tr. and Comp.), Makatib-i Imam Ghazālī (Letters of Imam al-Ghazālī), Karachi, 1949 (Urdu). See al-Munqidh, English translation by W. Montgomery Watt in his Faith and Practice of al-Ghazālī, London, 1953, p. 75. All references to al-Munqidh are to this translation unless mentioned otherwise.
2 Al-Subki (Taj al-Din), Tabaqat al-Shafi’iyyah al-Kubra, Cairo, 1324/1906, Vol. IV, p. 101. See also note No. 10, below.
3 The principal sources for the life of al-Ghazālī are his autobiographical al-Munqidh, S. Murtada Ittihaf al-Sadah Cairo, 1311/1893, Vol. I (Introduction) pp. 2-53, and al-Subki, op. cit., Vol. IV, pp. 101-82. For the account of al-Ghazālī’s life in English, cf. D. B. Macdoland, “Life of al-Ghazzālī with Special Reference to His Religious Experience,” Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. XX, 1899, pp. 71-132 (Important); M. Smith, al-Ghazālī: The Mystic, London, 1944, Part 1, pp. 9-104; W. H. T. Gairdner, An Account of Ghazālī’s Life and Works, Madras 1919; S. M. Zwemer A Moslem Seeker after God, London, 1920. An account in Urdu can be found in Shibli Nu’mani, op. cit., pp. 19-73; M. Hanif Nadawi, Afkar-i Ghazālī, Lahore, 1956, Introduction, pp. 3-113; `Abd al-Salam Nadawi, Hukamā’-i Islām, Azarngarh, 1953, pp. 386-408.
4 Known as Algazel, sometimes as Abuhamet to Medieval Europe. Some of the Western scholars even now use Algazel (e.g. Bertrand Russell, History of Western, Philosophy, London, 1946, p. 477) or its other varients al-Gazal, Algazali, Gazali, etc. Whether al-Ghazālī should be spelt with double or single “Z” has been a matter of long and strong dispute. More general practice both with the contemporary Muslim writers and the Orientalists now is to use single “Z”. Cf. Hanif Nadawi, op. cit., pp. 3-6; D. B. Macdonald, “The Name Al-Ghazzali,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1902, pp. 18-22; S. M. Zwemer, op. cit., pp. 63-65, 140-43.
5 Known thereafter as al-Ghazālī al-Kabir. He is reported to have taught canon-law (Fiqh) to al-Farmadhi, the Sufi guide of our own al-Ghazālī; cf. Macdonald, “Life of al-Ghazālī - . .”JAOS, p. 126; also al-Subki, op. cit., Vol. IIl, p. 36.
6 Cf. al-Subki, op. cit., Vol. IV, p. 102.
7 Ibid., pp. 103, 106.
8 Cf. ibn Khallikan, Wafayat al-A’yan (English trans. by de Slane), Paris, 1842-1871, Vol. 11, p. 122.
9 It may be recalled that not only theology but medicine and philosophy were also taught at Baghdad and the school of Baghdad from the first was characterized by its scientific spirit and freedom of thought. The city of Bagh-dad had more than thirty-five libraries for the use of scholars and the place attracted all sorts of people belonging to different sects and schools. A few generations back there flourished the association of the Ikhwan al-Safa; its meetings were attended by abu al-`Ala’ al-Ma’arri, said to be the arch-heretic in Islam who died (at the ago of 84) only a year before al-Ghazālī was born. Al-Qushairi the teacher of Farmadhi, yet himself a pupil of al-`Ash’ari in theology, died in 465/1074 when al-Ghazālī was a boy of seventeen, but then probably this is also the date of the death of Nasir-i Khiisrau, the Isma’ili propagandist and philosopher. `Umar Khayyam (d. c. 517/1123), the great mathematician, astronomer, and the agnostic philosopher (the Lucretius and the Voltaire of Islam in one), enjoyed with al-Ghazālī the patronage of Nizam al-Mulk. Only a year after al-Ghazālī’s appointment in the Nizamiyyah Academy, Nizam al-Mulk died (485/1092) as the first victim of the Isma’ili assassins headed by al-Hasan ibn al-Sabbah (483/1090-518/1124)-the second victim was no less than the king himself (Malikshah) only after an interval of thirty-five days.
10 He was himself a master of the canon-law and compiled works of the very highest order on it, e. g., al-Wajiz, al-Basit, al-Wasit, al-Mustaafa, etc., According to Sayyid Murtada (d. 1206/1791), al-Wajiz was commented on by later scholars for about seventy times and that had al-Ghazālī been a prophet he could have claimed this work as his miracle. Al-Ghazālī on his part considered canon-law only to be `ilm al-mu’āmalah (knowledge dealing with practical affairs of life) and not ‘ilm al-mukāshfah (gnosis of Ultimate Reality); cf. M. Hanif Nadawi, op. cit., pp. 92-111.
11 For al-Ghazali’s criticism of Kalām, cf. his Iljām al-`Awāmm `an `Ilm al-Kalām and Risālah fi al-Wa’z wa al-I’tiqād. He, however, approved of Kalām to explain and defend faith; cf. his al-Iqtisād f al-I’tiqad.
12 See note No. 29 below.
13 He is also reported to have gone to Egypt visiting Cairo and Alexandria. There is a good deal of uncertainty about the various places that he visited and the time and order of his journeyings (except the first two years of his stay in Syria). These extensive travels must have added considerably to his experience of life in general, to his first-hand contact with the cultures of many lands, and to his involvement with other religions-hence his humanism. For his understanding of Christian religion and involvement with it, cf. J. W. Sweetman, Islam and Christian Theology, London, 1955, Part II, Vol. 1, pp. 22-23, 262-309; also L. Massignon in Revue des Études islamiques, 1933.
14 The period of al-Ghazālī’s rather unduly long retreat coincides with the time when Barkiyaruq ruled as the great Saljuq. In the civil war between Barkiyaruq and his uncle Tutush, al-Ghazālī is reported to have sided with the cause of the latter. To this may be added the fact that in Syria where al-Ghazālī spent some years Tutush (r. 487/1094-488/1095) and his sons were the kings (488/1095511/1117). All this is strongly suggestive of some possible political complications. Cf. Macdonald, JAOS, pp. 71-132.
15 An analytical account of the contents of Ihyā’ can be found in D. M. Donaldson’s Studies in Muslim Ethics, London, 1953, pp. 159-65. Cf. also Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, London, 1953, Vol. V, pp. 508a, 509b. A large part of Ihyā’ has also been analysed by Miguel Asin Palacios in his Algazel, dogmatica, moral, asética, Zaragoza, 1901. Ihyā’ is divided into four parts each comprising ten books. Part III, Book ii; Part II, Book vii; Part IV, Book vi, have been translated into English by D. B. Macdonald, in his Religious Attitude and Life in Islam Chicago, 1909, Lectures vii-x; Journal of Royal Asiatic Society, 1901-1902, and Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, Vol. II, pp. 677-80, respectively. Translation of some of the extracts from Parts III and IV can also be found in Syed Nawab Ali’s Some Moral and Religious Teachings of al-Ghazzālī, Lahore, 1946, pp. 28-133. Hans Bauer has made a German translation of some of the “Books” of Ihyā’; cf. his Islamische Ethik (Three Parts), Halle, 1916, 1917, 1922. For a complete Urdu translation of Ihyā’, cf. M. Ahsan, Madhaq al-`Arifin, 4 Vols., Lucknow, 1955 (seventh edition).
16 Al-Munqidh min al-Dalāl as an autobiographical work is unique in the whole of Arabic literature for “the keenness and the fullness of its self-revelation.” It is the most often referred to book and has been translated and edited a number of times; C. Brockelmann in his Arabische Litteratur, Weimar, 1899, Vol. I, pp. 419-26, has given 69 items. For some of the important translations of Munqidh, cf. Encyclopaedia of Islam, Leiden, 1913-34, Vol. 11, p. 149. For Urdu translations see Hāfiz M. Anwar ‘Ali, Lecture Imam Ghazālī, Lahore, 1311/1893, ill pp. (with Arabic text) and M. Hanif Nadawi, Sargudhasht-i Ghazali, Lahore, 1959, 188 pp. (with an Introduction, pp. 3-108).
17 Cf. al-Munqidh, pp, 20, 21.
18 Bukhari (23: 80, 93); also the Qur’an, xxx, 30; xxxv, 1. The term fitrah came to be used by the philosophers in the sense of lumen naturals.
19 Cf. al-Munqidh (English translation by Claud Field, The Confessions of al-Ghazzālī, London 1909, p. 13). This is exactly the first of the four rules mentioned by Descartes in his Discours de la méthode and the second rule of his Regulae ad Directionem Ingenii composed as early as 1038/1628; cf. E. S. Haldane and G. R. T. Ross (Trs.), The Philosophical Works of Descartes, Cambridge, 1911, Vol. I, pp. 3, 92, 101.
19a Haldane and Rose, op. cit., p. 101, where Descartes makes similar observations.
20 Cf. Ihyā’, Cairo, 1340/1921, Vol. IV, p. 19 where al-Ghazālī refers to a tradition: People are asleep; when they die, they awake. Cf. also Kimiya-i Sa’adat (Urdu tr. by M. `Inayat Allah), Lahore, n.d., pp. 738, 740.
21 It is, however, a serious though widespread error of interpretation to consider al-Ghazālī to be an anti-intellectualist. Macdonald’s statement in his article “al-Ghazzālī” in the Encyclopaedia of Islam that “he taught that intellect should only be used to destroy trust in itself,” is very unfortunate. So also is Iqbal’s allegation that al-Ghazālī denied dynamic character to thought and its self-transcending reference to the infinite (cf. S. M. Iqbal, The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, Oxford, 1934, pp. 4-6). Al-Ghazālī very definitively and explicitly brings out both these aspects of thought in his analysis of intelligence in the Mishkat al-Anwar (cf. English translation by W. H. T. Gairdner, Lahore, 1952, pp. 83-91). This section in the Mishkat is quite noteworthy in view of the general opinion that the Mishkat was written by al-Ghazālī at a time very close to the writing of al-Munqidh (probably after it) : a period in the spiritual history of al-Ghazālī during which he came to advocate the supremacy of intuition over reason as against an earlier phase say that of Ihyā’, when he ranked them as equal and made reason go parallel with intuition (e. g:, Part I, Book I, Chapter 7). True, in al-Munqidh al-Ghazālī makes a delimitation of the province of the human intellect by denying it a finality in the field of transcendental problems, yet it would not be altogether right to say that Ghazālīan epistemology is a mere intuitive critique of knowledge. Keeping other works of his in view, it may be said that his philosophy is mainly directed to the vindication that intellect and intuition must at the end supplement each other. Cf. M. Umaruddin, The Ethical Philosophy of al-Ghazzālī, Aligarh, 1949, Vol. I, Part III, pp. 228-259.
22 Cf. M. Fakhry, Islamic Occasionalism, London, 1958, pp. 25-48; also D. B. Macdonald, “Continuous Re-creation and Atomism,” Isis, Vol. IX, 1927, pp. 326-44.
23 Cf. S. M. Iqbal, The Development of Metaphysics in Persia, London 1908, pp. 55, 100; also A. S. Tritton, Muslim Theology, London, 1947, pp. 84, 90.
24 For the chronological order of al-Ghazālī’s works, cf. Louis Massignon Recueil de textes, p. 93, and Introduction to Maurice Bouyges’ edition of Tahāfut al-Falasifah, Beirut 1927. An allied and quite important, though very difficult, problem for a student of al-Ghazālī is the authenticity of his works. Cf. M. Asin Palacios, La espiritualdidad Algazal, Madrid 1934, Vol. IV, pp. 385-90, and W. M. Watt, “The Authenticity of the Works Attributed to al-Ghazālī,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic, Society, 1952, pp. 24-45, along with his article “A Forgery in al-Ghazālī’s Mishkat?” in the same Journal of the year 1949, pp. 5-22. Cf. also Shibli Nu’mani, op. cit., pp. 80-84, and M. Hanif Nadawi, op. cit., pp. 54-58. A consolidated study of these references shows that there are in all thirteen works the authenticity of which is a matter of dispute besides three considerable sections of works otherwise admitted to be authentic. The “problem of authenticity” requires very careful further investigation.
25 Cf. Henrieh Frick, Ghazālī’s Selbstbiographie, ein Vergleich mit Augustins Konfessionen, Leipzig, 1919, esp. p. 80.
26 See next chapter (pp. 617-24).
27 Ismā’īlites or Bātinites were known as Ta’līmites in Khurāsan. Al-Ghazālī wrote quite a number of books against them; those mentioned in al-Munqidh (p. 52) are: (1) Al-Mustazhiri, (2) Hujjat al-Haqq, (3) Mufassil al-Khilaf, (4) Durj, (5) Qustas al-Mustaqim. The first work is the most elaborate of them all. For the doctrines of the Ta’līmites, of. Hanif Nadawi, Sargudhasht-i Ghazālī, pp. 19-54; also the article “Isma’iliya,” Encyclopedia of Islam.
28 al-Munqidh, p. 29. Cf. also preface to Maqsaid al-Falasifah.
29 Ibid. Al-Ghazālī’s statement that, in spite of his arduous duty of teaching and engagement in writing he could master all the sciences of the philosophers unaided by an instructor within the span of two years, is perhaps a story to be taken with a grain of salt.
30 The date 1506 C. E. for the Latin translation of Maqsaid al-Falasifah given in the Encyclopedia Britannica, 14th edition, Vol. II, p. 188b, is incorrect. This is the date when it was for the first time printed in Venice. Gundisalvus’ translation under the title Logica et Philosophia Algazelis Arabes was made in collaboration with John of Seville to whose name it is sometimes ascribed. It might have been the case that John translated it from Arabic into Castilian and Gundisalvus from Castilian into Latin; cf. G. Sarton, Introduction to the History of Science, Baltimore, 1931, Vol. II, pp. 169-72.
31 This confusion was caused by the fact that the Latin translation of Maqsaid in circulation amongst the seventh/thirteenth-century Scholastics did not contain the short introduction in which al-Ghazālī speaks disparagingly of the philosophers’ metaphysics and makes it clear that his ultimate purpose to make an objective and dispassionate study of it is to refute it in Tahāfut at-Falasifah. It may be added that al-Ghazālī again mentions his intention to write the Tahāfut in the ending paragraph of the book. How this was overlooked by the Latin scholastics is anybody’s guess.
32 Maurice Bougyes in Introduction to his edition of Tahāfut at-Falasifah points out that the word “incoherence” does not give an exact meaning of Tahāfut and that al-Ghazālī has used it sometimes with reference to philosophers and sometimes with reference to their doctrines. He, therefore, suggests that it would be better to retain the original word Tahāfut.
33 The Dahriyyūn are those who teach the eternity of time and matter. It is, however, difficult to give a precise translation of the term; in its actual usage in Arabic philosophy, Dahriyyūn are sometimes hardly distinguishable from the Tabi’iyyun. Cf. the article “Dahriyyah,” Encyclopedia of Islam.
34 Cf. Aristotle’s Ethica Nichomachea, section 6, p. 1096 a 15.
35 Cf. M. Iqbal, The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, pp. 3-4. What really hinted at here is the Platonic and Neo-Platonic bias in the Hellenic thought which inculcates a dichotomy between the empirical and the transcendental-the secular and the spiritual.
36 All the three works can be found in one volume published by Matba’t al-`Alamiyyah, Egypt, 1302-1303/1884-1885: al-Ghazālī’s Tahāfut al-Falāsifah, 92 pp.; ibn Rushd’s Tahāfut al-Tahāfut, 141 pp., and Khwajah Zadah’s Tahāfut al-Falasifah, 137 pp.
37 For an analytical account of the contents of Tahāfut al-Falāsifah and Tahāfut al-Tahāfut, cf. A. F. van Mehren, “Études sur la philosophic d’Averrhoes concernant son rapport avec cello d’Avicenne et Gazzali,” Le Muséon, Vol. VIl, pp. 613-27; Vol. V111, pp. 5-20, Louvain, 1888-1889.
38 Cf. al-Ghazālī’s Tahāfut al-Falāsifah, English translation by Sabih Ahmad Kamali, The Pakistan Philosophical Congress, Lahore, 1958, pp. 1-3. All references to the Tahāfut are to this translation.
39 It is noteworthy that Simon van den Bergh has listed forty contradictions in Aristotle’s philosophy; see his English translation of Averroes’ Tahāfut al-Tahāfut, London 1954 Vol. II, p. 215.
40 Cf. Ibn ‘Asakir, Tabyin Kadhib al-Muftari, Damascus, 1347/1928, p. 128.
41 Aristotle’s notion of potentiality fails to solve the riddle of becoming as propounded by the Eleatics and later by the Megarics. W. D. Ross says, “The conception of potentiality has often been used to cover mere barrenness of thought.” Cf. his Aristotle London, 1923 pp. 176-78. The Ash’arites like the Megarics denied the existence of potentiality. Cf. S. van den Bergh, op. cit., pp. 37-40.
42 For the thesis of creatio ex nihilo, cf. the Qur’an, ii, 117; xxx, 27; xxxv, 1.
43 Critique of Pure Reason, 2nd ed., pp. 454-61.
44 Tahāfut, p. 5. It may be noted here that the Muslim philosophers and theologians sometimes used different terminology with regard to the same subject.
45 Cf. M. Saeed Sheikh, “Philosophy of Religion: Its Meaning and Scope,” Proceedings of the Fifth Pakistan Philosophical Congress, Lahore, 1958, pp. 37-51.
46 Cf. G. F. Hourani, “Alghazali and the Philosophers on the Origin of the World,” The Muslim World (1958), Vol. XLVIII, No. 3, pp. 183-91.
47 Cf. W. D. Ross, op. cit., pp. 89 et sqq.
48 Plotinus uses the light metaphor, for he conceived light to be incorporeal after Posidonius of Rhodes (c. 135-50 B. C.) who is perhaps the first to propound the notion of emanation.
49 Cf. Spinoza, Ethics, Part 1, Section 17, note.
50 Cf. Aristotle, De Caelo, 285 a 29, 292 a 20, b 1.
51 The nine spheres are as follows: the first, sphere, the sphere of the fixed stars, the sphere of Saturn, the sphere of Jupiter, the sphere of Mars, the sphere of the Sun, the sphere of Venus. the sphere of Mercury, and the sphere of the Moon.
52 Some of the Muslim thinkers have referred to the Qur’an, Ixxviii, 38, in support of the notion of the active intellect, e. g., al-Baidawi in his Anwar al-Tanzil, ed. H. O. Fleischer, Leipzig, 1846-48, Vol. II, p. 383, also Ihyā’ (Urdu Tr.), Vol. III, p. 5, where al-Ghazālī refers to the Tradition that “the first thing that God created was the Intellect.”
53 Cf. Kitab al-Shifā’, “Metaphysics,” Section ix, Chapter 6; al-Najat, Cairo, 1331/1912 pp. 448 et sqq.; al-Madinat al-Fadilala, Cairo, 1368/1948 p. 19. For the Aristotelian ingredients in the theory of emanation as explained above, cf. W. D. Ross, op. cit., pp. 181 et sqq.; A. E. Taylor, Aristotle, London, 1943, pp. 98 et sqq.; and A. H. Armstrong, The Architecture of the Intelligible Universe in the Philosophy of Plotinus, Cambridge, 1940, by index.
54 Cf. Tahāfut, pp. 77, 87.
55 Cf. F. R. Tennant, Philosophical Theology, Cambridge, 1930, Vol. II, pp. 125 et sqq., 153 et sqq.
56 Ibid., p. 154.
57 In Ptolemy’s Almagest the number of stars mentioned is 1,025. This number was generally accepted by the Arab astronomers. `Abd al-Rahman ibn `Umar al-Sufi (291/903-376/986), one of the greatest Muslim astronomers, in his work Kitab al-Kawakib al-Thabitah al-Musawwar (Illustrated Book of the Fixed Stars), adds that there are many more stars than 1,025, but they are so faint that it is not possible to count them.
58 Cf. Tahāfut, p. 88, Al-Ghazālī, in support of his agnosticism with regard to the modus operandi of God’s creativity, alludes at the end to the tradition: “Think over the product of God’s creative activity: do not think over His essence.” Cf. Takhrij al-Hafz al-Iraqi appended to Ihyā’, Part IV, p. 410; also the Qur’an, xviii, 15, which is referred to by al-Ghazālī earlier, i.e., on p. 80.
59 Metaphysica, p. 1072 b 20. Cf. also De Anima, p. 424 a 18.
60 Cf. Tahāfut, p. 80.
61 Problem thirteenth of Tahāfut, pp. 153-62; cf. also other passages pertaining to God’s knowledge by index. For a clear and balanced exposition of the philosopher’s position with regard to this problem, see Maqsaid al-Falsifah (Urdu trans. by M. Hanif Nadawi, Qadim Yunani Falsafah), Lahore, 1959, pp. 168-78.
62 Cf. Ihyā’, Vol. II, Bk. ii, Section I, English trans. by D. B. Macdonald, Development of Muslim Theology, London, 1903, p. 302.
63 Ibn Sina says this in his Kitab al-Shifa’: “Metaphysics,” VIII, 6. It is really an allusion to a verse of the Qur’an (x, 61): “. . . and not the weight of an atom in the earth or in the heaven is hidden from thy Lord . . .”; also xxxiv, 3.
64 Ibid.; cf. also al-Najat, pp. 408 et sqq.
65 Tahāfut, p. 159. Even though al-Ghazālī is not justified in alleging that philosophers restrict God’s knowledge merely to the universals, namely, the genera, the species, and the universal accidents, yet his criticism of the philosophers on this point is not vitiated by this misunderstanding and he is quite right in pointing out the inconsistency in their position.
66 Aristotle’s conception of time is essentially intellectualistic and static, whereas al-Ghazālī’s standpoint with regard to time in keeping with his theistic occasionalism, is intuitionistic and dynamic much like Bergson’s durée. Cf. Louis Massignon, “Time in Islamic Thought” in Man and Time (Papers from the Eranos Yearbooks), London, 1958, pp. 108-14. Also M. F. Clough, Time, London, 1937.
67 Cf. Tahāfut, p. 189.
68 Miracles ascribed to the prophets Moses, Abraham, Jesus, and Muhammad respectively; cf. the Qur’an, xx, 17-23, xxviii, 31; xxi, 68, 69, xx, 124, xxxvii, 97, 98; iii, 48; v, 110; and liv, 1.
69 Cf. Hume, Treatise of Human Nature, Bk. I, Part iii. Cf. also Hanif Nadawi, Sargudhasht-i Ghazali, pp. 62-76; also article “ Ghazali ka Nazriyyah-i Ta’lil,” Thaqafat (Urdu), Institute of Islamic Culture, Lahore, July 1959, Vol. VII, No. 7, pp. 11-19.
70 The real starting point of the discussion on causality belongs to the later part of the sixteenth disputation. See Tahāfut, p. 181.
71 Tahāfut, p. 186.
72 Ibid., p. 189.
73 Cf. Mill’s doctrine of the Plurality of Causes, System of Logic, Bk. III, Chap. X, Section 2.
74 It is interesting to note that Charles Hartshorne and William L. Reese call al-Ghazālī’s conception of God as Etiolatry, i.e., cause-worshipping; cf. their compendium: Philosophers Speak of God, Chicago, 1953, pp. 106-11, esp. p. 109.
75 Cf. Qur’an, xiii, 5; xvi, 38; xvii, 49-51, 98, 99.
76 In spite of Hume’s notorious repudiation of the miraculous (Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section, 10, Parts 1 & 2), his notion of causality through its own logic can be finally resolved to the Ghazālī an or better the Ash’arite position expressed in this statement. Cf. A. E. Taylor, “David Hume and the Miraculous,” in his Philosophical Studies, London, 1934, pp. 330-65; also F. R. Tennant, Miracle and Its Philosophical Presuppositions, Cambridge, 1925, p. 84.
1 In the Munqidh al-Ghazālī expressly mentions that he had studied the Qut al-Qulub of abu Tayib al-Makki (d. 386/996), the works of Harith al-Muhasibi (d. 243/857), and the fragments of al-Junaid (d. 298/910), al-Shibli (d. 334/945), and abu Yazid al-Bistami (d. 261/875). At the end he adds that he had read the discourses of all the leading Sufis. In al-Ghazālī’s works, indeed, there are references to be found to all the great mystics of Islam. For al-Ghazālī’s Sufistic sources, cf. Margaret Smith, Al-Ghazālī: The Mystic, London, 1944, pp. 123-32. For a comparison of Qut al-Qulub and Ihyā’ cf. Shibli Nu’mani, Al-Ghazālī, Lahore, 1956, p. 107; for the comparison of Muhasibi’s Kitab al-Wasaya and Munqidh, cf. A. J. Arberry, Sufism, London, 1950, pp. 47-50.
2 Cf. Ihyā’, Cairo, 1340/1921, Vol. IV, p. 259 et. sqq.
3 Tahāfut, p. 88; see note No. 38 in the preceding chapter.
4 Qur’an ii 117; xvi, 40.
5 T. J. de Boer, The History of Philosophy in, Islam, English trans. by E. R. Jones, London, 1933, p. 163.
6 Cf. Qur’an, iii, 189, 190; vi, 100; x 5 6; xiii, 3, 4, etc.; cf. also al-Ghazali’s al-Hikmah fi Makhlūqāt Allah, Cairo, 1321/1903.
7 Cf. M. Saeed Sheikh, “Kant’s Critique of Rational Psychology and Its Paralogisms,” Proceedings of the Sixth Pakistan Philosophical Congress, Lahore, 1959, pp. 185-93.
8 Cf. Tahāfut, pp. 200-20. For a comparison of al-Ghazālī’s and ibn Sina’s views with regard to soul, of. Sulaiman Dunya, al-Haqiqah fi Nazr al-Ghazālī, Egypt, 1367/1947, pp. 356-455.
9 Cf. article “Nafs,” Encyclopaedia of Islam, esp. sections 9 and 10; also Maqāsid al-falasifah (Urdu translation) by M. Hanif Nadawi, Lahore, 1959, pp. 323-32.
10 See Ihyā’, Cairo 1340/1921, p. 54. Cf. also D. B. Macdonald, Development of Muslim Theology..., London, 1903, pp. 234, 235, and A. J. Wensinek, The Relation between al-Ghazali’s Cosmology and His Mysticism, Amsterdam, 1933.
11 See Kimiya-i Sa’ādat, Urdu trans. by M. `Inayat Ullah, Lahore, n. d., pp. 8, 36. Also cf. Qur’an, xxx, 30.
12 Qur’an, xv, 29; xxxviii, 72.
13 Kimiya-i Sa`ādat, English trans. by Claud Field, The Alchemy of Happiness, Lahore, n. d., pp. 19, 35.
14 See Kimiya-i Sa`ādat, Urdu trans., p. 10.
15 Qur’an, xvii, 85.
16 Ibid., lxxxix, 27-30.
17 Munqidh, p. 60; see note No. 1 in the preceding chapter.
18 Cf. F. Rahman, Prophecy in Islam London, 1958, p. 96.
19 Ihyā’ Urdu trans. by M. Ahsan Siddiqi, Lucknow, 1955, Vol. I, pp. 11 et sqq.
20 Cf. Mizan al-`Amal, Cairo, 1342/i923, pp. 35, 36; also Ihyā’, Part I, Book I, Section 7 on `Aql (Intellect).
21 Cf. P. K. Hitti, History of the Arabs, London, 1949, p. 432; Max Meyerhof, The Legacy of Islam, ed. T. Arnold and A. Guillaume, Oxford, 1931, p. 337; and Will Durant, The Age of Faith, New York, 1950, pp. 256, 257, 332.
22 He himself wrote a treatise on astronomy. Cf. Sarton, Introduction to the History of Science, Baltimore, 1927, Vol. I, p. 753.
23 The charge of esotericism, in the narrow sense of the theory of two-fold truth, against al-Ghazālī, is, however, unfounded. Cf. W. Montgomery Watt, “A Forgery in al-Ghazālī’s Mishkat”, Journal. of Royal Asiatic Society, 1949, pp. 5-22; also article “al-Ghazzālī,” (section 3), Encyclopedia of Islam. This question is connected with the problem of the authenticity of al-Ghazālī’s works.
24 Cf. M. Iqbāl, “. . . to this day it is difficult to define with accuracy, his view of the nature of God. In him, like Borger and Solger in Germany, Sufi Pantheism and the Ash’arite dogma of personality appear to harmonize together, a reconciliation which makes it difficult to say whether he was a Pantheist, or a Personal Pantheist of the type of Lotze” (The Development of Metaphysics in Persia p. 75). Also C. R. Upper, “Al-Ghazālī’s Thought Concerning the Nature of Man and Union with God,” The Muslim World, 1952, Vol. XLII, pp. 23-32. C. R. Upper ends this article by a significant remark: “Al-Ghazālī’s occasional pantheism is indubitable, yet his orthodoxy is impeccable. How this can be is the secret between him and Allah.” For the great synthetic acumen and creativity of al-Ghazālī in having a via media between the various positions cf. S. R. Shafiq, “Some Abiding Teachings of al-Ghazālī,” The Muslim World, Vol. XLIV, No. 1, 1954, pp. 43-48.
25 Cf. Munqidh, p. 61.
26 Cf. Qur’an, ii, 255.
27 Cf. Mishkat al-Anwar, English translation by W. H. T. Gairdner, Lahore, p. 62.
28 Saying of al-Hallaj (executed 309/922). Cf. R. A. Nicholson, The Idea of Personality in Sufism, Cambridge, 1923, p. 32.
29 Sayings ascribed to abu Yazid al-Bistami, who is probably the first of the intoxicated Sufis.
30 Munqidh, p. 61.
31 Margaret Smith, Dr. Zaki Mubārak, and others.
32 Qur’an, lxviii, 4.
33 Al-Ghazālī Ihyā’ `Ulum al-Dīn Part III p. 50.
34 Hadith: Ahmad b. Hanbal, Vol. IV, p. 226.
35 Al-Ghazālī, Ihyā’, Part II, Chap. on Music.
36 D. B. Macdonald, Development of Muslim Theology, p. 192.
37 Qur’an, vi, 125.
38 Donaldson, Studies in Muslim Ethics, p. 156.
39 W. R. Sorley, Moral Values and the Idea of God, p. 446.
40 Qur’an, XC, 9‑10.
41 Ibn Hajr, Bulugh al‑Maram, “Bab al‑Zuhd w‑al‑Wara'.”
42 Qur'an, VII, 31.
43 Al‑Ghazālī, Ihya', Part III, p. 72.
44 Ibid., p. 66.
45 Ibid., p. 85.
46 Qur’an, II, 10.
47 Jami’ Tirmidhi, Matba'ah Mujtaha’i, p. 201
48 Qur’an, XLIX, 12.
49 Al‑Mishkāt al‑Masābih, “Bab al‑Kaba’ir wa `Alamat al‑Nifaq.”
50 Qur’an, ix, 34.
51 Ibid., xxv, 70.
52 Margaret Smith, Al-Ghazālī: The Mystic, pp. 167-68.
53 Qur’an, lxx, 19.
54 Ibid., xxxiv, 13.
55 Ibid., xiv, 7.
56 The opening hadith in al-Sahih al-Bukhāri.
57 Al-Ghazālī, Ihyā’, Part IV, pp. 334-35.
58 Margaret Smith, op. cit., pp. 167-68.
59 Al-Mishkat al-Masabih “Bab al-Ghadab w-al-Kibr.”
60  Qur’an, ii, 222.
61 Ibid., xcviii, 8.
62 Ibid., lxxxix, 27-30.
63 Cf. Jamal al-Din ibn al-Jauzi, al-Namūs fi Talbis Iblis, Cairo, 1340/1921, p. 377.
64 For the theologians’ various objections to Ihyā’ and an answer to them, see M. Hanif Nadawi, Afkar-i Ghazālī, Lahore, 1956, pp. 61-73.
65 Cf., e.g., Majid Fakhry, Islamic Occasionalism, London, 1958, pp. 103 et sqq.
66 Cf. also ibn Rushd, al-Kashf `an Manahij al-Adillah, Cairo, 1319/1901, pp. 57, et sq.
67 Cf. Mishkat al-Anwar, English translation by W. H. T. Gairdner, Lahore, pp. 17-21.
68 Quoted by F. Rahman, op. cit., London, 1958, p. 112. It is significant to note that S. van den Bergh concludes in his introduction to Averroes’ Tahāfut al-Tahāfut that resemblances between Ghazālī and Averroes seem sometimes greater than their differences pp xxxv, xxxvi.
69 Cf. ibn Tufail, Hayy Bin Yaqzān (Urdu trans. by Zafar Ahmad Siddiqi), Aligarh, 1955, pp. 26-30.
70 For a modern criticism of al-Ghazālī cf. M. Zaki `Abd al-Salim Mubarak, al-Akhlaq `ind al-Ghazzālī, Cairo, 1924 (Urdu trans. by Nur al-Hasan khan, Lahore, 1956). Very recently F. Rahman in his short treatment of al-Ghazālī’s views on prophecy in the above-cited work has made a very strong charge of inconsistency against him.
71 With the exception of al-Ghazālī’s own Kimiya-i Sa’adat (in Persian) the first of such summaries was written by al-Ghazālī’s own brother, Ahmad al-Ghazālī (d. 520/1126), under the title Lubab al-Ihyā’. A list of these may be found in Sayyid Murtada’s Ittihaf al-Sādah, Cairo, 1311/1893, p. 41.