How Al-Ghazali found Sufism...or Sufism found Al-Ghazali

Al-Ghazali is truly an interesting man whose story gives much insight on the practice of Sufism.  Al-Ghazali’s path to Sufism was indeed a long one but throughout his life journey he always would “penetrate far into every murky mystery, pounce into every problem and dash into every mazy difficulty.”  He believed that God had created him such that he craved to grasp the real meaning of things and his quest was one of truth.  With this, Al-Ghazali sifted his way from understanding “knowledge” to Sufism. 

Ghazali’s story shook my initial impressions of Sufism.  Ironically, it no longer seemed completely “weird” to me.  I understood his thought process and how he arrived at the practice of Sufism.  Al-Ghazali believed that there were four different groups or categories of those seeking the truth.  They included the Mutakallimun, the Batinites, the philosophers and the  Sufis.  Al-Ghazali made his way through the study of each of these groups in a search for a cure for his “sickness.”  Beginning with the science of kalam and the Mutakallimun, Al-Ghazali ruled this not to be the remedy for his sickness as it was “inadequate for his own aim.”  It did little for him except attack the beliefs of its adversaries.  

Next, Al-Ghazali ripped philosophy to shreds.  In his study of philosophy, which took years to unravel, he observed that they fell into different categories.  However, they all shared the “stigma of unbelief and godliness.”  Al-Ghazali had little nice to say about philosophy.  As a Muslim, it seemed haram, or forbidden, to engage in the science of philosophy.  There were some philosophers who denied the presence of a God in addition to the the essential, core beliefs of Islam like the Last Day or the presence of an afterlife.  Thus, the evil and mischief that was philosophy did not satisfy al-Ghazali.  Next, Al-Ghazali delved into the doctrine of the Ta’limites.  Having previously proved their doctrine wrong, his point is that they have no cure to save anyone from the darkness of conflicting opinions.  They cannot designate an Imam or authoritative teacher and people are commanded to follow their personal opinion.

Next stop for Al-Ghazali was the practice of Sufism-which finally made sense. He understood that “their way is realized only by knowledge and activity.”  The aim of the knowledge is to attain a heart empty of all save God.  This was striking.  As a Muslim, the good of this world and the good of the hereafter is important.  But, in order to attain the good, one must worship God and leave the desires of this world as they are insignificant in comparison to the hereafter or afterlife.  Theory was a part of Sufism which Al-Ghazali explored but a huge part was the notion of practice, or activity.  In order to prepare for the afterlife, and explore the practice of Sufism, Al-Ghazali disengages himself from the world and entered seclusion in Damascus leaving teaching and his students behind for years. 

Al-Ghazali was satisfied with seclusion and practice of Sufism for a number of years.  He knew with certainty that “Sufis are those who uniquely follow the way to God most high, their mode of life is the best of all, and their ethic the purest.”  Prophecy was another component of Sufism.  “Faith in prophecy is to acknowledge the affirmation of a stage beyond reason.”  This faith in prophecy is something that the philosophers lacked.  Al-Ghazali also mentions that prophecy is connected with Sufism in that through the “fruitional experience” Sufis can perceive the properties of prophecy. 

So, what does Sufism offer Al-Ghazali that the others don’t?  Sufism offers piety, fruitional experience, and most importantly it answers the questions and addresses the sickness of his heart.  Like Al-Ghazali noted, the remedy for sickness may be different for different people.  For him, he found his remedy and his “truth” in the practice of Sufism.    

CONtinuity or DIS continuity?

The terms continuity and discontinuity are hard terms to grasp, at least for me.  Continuity is defined as an uninterrupted connection without any essential change. Not surprisingly, discontinuity refers to the lack thereof.  Typically speaking, continuity is a good thing.  If there is no continuity in speech or in an essay, there is a problem.  However, it seems that if there is discontinuity present within Islamic History, then this is actually good. Authors Sizgorich, McNeil, and Donner discuss Islamic history.  However, they each take a certain position on continuity vs. discontinuity of early Islamic history.  Ok, well what is the issue here?  The issue is relatively simple.  These sources open themselves to various interpretations regarding Islamic history.  How should we explain the history of Islam?
I like to think of Islamic history being discontinuous.  Well, for a while, things were continuous but at some point, I like to think that there was some initiation of change.  William McNeil discusses transportation in a historical perspective.  Thus, his historical  framework is broad and overarching.  McNeil discusses camels, which were extremely important for Arab culture.  Camels assisted in many everyday tasks.  These animals were truly a gift from God.  They were the “wheels.”  How else would Arabs trade and build civilization?  Who knows.  But, camels definitely were a significant part of Arab culture.  They excelled at long distance traveling.   Camels were not always used for long distance traveling though.  They were first used for milk purposes.  Thus, there was a period of change and discontinuity to propel Islamic culture.  Camels were now being used for something else-a different purpose was now being served.
Donner’s article From Believers to Muslims forces me to revisit the concept of continuity and discontinuity.  I agree that there was discontinuity within Islamic History, which change was necessary.  However, there are certain things that should be continuous.  The basic belief system-belief in one God, belief in the Day of Judgment, etc.  In this, continuity is imperative.  Donner also assumes a position of discontinuity.  “Believers” referred to this belief of the oneness of God including Christians, Jews, and monotheists.  But, a “believer” was different from a “Muslim,” or one who submits.  So there was a change as illustrated by the title of the article from “believer” to people actually referring to themselves as Muslims.  This was discontinuous.  It was different as people were now redefining themselves.
Finally, we have the position of Tom Sizgorich who “seeks to offer an alternative to the frequent tendency to treat Islam as discrete from the world that it took place.”  Thus meaning that Islam is continuous and no different from the world in which it unfolded.  This is interesting to think about.  There were significantly new things that occurred in Islamic history like the rise of the caliphal state.  But, perhaps this was not “that” new to Sizgorich.
It strikes me that there were aspects of continuity as well as discontinuity (if we mean change and no change) in Islamic history.  Again, the issue is the lack of information/documentation to successfully answer every question.  Instead, there is a range of interpretation.  

"If I ruled the world..."

For me, the concept of a separation between “church and state” was always one of particular interest.  As an American Muslim, I was raised on the idea of Islam being more than a religion.  It is a way of life.  There are rules governing every aspect of life found in Qur’an or Hadith-all the dos and don’ts.  Thus, I was under the impression that in the “Muslim World,” there was no distinct separation between “church” or religion and politics, or law in general.  After class, I felt like my previous impression was false.  I believe that there is definitely some overlap between the church and state but some do try to create separate spheres.  Michael Cooperson presents the biographies of four very distinct, but interesting men who had opinions on “who” should be in power and “why.”  The diverse ideas and opinions of these four men are fairly representative of ninth century Baghdad.  However, it seems that there are two striking categories of views in regards to who should be in charge and the reason why should he be in charge.
One of these notable men is known as the caliph al-Ma’mun.  Al-Ma’mun was the seventh caliphate of the Abbasid Dynasty.  There was much argument over who should be the ruler after the Prophet Muhammad’s death.  Al-Ma’mun and the Abbasids descended from the Prophet’s uncle al-Abbas.  So it would make sense that al-Ma’mun believed that whoever assumed power should be of the Abbasid Dynasty.  This person was “both imamate and caliphate” which Al-Ma’mun used interchangeably.  Specifically, Al-Ma’mun believed that he was the “imam al huda,” or rightly guided leader.  This sentiment was reflected in his actions toward his half brother that he competed for leadership and whom he refused to follow.  Al-Ma’mun believed that God choses the leader for the community to follow and who leads the community in an upright manner.  Al-Ma’mun’s view of ruler reflects more of my initial impressions of the religion existing with govern ship and law.  “Al-Ma’mun’s claim to military, administrative, and fiscal independence was very provocative.”
Continuing with the notion that Al-Ma’mun was such an interesting figure is the naming of an Alid to succeed him.  This sparks many questions.  As previously mentioned, it seemed as if Al-Ma’mun believed that the ruler should be of Abbasid dynasty.  However, if he named an Alid as successor, this prerequisite is null and void in a sense.  He seems more focused on the good of the community, which makes sense as he is the rightly guided imam by God. “He finds no one more virtuous, scrupulous and learned than the Alid Ali b. Musa.”  It also could be that he regarded both dynasties as members of the Prophet’s family.  Al-Ma’mun’s view is one that is respectable as a ruler in today’s time.  He seems to care about the community as his primary concern regardless of the traditional arguments concerning who should rule-Abbasid vs. Alid.  It’s bigger than that. Al-Ma’mun appointed Ali al-Rida to succeed him, however he was never given the opportunity to clearly exercise his political views.  However, it seems he would follow the footsteps of Al-Ma’mun in regards to his leadership-combining both religion and state.  No separation.
While many believed that Al-Ma’mun wanted the good for the community, his view that he was the only one who could interpret Qur’an and he was the “end all be all” of Islamic matters and any other matter, upset all Proto Sunnis. This included Ibn Al Hanbal and Bishri al Hafi who refuted Al-Ma’mun’s view.  Ibn al Hanbal was a Hadith scholar therefore he deemed Al-Ma’mun to have no grounds in this doctrine.  He was very well versed in Hadith and did not appreciate Al-Ma’mun and his governance of state and religion.  These two men believed that religion and state should be less looped and that the ruler should handle matters of the state and leave the religious aspects to the ulama and imamate. Al-Ma’mun seemed to have sparked this reaction from these two men.  Al Bishri went to the extreme in his position to seclude himself from society, later becoming known as the Renunciant.  Regardless of the fact that Ibn al Hanbal and Bishri had their differences, they both believed that state and religion should have separation.
These four men are very interesting and their stories are insightful.  The two different sides of “state-religion” together vs. “state and religion” separate divided these four men in some way. Individually they have their differences as well but in regards to who should rule and why they were not that different.  They are representative of the events of ninth century Baghdad and the infusion of ideas that presented themselves.

Mo' writing Mo' problems

It seems safe and plausible to comment that writing has countless advantages.  In 2013, it is hard to imagine a world without writing and without paper and pens and the like.  However, this paper-less society was once reality.  Writing greatly influenced many cultures and contributed greatly to civilization as a whole.  Islamic civilization in specific benefited from writing.  The verses of the Qur’an could finally be written down so that no one would ever forget.  But, with most things, writing got “messy” very quickly.  In accordance with the song-writers of the 21st century, it also seems plausible to comment that “more writing, more problems.”  Writing led to sariqa, or theft, accompanied by the difficulty of writing something “original.”  In this way, writing dominated Islamic culture for a long time.
Kilito, author of The Author & His Doubles, discusses the theme of authorship and “forgers” in this series of essays on classical Arabic culture.  There are numerous passages that highlight the issue of writing.  In the very beginning of Kilito’s work, he recounts the story of the teacher who told him why it is that whenever we mention a book, we mention the author.  Kilito does not remember the answer which is extremely interesting.  In my eyes, this highlights the sort of transformation to writing.  Before, people told stories orally.  There was no “author,” but rather the person who was telling the story.  No one was concerned about the author.  Therefore, no one was concerned with sariqa, or theft.  People told the same stories all of the time.  But now that these stories and poems were being written down, problems arose when other people took these stories (whereas before, that was normal).  Kilito also comments on plagiarism.  Today, plagiarism is condemned upon.  If I plagiarize my essay, I would face the possible expulsion for the University.  Plagiarism today is considered avoidable at all costs.  If you use the words of another person, you must give that person credit.  However, Kilito states that “No poet can claim immunity from plagiarism.”  He goes further to say that every line of a poem contain echoes of another poem but poets borrow ideas and give them a new meaning.
There are specific instances, which Kilito discusses in his work, that illustrate problems caused by writing and repetition.  For example, the poets who went to “praise” successive princes using the same words.  This caused controversy because these poems became general and not individual to the given prince.  The poems simply contained the general qualities of princes, that all of the princes embodied. The odes/poetry used for eulogy were the same deal.  There were a set of general things said and these things were not changed.  This was a source of criticism.  Poems worked in this way because there were some metaphorical ideas such as rain clouds which manifested in many poems by different authors, not unlike today’s music.  Another issue which arose with writing dealt with the genres in which authors were known for.  Genres in a way were binding, or restricting.  It was a way in which people could sniff out forgers.  If you were a reputable composer of love poems and then you composed a poem related to death, people who assume that you hadn’t wrote the death poem.  The problems with writing were big, but bigger than that was the influence of writing on Islamic culture.
Islamic culture experienced a change with this “issue” of writing.  For a long time, it was perfectly acceptable to repeat things.  “Were speech not repeated it would vanish.”  Qur’an was repeated, the words of the prophet repeated, etc.  With writing, repetition was deemed “pointless.”  So, there was just a lot that changed within the Islamic culture.  People were not used to relying on solely their own work as it was not common.
Interestingly, this notion that there is a relationship between security and written documents later surfaced. The oral tradition seemed to be inferior in the eyes of some now that the tradition of writing had come along.  Memory was not something that many were confident in.  It was faulty and prone to error.  Interestingly enough, Kilito recounts the story of the man who committed so much poetry to memory and was later told to forget every bit of it.  It was extremely hard for him to do so.  In my opinion, oral tradition and written tradition are simply “different.”  No one is superior to the other. With writing arose problems or issues and there were in deed concerns with relying solely upon oral transmission.  But, it seems rather safe to conclude this essay by commenting that writing brought many changes to the Islamic civilization.