ARTICLES
- Home
- Articles
Empowering Reason through a Critical Reading of Al-Ghazali and Ibn Taymiyyah
In the 8th principle of Imam Razvi, it is stated that “Islam is philosophy”. Philosophy is literally “the love of wisdom”, where sophia is the Greek word for ‘wisdom’. In Arabic, wisdom is synonymous with hikmah. And in one hadith it was narrated that “Hikmah (wisdom) is the lost property of the believer.” (Jami’ at-Tirmidhi 2687) Indeed, philosophy and wisdom are lacking amongst Muslims in current times. Both requires critical thinking. The inability or refusal to think critically has led to the prevalence of blind following of dogma and the acceptance of tradition without question. Dogma and tradition are part of religion, but they have to be critically analysed.
Despite being a Sunni I attended an online hawza (seminary or religious classes) by Seyyed Mehdi Imam Razvi ع, a well-respected religious scholar within the Shi’a community. Also known as Imam Razvi, he taught for over 50 years in Hamburg, Germany. In the online classes that he conducted, we learned how to sharpen our skills in reasoning and rhetoric. Classes typically begin with a question, which then leads to an exploration. Exploration is the basis of consciousness.
However, exploration requires strength and courage; it is not for the weak and feeble. It forces one to reflect on his actions and non-actions. This possibly explains why many Muslim societies are weak. One major factor is our lack of exploration, which stemmed from the lack of questioning through critical thinking.
In this article, I explored some reasons behind the decline of philosophy and decay of critical thinking in many Muslim societies. In my opinion, the decline and decay has led to our current state of weakness. I identified two prominent figures, Abu Hamid al-Ghazali (d. 1111) and Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 1328), who, although were not the sole and primary reasons for this, had nonetheless contributed to the present situation. I am aware of other major factors without dismissing the need to also investigate the legacy of these two figures.
Al-Ghazali and his The Incoherence of the Philosophers
Imam al-Ghazali, apart from his status as a faqih (jurist) and usuli (methodologist) of the Shafi’i school, as well as a renowned figure of Tasawwuf (Sufism), is also known for his critique of philosophy through his book, Tahafut al-Falasifah (The Incoherence of the Philosophers). It is often claimed that this work proves his rejection of philosophy.
However, it is interesting to note that despite the title of the book as Tahafut (Incoherence), his work tends to be understood as exposing the “confusion” of the philosophers, rather than their incoherence. Confusion would mean uncertainty about what is happening, intended, or required; or the state of being bewildered or unclear in one’s mind about something. Incoherence, on the other hand, would mean the quality of being illogical, inconsistent, or unclear.
While ‘confusion’ and ‘incoherence’ may sound similar, they are essentially different. It is not merely the “lack of clarity” that al-Ghazali was addressing in his book but the quality of being illogical and inconsistent. It would take a brilliant mind, a philosopher himself, to be able to tackle such a profound issue undertaken by the philosophers that he was targetting.
One who is even briefly acquainted with philosophy would know of the difference in thinking methodology of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. It is akin to the difference in fiqh (jurisprudential) methodology of Malik (d. 795), Abu Hanifah (d. 767), al-Shafi’i (d. 820) and Ibn Hanbal (d. 855) that led to the formation of different madhahib (schools of thought), despite their teacher-student relations.
One could safely assume that al-Ghazali was inclined to the school of Plato and was disagreeing or criticising the other philosophical schools. This can be easily deduced from the simple observation of Ibn Rushd (Averroes, d. 1198)’s refutation of al-Ghazali through his book Tahafut al-Tahafut (The Incoherence of the Incoherent).
It makes sense especially when Ibn Rushd himself was Aristotelian who would write against the incoherence of the Platonic school. Interestingly, Fakhr al-Din al-Razi (d. 925), also a Shafi’i jurist and Ash’ari theologian like al-Ghazali, would be seen as very different as al-Ghazali in his approach to philosophy and Kalam (Systematic Theology), simply because he was Aristotelian too.
Yet, the failure of later Muslims in grasping the philosophy behind al-Ghazali’s Tahafut has led to their rejection of philosophy in its entirety, although it begs the question if they had truly read the book or merely took the existence of the book as “proof” of al-Ghazali’s rejection of philosophy.
The rejection of philosophy has led to the rejection of critical and logical thinking in religion, and arguably, of Muslims’ attitude towards the world in general.
It does not help that in the Shafi’i school, taqleed or adherence to another school is frowned upon; its followers tend to believe that there no need to refer to other schools or to even consider the arguments presented; suffice to say, their own school (mazhab) is Islam itself. This hinders critical and analytical thinking towards received opinions within their own school.
It is made worse when al-Ghazali is often seen as a Sufi giant, with a disproportionate focus on his books on spirituality while neglecting al-Ghazali as a faqih (jurist) and usuli (methodologist). The discipline of Usul al-Fiqh (Principles of Jurisprudence) is, as what my lecturer Ihsan Muhidin would describe, is “the philosophy within Islam”. In other words, philosophical thinking is embedded in the methods of fiqh that teaches systematic reasoning.
Ibn Taymiyyah and his Refutation of the Logicians
Ibn Taymiyyah is often lauded as the “father of Salafism”, although I would argue that he is rather the “grandfather” of Salafism while Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1792) would be the “father”.
Ibn Taymiyyah is arguably a reviver or mujaddid, hence the ascription of Shaykh al-Islam. I would personally argue that it is equivalent to al-Ghazali’s title of Hujjah al-Islam. He called for the reopening of the doors of ijtihad (independent reasoning), when it has been purportedly closed by the ulama for a few hundred years. It was therefore a brave call that took a brilliant mind with a deep insight, a rationalist at the very least.
His rise of influence led to the revival of the Hanbali school, which was dying out. This would eventually lead to the emergence of a neo-Hanbali movement, or Salafism. The latter would then morph into Wahhabism, which is ironically the anti-thesis of rationalism.
Among his numerous works across various genres, Ibn Taymiyyah wrote Radd ‘ala al-Mantiqiyyin (Refutation of the Logicians), criticising the Greek as well as Muslim philosophers, namely Ibn Sina (Avicenna, d. 1037). He became known for his critique of Aristotelian metaphysics. It is beyond doubt that Ibn Taymiyyah was himself an intellectual and a philosopher.
Like al-Ghazali, Salafists perceive Ibn Taymiyyah as rejecting philosophy, even reason and logic. They fail to grasp the philosophy behind Ibn Taymiyyah’s Refutation, along with other works. It is questionable if many Salafists truly read his works or rely on commentaries of his works channeled through certain lens.
We can see how Salafist/Wahhabi figures such as Abd al-‘Aziz ibn Baz (the former Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia), Muhammad ibn Salih al-Uthaymeen and Muhammad Nasir al-Din al-Albani had forbidden the use of logic and warned against philosophy as a “threat against the Islamic ‘aqeedah (creed)”. Bin Baz himself initially decreed that the Earth is flat.
Such anti-intellectualism can be seen in Salafist preachers as well as preachers or speakers influenced by the Salafist da’wah (propagation), believing it to be the “true Islam”. Instead, all they call to is a textual literalist understanding of the Qur’an and Hadith, leading to peculiar views and fatwas, which make one wonder if they are truly living in the 21st century.
Just as with the fate of al-Ghazali, Ibn Taymiyyah is often seen as a Salafist reviver of Islam that inspired the Wahhabi as well as other modern movements, which regrettably includes the radical and militant ones. This is simply because of the failure to read into his philosophy and actual intellectual excellence. To prove a point, scholars such as the Pakistani-American Fazlur Rahman (d. 1988) and Indonesian Nurcholish Madjid (Cak Nur, d. 2005) both studied Ibn Taymiyyah works and concluded that this 14h century thinker was far from being a conservative. The latter’s PhD thesis was on Ibn Taymiyyah. Cak Nur was also known as a liberal thinker who would challenge Salafist thinking.
Moving forward with empowering Reason
The first step to solving a problem is identifying the problem itself. When the intellect is shut, dogma or dogmatic interpretations of the religion prevails. Dogma allows us to be controlled by others, which is a topic and issue of its own discussion.
The “slaughter of intellectualism” has to be stopped; Muslims have to read, as enjoined by the first Qur’anic revelation in Surah al-‘Alaq. When we read, we will ask questions. Hence, the exploration begins.
Only then would we be doing justice to our scholars, such as al-Ghazali and Ibn Taymiyyah: when we truly dive into the legacy and ocean of knowledge that they left behind, instead of merely an uncritical textual reading and relying on assumptions surrounding their works.
What we seek is truly the wisdom that they left for us to ponder and act on, with hikmah. Indeed, wisdom is the lost property of the current Muslims. And this is related to Imam Razvi’s 2nd Principle: “Islam is Reason (Aql)”. As the Qur’an states: “Thus does Allah reveal to you His Signs, so that you may apply Reason.” (Qur’an 2:242)
Mohamed Farhan Mohamed Samsudin
Mohamed Farhan Mohamed Samsudin holds a Diploma in Islamic Studies (Shariah) from Muhammadiyah Islamic College, Singapore. He’s a deputy director in a financial advisory firm.