Part 37 (1/2)
[Sidenote: ?ali? b. 'Abd al-Quddus.]
This ?ali? belonged by birth or affiliation to the Arab tribe of Azd. Of his life we know little beyond the circ.u.mstance that he was for some time a street-preacher at Ba?ra, and afterwards at Damascus. It is possible that his public doctrine was thought dangerous, although the preachers as a cla.s.s were hand in glove with the Church and did not, like the Lollards, denounce religious abuses.[703] His extant poetry contains nothing heretical, but is wholly moral and didactic in character. We have seen, however, in the case of Abu 'l-'Atahiya, that Mu?ammadan orthodoxy was apt to connect 'the philosophic mind' with positive unbelief; and ?ali? appears to have fallen a victim to this prejudice. He was accused of being a dualist (_thanawi_), _i.e._, a Manichaean. Mahdi, it is said, conducted his examination in person, and at first let him go free, but the poet's fate was sealed by his confession that he was the author of the following verses:--
”The greybeard will not leave what in the bone is bred Until the dark tomb covers him with earth o'erspread; For, tho' deterred awhile, he soon returns again To his old folly, as the sick man to his pain.”[704]
[Sidenote: Abu 'l-'Ala al-Ma'arri on the _Zindiqs_.]
Abu 'l-'Ala al-Ma'arri, himself a bold and derisive critic of Mu?ammadan dogmas, devotes an interesting section of his _Risalatu 'l-Ghufran_ to the _Zindiqs_, and says many hard things about them, which were no doubt intended to throw dust in the eyes of a suspicious audience. The wide scope of the term is shown by the fact that he includes under it the pagan chiefs of Quraysh; the Umayyad Caliph Walid b. Yazid; the poets Di'bil, Abu Nuwas, Bashshar, and ?ali? b. 'Abd al-Quddus; Abu Muslim, who set up the 'Abbasid dynasty; the Persian rebels, Babak and Mazyar; Afs.h.i.+n, who after conquering Babak was starved to death by the Caliph Mu'ta?im; the Carmathian leader al-Jannabi; Ibnu 'l-Rawandi, whose work ent.i.tled the _Damigh_ was designed to discredit the 'miraculous' style of the Koran; and ?usayn b.
Man?ur al-?allaj, the ?ufi martyr. Most of these, one may admit, fall within Abu 'l-'Ala's definition of the _Zindiqs_: ”they acknowledge neither prophet nor sacred book.” The name _Zindiq_, which is applied by Ja?i? ( 868 A.D.) to certain wandering monks,[705]
seems in the first instance to have been used of Manes (_Mani_) and his followers, and is no doubt derived, as Professor Bevan has suggested, from the _zaddiqs_, who formed an elect cla.s.s in the Manichaean hierarchy.[706]
[Sidenote: The Orthodox Reaction.]
[Sidenote: Abu 'l-?asan al-ash'ari.]
II. The official recognition of Rationalism as the State religion came to an end on the accession of Mutawakkil in 847 A.D. The new Caliph, who owed his throne to the Turkish Praetorians, could not have devised a surer means of making himself popular than by standing forward as the avowed champion of the faith of the ma.s.ses. He persecuted impartially Jews, Christians, Mu'tazilites, s.h.i.+'ites, and ?ufis--every one, in short, who diverged from the narrowest Sunnite orthodoxy. The Vizier Ibn Abi Du'ad, who had shown especial zeal in his conduct of the Mu'tazilite Inquisition, was disgraced, and the bulk of his wealth was confiscated.
In Baghdad the followers of A?mad b. ?anbal went from house to house terrorising the citizens,[707] and such was their fanatical temper that when ?abari, the famous divine and historian, died in 923 A.D., they would not allow his body to receive the ordinary rites of burial.[708] Finally, in the year 935 A.D., the Caliph Ra?i issued an edict denouncing them in these terms: ”Ye a.s.sert that your ugly, ill-favoured faces are in the likeness of the Lord of Creation, and that your vile exterior resembles His, and ye speak of the hand, the fingers, the feet, the golden shoes, and the curly hair (of G.o.d), and of His going up to Heaven and of His coming down to Earth.... The Commander of the Faithful swears a binding oath that unless ye refrain from your detestable practices and perverse tenets he will lay the sword to your necks and the fire to your dwellings.”[709] Evidently the time was ripe for a system which should reconcile the claims of tradition and reason, avoiding the gross anthropomorphism of the extreme ?anbalites on the one side and the pure rationalism of the advanced Mu'tazilites (who were still a power to be reckoned with) on the other. It is a frequent experience that great intellectual or religious movements rising slowly and invisibly, in response, as it were, to some incommunicable want, suddenly find a distinct interpreter with whose name they are henceforth a.s.sociated for ever. The man, in this case, was Abu 'l-?asan al-Ash'ari. He belonged to a n.o.ble and traditionally orthodox family of Yemenite origin. One of his ancestors was Abu Musa al-Ash'ari, who, as the reader will recollect, played a somewhat inglorious part in the arbitration between 'Ali and Mu'awiya after the battle of ?iffin.[710] Born in 873-874 A.D. at Ba?ra, a city renowned for its scientific and intellectual fertility, the young Abu 'l-?asan deserted the faith of his fathers, attached himself to the freethinking school, and until his fortieth year was the favourite pupil and intimate friend of al-Jubba'i ( 915 A.D.), the head of the Mu'tazilite party at that time. He is said to have broken with his teacher in consequence of a dispute as to whether G.o.d always does what is best (_a?la?_) for His creatures. The story is related as follows by Ibn Khallikan (De Slane's translation, vol. ii, p. 669 seq.):--
[Sidenote: Story of the three brothers.]
Ash'ari proposed to Jubba'i the case of three brothers, one of whom was a true believer, virtuous and pious; the second an infidel, a debauchee and a reprobate; and the third an infant: they all died, and Ash'ari wished to know what had become of them. To this Jubba'i answered: ”The virtuous brother holds a high station in Paradise; the infidel is in the depths of h.e.l.l, and the child is among those who have obtained salvation.”[711] ”Suppose now,” said Ash'ari, ”that the child should wish to ascend to the place occupied by his virtuous brother, would he be allowed to do so?” ”No,” replied Jubba'i, ”it would be said to him: 'Thy brother arrived at this place through his numerous works of obedience towards G.o.d, and thou hast no such works to set forward.'” ”Suppose then,” said Ash'ari, ”that the child say: 'That is not my fault; you did not let me live long enough, neither did you give me the means of proving my obedience.'” ”In that case,” answered Jubba'i, ”the Almighty would say: 'I knew that if I had allowed thee to live, thou wouldst have been disobedient and incurred the severe punishment (of h.e.l.l); I therefore acted for thy advantage.'” ”Well,” said Ash'ari, ”and suppose the infidel brother were to say: 'O G.o.d of the universe!
since you knew what awaited him, you must have known what awaited me; why then did you act for his advantage and not for mine?”
Jubba'i had not a word to offer in reply.
[Sidenote: Ash'ari's conversion to orthodoxy.]
Soon afterwards Ash'ari made a public recantation. One Friday, while sitting (as his biographer relates) in the chair from which he taught in the great mosque of Ba?ra, he cried out at the top of his voice: ”They who know me know who I am: as for those who do not know me I will tell them. I am 'Ali b. Isma'il al-Ash'ari, and I used to hold that the Koran was created, that the eyes of men shall not see G.o.d, and that we ourselves are the authors of our evil deeds. Now I have returned to the truth; I renounce these opinions, and I undertake to refute the Mu'tazilites and expose their infamy and turpitude.”[712]
[Sidenote: Ash'ari as the founder of Scholastic Theology.]
These anecdotes possess little or no historical value, but ill.u.s.trate the fact that Ash'ari, having learned all that the Mu'tazilites could teach him and having thoroughly mastered their dialectic, turned against them with deadly force the weapons which they had put in his hands. His doctrine on the subject of free-will may serve to exemplify the method of _Kalam_ (Disputation) by which he propped up the orthodox creed.[713]
Here, as in other instances, Ash'ari took the central path--_medio tutissimus_--between two extremes. It was the view of the early Moslem Church--a view justified by the Koran and the Apostolic Traditions--that everything was determined in advance and inscribed, from all eternity, on the Guarded Tablet (_al-Law? al-Ma?fu?_), so that men had no choice but to commit the actions decreed by destiny. The Mu'tazilites, on the contrary, denied that G.o.d could be the author of evil and insisted that men's actions were free. Ash'ari, on his part, declared that all actions are created and predestined by G.o.d, but that men have a certain subordinate power which enables them to acquire the actions previously created, although it produces no effect on the actions themselves. Human agency, therefore, was confined to this process of acquisition (_kasb_). With regard to the anthropomorphic pa.s.sages in the Koran, Ash'ari laid down the rule that such expressions as ”_The Merciful has settled himself upon His throne_,” ”_Both His hands are spread out_,” &c., must be taken in their obvious sense without asking 'How?' (_bila kayfa_). Spitta saw in the system of Ash'ari a successful revolt of the Arabian national spirit against the foreign ideas which were threatening to overwhelm Islam,[714] a theory which does not agree with the fact that most of the leading Ash'arites were Persians.[715]
Von Kremer came nearer the mark when he said ”Ash'ari's victory was simply a clerical triumph,”[716] but it was also, as Schreiner has observed, ”a victory of reflection over unthinking faith.”
The victory, however, was not soon or easily won.[717] Many of the orthodox disliked the new Scholasticism hardly less than the old Rationalism. Thus it is not surprising to read in the _Kamil_ of Ibnu 'l-Athir under the year 456 A.H. = 1063-4 A.D., that Alp Arslan's Vizier, 'Amidu 'l-Mulk al-Kunduri, having obtained his master's permission to have curses p.r.o.nounced against the Rafi?ites (s.h.i.+'ites) from the pulpits of Khurasan, included the Ash'arites in the same malediction, and that the famous Ash'arite doctors, Abu 'l-Qasim al-Qushayri and the Imamu 'l-?aramayn Abu 'l-Ma'ali al-Juwayni, left the country in consequence. The great Ni?amu 'l-Mulk exerted himself on behalf of the Ash'arites, and the Ni?amiyya College, which he founded in Baghdad in the year 1067 A.D., was designed to propagate their system of theology. But the man who stamped it with the impression of his own powerful genius, fixed its ultimate form, and established it as the universal creed of orthodox Islam, was Abu ?amid al-Ghazali (1058-1111 A.D.). We have already sketched the outward course of his life, and need only recall that he lectured at Baghdad in the Ni?amiyya College for four years (1091-1095 A.D.).[718] At the end of that time he retired from the world as a ?ufi, and so brought to a calm and fortunate close the long spiritual travail which he has himself described in the _Munqidh mina 'l-?alal_, or 'Deliverer from Error.'[719] We must now attempt to give the reader some notion of this work, both on account of its singular psychological interest and because Ghazali's search for religious truth exercised, as will shortly appear, a profound and momentous influence upon the future history of Mu?ammadan thought. It begins with these words:--
[Sidenote: Ghazali's autobiography.]
”In the name of G.o.d, the Merciful, the Compa.s.sionate. Praise be to G.o.d by the praise of whom every written or spoken discourse is opened! And blessings on Mu?ammad, the Elect, the Prophet and Apostle, as well as on his family and his companions who lead us forth from error! To proceed: You have asked me, O my brother in religion, to explain to you the hidden meanings and the ultimate goal of the sciences, and the secret bane of the different doctrines, and their inmost depths. You wish me to relate all that I have endured in seeking to recover the truth from amidst the confusion of sects with diverse ways and paths, and how I have dared to raise myself from the abyss of blind belief in authority to the height of discernment. You desire to know what benefits I have derived in the first place from Scholastic Theology, and what I have appropriated, in the second place, from the methods of the Ta'limites[720] who think that truth can be attained only by submission to the authority of an Imam; and thirdly, my reasons for spurning the systems of philosophy; and, lastly, why I have accepted the tenets of ?ufiism: you are anxious, in short, that I should impart to you the essential truths which I have learned in my repeated examination of the (religious) opinions of mankind.”
In a very interesting pa.s.sage, which has been translated by Professor Browne, Ghazali tells how from his youth upward he was possessed with an intense thirst for knowledge, which impelled him to study every form of religion and philosophy, and to question all whom he met concerning the nature and meaning of their belief.[721] But when he tried to distinguish the true from the false, he found no sure test. He could not trust the evidence of his senses. The eye sees a shadow and declares it to be without movement; or a star, and deems it no larger than a piece of gold. If the senses thus deceive, may not the mind do likewise?
Perhaps our life is a dream full of phantom thoughts which we mistake for realities--until the awakening comes, either in moments of ecstasy or at death. ”For two months,” says Ghazali, ”I was actually, though not avowedly, a sceptic.” Then G.o.d gave him light, so that he regained his mental balance and was able to think soundly. He resolved that this faculty must guide him to the truth, since blind faith once lost never returns. Accordingly, he set himself to examine the foundations of belief in four cla.s.ses of men who were devoted to the search for truth, namely, Scholastic Theologians, Isma'ilis (_Batiniyya_), Philosophers, and ?ufis. For a long while he had to be content with wholly negative results. Scholasticism was, he admitted, an excellent purge against heresy, but it could not cure the disease from which he was suffering.
As for the philosophers, all of them--Materialists (_Dahriyyun_), Naturalists (_?abi'iyyun_), and Theists (_Ilahiyyun_)--”are branded with infidelity and impiety.” Here, as often in his discussion of the philosophical schools, Ghazali's religious instinct breaks out. We cannot imagine him wors.h.i.+pping at the shrine of pure reason any more than we can imagine Herbert Spencer at Lourdes. He next turned to the Ta'limites (Doctrinists) or Ba?inites (Esoterics), who claimed that they knew the truth, and that its unique source was the infallible Imam.
But when he came to close quarters with these sectaries, he discovered that they could teach him nothing, and their mysterious Imam vanished into s.p.a.ce. ?ufiism, therefore, was his last hope. He carefully studied the writings of the mystics, and as he read it became clear to him that now he was on the right path. He saw that the higher stages of ?ufiism could not be learned by study, but must be realised by actual experience, that is, by rapture, ecstasy, and moral transformation.
After a painful struggle with himself he resolved to cast aside all his worldly ambition and to live for G.o.d alone. In the month of Dhu 'l-Qa'da, 488 A.H. (November, 1095 A.D.), he left Baghdad and wandered forth to Syria, where he found in the ?ufi discipline of prayer, praise, and meditation the peace which his soul desired.