In the history of Islamic thought there has been a dialectical movement between progressivism and traditionalism. This can be seen in the polemical debate between Ibn Sina (Avicenna) (980-1037 CE), Al-Ghazali and Ibn Rushd (Averroes) (1126-1198 CE). Avicenna and Averroes represented progressive groups, while Al-Ghazali was from the traditionalist wing of Islam.
Abu al-Walid Muhammad Ibn-Rushd, also known as Averroes in the West, was born in 1126 A.D (died in 1198) in Cordova. His ideas influenced the transformation of thought in medieval Europe. He is considered the last of the great Muslim thinkers who integrated Islamic traditions and Greek thought. His beliefs and writings were to have an effect on the minds of many intellectuals in the Middle Ages who lived beyond the borders of Al-Andalus. According to Ibn Rushd “both need time and assistance to arrive at a comprehension of their art. And as long as there is such a harmony between philosophy and religion, there should be no tension between practitioners of either”. (Butterworth, p.235)
Rekindling the Spirit of Ibn Rushd: A Call for a Renaissance in Islamic Thought
Many people often wonder why countries with Muslim majorities are technologically, militarily, and politically backward compared to Western nations. This question is complex, involving historical, philosophical, and cultural factors. Analyzing these elements through a progressive and liberal Islamic lens reveals that the roots of scientific and intellectual stagnation in the Muslim world are deeply intertwined with the philosophical and theological shifts that occurred over the centuries. This article explores the historical divergence between the Islamic world and the West, emphasizing the crucial roles of philosophical thought and rationalism.
The number of research publications is a direct indicator of a country’s scientific activity. According to the SCImago Journal & Country Rank, Muslim-majority countries collectively contribute to less than 10% of the world’s scientific research papers. This stark contrast with Western countries underscores a significant lag in scientific output and innovation. Understanding the historical context of this disparity requires a look at the philosophical transformations that preceded the Western renaissance.
The transformation in the West was preceded by a change in philosophical thought, often referred to as the philosophical renaissance. This period marked a significant shift towards rationalism, scientific inquiry, and the embrace of philosophical ideas that encouraged questioning, logic, and empirical evidence. In contrast, traditional Islamic teaching has often viewed philosophy unfavourably, especially since the time of Imam Al-Ghazali. He argued that philosophy promotes questioning and logic, which he saw as potentially conflicting with the belief in an all-knowing and all-powerful deity.
Ironically, the Western world’s philosophical renaissance owes much to Arab and Muslim philosophers. The man who can be credited with significantly influencing the Western intellectual revival is the Muslim philosopher Ibn Rushd (CE 1126-1198), known in the West as Averroes. While his works were marginalized and rejected in the Muslim world, they were enthusiastically translated and studied in Western European universities. This difference in reception highlights a pivotal moment in the divergence between the intellectual trajectories of the West and the Muslim world.
Ibn Rushd’s influence catalysed the reformation of both Christian and Jewish religious thought, introducing the concept of rationalism in religion. In the Muslim world, however, Ibn Rushd was side-lined by Al-Ghazali and his theocratic concepts of religion (Sharia). By the 12th century, the Muslim world had largely rejected rationalist philosophy in favour of a more orthodox and mystical approach. As a result, while the West embarked on a renaissance in the 14th century, followed by political reformation and the Industrial Revolution in the 18th century, the Muslim world experienced stagnation or regression.
Early Muslim philosophers like Al-Farabi (872-950 CE) from Damascus and Ibn Sina (Avicenna, 980-1037 CE) from Cairo were instrumental in translating and developing Greek philosophical ideas. Their work, known as Falsafa, was initially tolerated in the Muslim world due to its liberal and open-minded nature. However, with the establishment of the Ash’arite system of Kalam around 1040 AD, this tolerance gradually dissipated.
Falsafa faced a significant blow with the publication of Al-Ghazali’s book Tahafut al-Falasifa (The Incoherence of the Philosophers) in 1095. Al-Ghazali’s writings launched a fierce attack on the ideas of philosophers like Al-Farabi and Ibn Sina, declaring them heretics (kafirs) and not true Muslims. Although Al-Ghazali was a man of great intellect, his works effectively derailed the path of Muslim philosophical and scientific development. In response, Ibn Rushd wrote Tahafut al-Tahafut (The Incoherence of the Incoherence) around 1150 AD, defending Greek philosophy and rational methods.
The fundamental difference in thought between Al-Ghazali and Ibn Rushd lay in their approach to knowledge and enlightenment. Both acknowledged the importance of the Quran as a guide for a meaningful life. However, Al-Ghazali believed that enlightenment was achievable only through divine intervention, while Ibn Rushd argued that knowledge and expertise in science and philosophy empowered individuals to uncover the Quran’s hidden treasures. Ibn Rushd advocated for rational thought and scientific methods as the means to achieve understanding, contrasting with Al-Ghazali’s emphasis on mystical experiences.
To change the current state of Muslim nations, it is crucial to rekindle the spirit of Ibn Rushd and embrace rationalism. Religious and mystical experiences are important for inner development, but rational thought and scientific inquiry are essential for addressing contemporary challenges. Ibn Rushd’s “The Incoherence of the Incoherence” critiques the doctrine of predestination and argues for the importance of knowledge and rational inquiry. By adopting rationalism, the Muslim world can begin a new renaissance, fostering intellectual growth and scientific advancement.
While colonialism undoubtedly had a devastating impact on the Muslim world, the stagnation began long before colonial powers arrived. The Islamic world was once magnificent and creative because of its cosmopolitan nature and open-mindedness. Muslims were willing to learn from Greek philosophy and other pre-existing traditions, including those of Christians, Jews, and Hindus. This universal vision recognized wisdom both within and outside Islam.
The rationalist school of Mu’tazila believed that ethical principles were knowable by human reason and that God’s commandments aligned with these principles. This allowed for a universalistic outlook, recognizing that non-Muslims could possess moral wisdom. However, the Ash’arites held that ethical truths existed solely within religious law, and this perspective came to dominate Islamic thought after the 12th century. This shift led to a rejection of external knowledge and a narrowing of intellectual horizons.
Today, traces of this closed mind-set are evident when Islamic scholars reject calls for universal human rights, insisting on distinctly “Islamic” approaches to economics or politics. Instead, Muslims should engage with the collective wisdom of humanity. Just as there is no “Islamic” chemistry or physics, there is no need to “Islamize” other fields of knowledge. By embracing a universal approach, the Muslim world can integrate diverse perspectives and drive progress.
The scientific and intellectual backwardness of Muslim-majority countries compared to the West is deeply rooted in historical philosophical shifts. To move forward, it is essential to revive the spirit of rationalism championed by Ibn Rushd. Embracing rational thought, scientific inquiry, and universal wisdom can ignite a new renaissance in the Muslim world, leading to technological, military, and political advancements. By looking both within and beyond their tradition, Muslims can foster a culture of intellectual growth and innovation, transforming their societies for the better.
Dr. Pervez Hoodbhoy, a Pakistani physicist and professor at Quaid-e-Azam University in Islamabad, said that “it was not Islamic to say that combining hydrogen and oxygen makes water. ‘You were supposed to say that when you bring hydrogen and oxygen together then by the will of Allah water was created.’” (Overbye, 2001)
For many years, the curricula at the Nizamiyyah College offered Islamic law courses almost exclusively. Hoodbhoy notes that this remained the standard “until [it was] somewhat modified by Shah Whali Allah (1703-1762) to include arithmetic and logic.” (Hoodbhoy 1995, p.14)
Or there is another way to put this choice with respect to a very different aspect of the Islamic legacy, expressed by Bassam Tibi: “If that Islamic medieval rationalism that recognized the universality of knowledge continues to be declared a heresy, and if authenticity is narrowed down to a polarization of the self and otherness, then Muslims of the twenty-first century will continue to be unsuccessful in embarking on modernity.” (Tibi, p.262)
Reason, Revelation, and Orthodoxy: The Complex Legacy of Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali
Imam Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali, born in 1058 CE in Tus, Persia, presently Iran, stands as a towering figure in Islamic history. Renowned as a philosopher, theologian, jurist, and mystic, his influence transcended these disciplines, shaping the course of Sunni Islam for centuries to come.
Al-Ghazali’s legacy is multifaceted. He is lauded for providing a robust philosophical foundation for Islamic theology. Deeply impressed by Aristotelian logic, he skilfully employed Neoplatonic concepts to defend core Sunni doctrines. Another landmark achievement was integrating Sufism, Islamic mysticism, within the fold of orthodox Islam.
However, his impact remains a subject of debate. Some hail him as the “greatest Muslim after Muhammad,” praising his contributions. Others view him with a more critical lens, characterizing him as a reactionary figure who stifled the flourishing of Greek philosophy and rationalism within Islam. His critique of philosophers in “The Incoherence of the Philosophers” exemplifies this clash, highlighting doctrines deemed incompatible with Islamic beliefs.
Al-Ghazali held some theological positions that could be considered surprisingly progressive, even by the standards of some modern Ulema.
Al-Ghazali’s explicit discussion of female orgasm highlights one of the drawbacks of coitus interruptus (‘azl), the method of birth control best known to early Muslims: a man must withdraw prior to his ejaculation to prevent conception, but “coitus interruptus may diminish her pleasure.” As Sa’diyya Shaikh points out, a wife is “entitled to full sexual pleasure” and has “the right to offspring if she so desires.” Shaikh views this doctrine as evidence of “the priority given in Islam to mutual sexual fulfilment as well as consultative decision making between a married couple in terms of family planning.” (Shaikh, p.115).
We read from Al-Ghazali’s book some interesting recommendation of foreplay by Prophet Muhammad: ‘Let there be foreplay between them and before approaching each other they should begin by exchanging pleasant words and kisses. The Prophet said: “None of you should fall on top on his wife the way the animals fall on each other, but let there be between them a messenger.” They asked: “What is this messenger, O Prophet of God?” He said: The kiss and the pleasant words.” Then if he finishes first he should wait for his wife until she has also finished.’ (Al-Ghazali, 1997, p.233)
Sex for non-procreative purposes was clearly permissible: with very few exceptions, Muslim authorities accepted contraceptive measures and approved of sex with pregnant women and nursing mothers, making clear that sexual pleasure was a worthwhile aim even where pregnancy was an impossible, unlikely, or undesirable outcome of intercourse. Shaikh is thus largely correct in her broad claim that “Within the Islamic view of marriage, an individual has the right to sexual pleasure within marriage, which is independent of one’s choice to have children.” (Shaikh, p.114)
Al-Ghazali wrote that it was the responsibility of men to sexually pleasure their wives, stressing the importance of not only achieving orgasm but also engaging in foreplay. (Ali, 2006) Prophet Muhammad is said to have encouraged foreplay, telling men “not to fall upon their wives like beasts, but rather send ‘a messenger’ prior to the sexual act” (Ali, p.7). The Prophet Muhammad is also said to have objected to the idea of religious celibacy and stated that marriage is a part of his Sunnah, or authoritative practice (Ali, p.7).
As Fatima Mernissi underscores in Beyond the Veil, “Imam Al-Ghazali in his book… gives a detailed description of how Islam integrated the sexual instinct in the social order and places it at the service of God. [Sexual activity], used according to God’s will, the desire of the flesh serves God’s and the individual’s interests in both worlds, enhances life on earth and in heaven. Part of God’s design on earth is to ensure the perpetuity of the human race, and sexual desires serve this purpose.” (Mernissi, p.28)
Imam Al-Ghazali gives the green light to azl, or pulling out, as a legitimate birth control method. He throws cold water on the idea that azl is akin to murder or abortion. Al-Ghazali even breaks azl down into five categories, and throws his weight behind two of them. One reason, and a powerful one for women, is that azl can keep a woman feeling her best. He argues that childbirth can be a real rollercoaster, sometimes putting a woman’s health and even her life at risk. It can also take a toll on her looks and overall well-being. Azl, he says, acts as a shield, protecting her from the physical strain of repeated pregnancies.
Al-Ghazali throws another log on the fire, arguing that too many kids can be a real financial burden. It forces people to hustle harder to make ends meet. Sometimes, that hustle can lead down a dark path, with folks resorting to ill-gotten gains just to keep their heads above water. Al-Ghazali sees azl as a way to keep the family small and the problems manageable. Fewer kids mean less stress and more time to devote to worshipping God.
Imam Al-Ghazali identified the male and female roles in procreation. He wrote: “The first stage is when the sperm in the uterus mixes with the woman’s fluid (ova) and becomes ready to receive life. Destroying it (i.e. the zygote) is a crime. The crime becomes more serious when aborting the alaqa or mudh’gha (clot). The degree of crime becomes even more serious when aborting the fetus after ensoulment or before its birth (as it is considered homicide)”. (Al-Ghazali, p.51)
Al-Ghazali, who lived just a generation after Ibn Sina, praised the study of medicine and math and claimed that it was a communal obligation for some people within a community to study these sciences. For Al-Ghazali, any field of study that was necessary for developing communities—such as medicine, math, agricultural, and others—was considered theologically a communal religious obligation and at least some members of every community needed to be skilled in such sciences. (Al-Ghazali, 2015, p.38.)
Al-Ghazali’s argument that many, if not most, non-Muslims will be saved due to the distorted impression of Islam that has reached them on the basis of the Quranic declaration that ‘We never punish until we have sent a messenger.’ (Q.17:15) (quoted from Yusuf H, p.44).
Imam Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali in his renowned treaties al-Mustasfa (The Clarified in Legal Theory) was the first who classified the purposes/objectives of Islamic Sharia (Purposes of Islamic Sharia). He states that: The objectives of the divine revelation could be classified into five, these are, the preservation of religion (din), life (nafs), intellect (aql), lineage (nasl) and wealth (mal). Accordingly, whatever actions that might secure achieving one of these maqasid is an interest for the community and whatever action that might obstruct one of these objectives is a harm the prevention of which is an interest for the community. (Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali, al-Mustasfa, (al-Jami’a al-Islamiyya) vol 2, p.482)
Al-Ghazali held that whether a polity is governed Islamically or not, its longevity depends on the quality of justice that it upholds. Referring to a prophetic tradition, Al-Ghazali wrote: ‘Dominion [will] continue even if there is disbelief (kufr) but will not continue where there is oppression (zulm).’ (Al-Ghazali, 1996, p.148)
Imam Al-Ghazali wasn’t one to follow the crowd when it came to music. While some scholars deemed it completely off-limits, Al-Ghazali saw it differently. He believed music could be a balm for the soul, a way to unwind after a long day, just like medicine. But, he cautioned against overindulging, just like taking too much medicine can be harmful. The key, according to Al-Ghazali, lies in intention. If music helps you relax and refocus on important things, then it can actually be a way to connect with God. However, if you’re simply seeking pure pleasure and nothing more, then it’s not as beneficial. In that case, Al-Ghazali suggests using music strategically to achieve the goals of relaxation and focus. He also addressed the association of music with negative activities. Instruments often used by “merrymakers” or those engaged in immoral behaviour, like wind instruments or drums, were considered off-limits by Al-Ghazali. However, other instruments, like tambourines with jingles, regular drums, guitars, and the like, were still permissible. Overall, Al-Ghazali offered a nuanced view of music. While not everyone would agree with his specific examples, his emphasis on intention and avoiding negativity provides a framework for a thoughtful approach to enjoying music.
This aspect of music is being echoed in the vision of a moderation modern Muslim scholar Qaradawi. He notes that Islam “permits singing under the condition that it not be in any way obscene or harmful to Islamic morals,” and notes that it creates an atmosphere of joy and happiness. (Al-Qaradawi, p.300)
However, Al-Ghazali was against many other forms of art. Al-Ghazali’s principal objection to art was its potential as a form of idolatry. He objected to drawings and other depictions of humans and animals, which he associated with the veneration of idols or icons, and excluded art from his classifications of knowledge. He emphatically recommended that existing pictures be removed or defaced, and he directed that Muslims not engage in professions such as engraver, goldsmith, or decorator (Nofal, p.519-549). Today, it would be almost impossible to avoid some form of drawing or reproduction.
Ascendancy of Ash’arism and the eclipse Muslim Intelligentsia
Some have found an answer by blaming specific individuals, such as the influential Imam Al-Ghazali in the twelfth century. His magnum opus, Incoherence of the Philosophers, was indeed a severe blow to “philosophy,” a term that then referred to all sources of secular knowledge. Al-Ghazali is also criticized for promoting a religious awareness based on unquestioning obedience rather than critical thinking. (Akyol, p.68).
Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali, a towering figure in the Ash’ari school, left an undeniable mark on Islamic intellectual history. His influential work, “The Incoherence of the Philosophers,” launched a scathing critique of both Greek philosophy and its Muslim proponents, including al-Farabi and Avicenna. This critique stemmed from a core concern: could uncritical acceptance of philosophical reasoning undermine religious faith? Al-Ghazali viewed reason with a wary eye. Its emphasis on discovery, questioning, and innovation clashed with his understanding of Islam, where absolute divine will have governed nature. He argued that certain philosophical concepts, such as the inherent necessity in nature, directly contradicted Islamic teachings. As Al-Ghazali put it, “Nothing in nature acts spontaneously and apart from God.” Interestingly, Al-Ghazali did not reject logic entirely. He saw it as a valuable tool, but only when used for theological inquiry and to counter philosophical arguments. Sunni Muslims largely viewed Al-Ghazali as victorious in his debate with the “Hellenistic rationalists,” leading to a gradual decline in the value placed on philosophical inquiry. In some cases, independent thought became suspect, even criminalized. It is an exaggeration to say, as Steven Weinberg claimed in the Times of London, that after Al-Ghazali “there was no more science worth mentioning in Islamic countries”; in some places, especially Central Asia, Arabic work in science continued for some time, and philosophy was still studied somewhat under Shi’ite rule. (In the Sunni world, philosophy turned into mysticism.) But the fact is, Arab contributions to science became increasingly sporadic as the anti-rationalism sank in. (Ofek, 2011)
The Ash‘arites found a potent voice in the Imam Al-Ghazali a brilliant philosopher and theologian whose tormented spirit found refuge at the last in a mystical oneness with Allah. Human reason teaches us to question things, to discover things, and to make new laws for our better governance. Hence reason was— for Al-Ghazali—the enemy of Islam, which requires absolute and unquestioning submission to the will of Allah. In his celebrated treatise The Incoherence of the Philosophers, Al-Ghazali set out to show that reason, as enshrined in the writings of Plato, Aristotle, and their followers, leads to nothing save darkness and contradiction, and that the only light that shines in the mind of man is the light of revelation. Although Al-Ghazali’s arguments are soundly refuted by Averroes (Ibn Rushd) in his The Incoherence of the Incoherence, Islam rushed to embrace the Ash‘arite doctrine, which made so much better sense of the ruling idea of submission. Averroes was sent from Andalusia into exile, and the voice of reason was heard no more in the courts of Sunni Muslim princes. (Reilly, p.5) Ash‘arite interpretation that the Quran is uncreated, being coeval with the Almighty, is bewildering indeed.
Possibly the greatest luminary in Islamic philosophical history, Ibn Rushd took his stand with the Mu’tazila, but was overshadowed by the Ash’arite theologian Al-Ghazali, who became more influential, more in line with the dominant strain of thought. Ibn Rushd warned that if we lost the use of reason we would end up believing in a despotic God whose ways make no rational sense. But a despotic God suited the purposes of despotic rulers. The name of the Ash‘arite school came from its founder, Abu Hasan al-Ash‘ari (873–935). Under the Seljuk and Mamluk Sultanates, Ash’arism became the dominant ideology, culminating in the total marginalisation of Mu’tazilah. State persecution is also responsible. In 1017, Mu’tazilah scholars were directed to publicly renounce their “heresies” and warned of corporal punishments. Some were persecuted, their works burned publicly.
A contemporary expression of Hanbali sentiment from Saudi Arabia, which continues to follow this school of fiqh, is: “Abandon debate and surrender to the text.” (Martin, p.97)
Ibn Hanbal was said to have never eaten watermelon because there was no known instance of Muhammad having done so. (Ibrahim, p.8)
Fazlur Rahman summed up the differences by saying that Ash‘arism “had rendered God a concentrate of power and will, just as the Mu‘tazila had made Him a concentrate of justice and rationality.” (Rahman, 2000, p.119)
In Islam and Science, Pervez Hoodbhoy, a physicist at Islamabad University, writes of Ash‘arites, “Even a speeding arrow may or may not reach its destination, they said, because at each moment along its path God destroys the world and then creates it afresh at the next moment. Where the arrow will be at the next moment, given that it was at a particular spot at an earlier moment, cannot be predicted because it is God alone who knows how the world is to be recreated.” (Hoodbhoy, p.120)
In Islam in the World, British analyst Malise Ruthven explains, “The Ash‘aris rationalized God’s omnipotence within an atomistic theory of creation, according to which the world was made up of the discrete points in space and time whose only connection was the will of God, which created them anew at every moment.” (Ruthven, p.195)
More than 150 years after al-Ash‘ari’s death, one of his successors, Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali (1058–1111), wrote in Deliverance from Error: “Nature is entirely subject to God; incapable of acting by itself, it is an instrument in the hand of the Creator; sun, moon, stars, and elements are subject to God and can produce nothing of themselves. In a word, nothing in nature can act spontaneously and apart from God.” (Macdonald, Chapter 3, 9)
One could say that everything that happens is the result of supernatural causes, though the word supernatural becomes meaningless in the absence of the word natural from which to distinguish it. As Duncan Macdonald observed, “Miracles and what we regard as the ordinary operations of nature are on the same level.” (Ibid) As al-Ash‘ari said, “No one can do a thing before he does it.” (Hourani, p.12).
Such was the influence of the Ash‘arite school and of Al-Ghazali in particular that the denial of secondary causality became embedded in Sunni orthodoxy. It was repeated by the Egyptian Hanafi jurist Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri (d. 1368) in Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Sacred Islamic Law. Al-Misri wrote that “the science of the materialists” is based on the “conviction of materialists that things in themselves or by their own nature have a causal influence independent of the will of Allah. To believe this is unbelief that puts one beyond the pale of Islam.” (Al-Misri, 1997).
Certainly, one cannot know ethics. As British-Lebanese scholar George Hourani pointed out, the main objection al-Ash‘ari raised against rationalistic ethics was that “independent human reason implies a limit on the power of God; for if man could judge what is right and wrong he could rule on what God could rightly prescribe for man, and this would be presumptuous and blasphemous.” The Ash‘arites also objected that the Mu‘tazilites “arrogated the function of revelation and rendered it useless.”(Hourani, p.17.) In their metaphysics, the Ash‘arites made sure that such ethical knowledge is unobtainable independent of revelation.
Morality, or what is just, cannot be known rationally for two reasons. One is practical: reason is too corrupted by man’s self-interest. As Muslim scholar Fazlur Rahman characterizes the Ash‘arite view, “In a natural state the only law was self-interest. And, because human beings will deem all such things that promote their self-interest to be good, and those that thwart their self-interest as bad, therefore God has to declare, through revelation, what is good and what is evil.” (Rahman, 1979, p.61)
Since reason is not a source of moral truth, Al-Ghazali reaches the same conclusion as Al-Juwayni: “No obligations flow from reason but from the Sharia.” (Rahman, 1979, p.106)
Fazlur Rahman illustrates what this means: “Before I raise my arm, I have no power to raise my arm; God creates this power in me at the time I actually raise my arm.” (Rahman, 2000, p.59)
According to Ash’ari interpretation, God’s commands establish what is morally right and wrong. There’s no inherent good or bad; it’s all based on God’s will. They argue that good and evil stem from God’s decrees and don’t have an independent existence.
As Ed Husain, a British Muslim, recounts in the book, ‘The Islamist’, “Sheikh Nabhani [the founder of Hizb ut-Tahrir, a group dedicated to the restoration of the caliphate] always taught that there was no such thing as morality in Islam; it was simply what God taught. If God allowed it, it was moral. If He forbade it, it was immoral.” (Husain, p.42.)
Despite its seemingly radical ideas, Ash’arism rapidly gained acceptance throughout the Sunni world. Most Islamic legal scholars (ulema), except for the literalist Hanbalis, embraced Ash’arism. This may seem surprising, considering the existence of two seemingly opposing schools: the rationalist Mu’tazilites and the traditionalist Hanbalites. However, Ash’arism came to be seen as a “middle way” for a specific reason. The Hanbalis were, in fact, even more extreme in their rejection of reason. They opposed even the limited use of reason that al-Ash’ari employed to defend or explain religious doctrines.
The Mu’tazilites were a vibrant theological school known for championing reason and logic. Much like the Scholastics of medieval Europe, they drew inspiration from Greek philosophy. While acknowledging reason’s limitations, they believed it was a powerful tool for understanding good and achieving a closer connection to God.The Mu’tazilites challenged the notion of the Quran’s eternal existence, arguing instead for its creation by God. They viewed revelation as necessary due to human limitations. It provided confirmation of true good and moral guidelines that reason alone might not grasp. Yet, reason remained crucial for interpreting revelation. The Mu’tazilites believed God wouldn’t command anything illogical or unreasonable. The influence of the Mu’tazilites continues to resonate in Islamic thought. Many modern reformers find inspiration in their approach, seeking ways to make Islam relevant in the contemporary world.
The Mu’tazilite movement produced a rich intellectual tradition that emphasized reason alongside faith. Some of the most notable figures include:
• Wasil ibn Ata (d. 748): Considered the founder of the Mu’tazilites, he emphasized the importance of logic and independent reasoning in theology.
• Al-Jahiz (d. 868): A zoologist and philosopher famous for his work “The Book of Animals,” which explored the natural world through observation and reason. Al-Jahiz (d. 868), a Mu’tazila scholar, wrote the Kitab al-Hayawan (Book of Animals) that not only describes more than 350 species with beautiful illustrations, but also argues that animals “engage in a struggle for existence,” and “develop new characteristics … transforming into new species.” He is considered a forebear of the modern theory of evolution.
• Al-Farabi (d. 950): A prominent philosopher who synthesized Greek and Islamic thought, laying groundwork for later developments.
• Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen; 965-1040): A pioneering scientist known for his contributions to optics and the scientific method. He questioned prevailing ideas about vision and laid the foundation for future advancements.
• Averroes (Ibn Rushd): 12th-century philosopher who belonged to the Aristotelian tradition.
• Ibn Sina (Avicenna; d. 1037): A physician and philosopher who integrated Aristotelian philosophy with Islamic medicine, becoming a major figure in both fields.
Islam’s forgotten Mua’tizila tradition of rational inquiry as in the works of Ibn Rushd (Averroes) who had famously disagreed with the arch-conservative Imam Al-Ghazali on the role of agency and reason in human affairs.
Al-Kindi assimilated what he could from Aristotle, while rejecting the positions inimical to his Islamic faith. W. Montgomery Watt, author of A Study of Al-Ghazali, wrote, “What is remarkable in al-Kindi is the absence of any sense of conflict or tension between philosophy and the Islamic sciences [meaning jurisprudence].” (Watt, p.21.)
How is one to understand which are which, without reasoned interpretation? Revealed truths, according to ‘Abd al-Jabbar, cannot be in contradiction to the truths of reason. As the philosopher Averroes would later say, “The right does not contradict the right, but agrees with it and confirms it.” (Al-Jubouri, p.387)
Thus for the Mu‘tazilites, as Richard Martin states in Defenders of Reason in Islam, “confidence in the rational and knowable nature of physical reality is based on theodicy: God would not deceive His creatures by creating an irrational universe.” (Martin, p.11)
For the Mu‘tazilites, faith required an intellectual assent; as Ignaz Goldziher, author of Introduction to Islamic Theology and Law, put it, “there could be no belief without the exercise of reason.” (Goldziher, p.101)
The Mu‘tazilites, sensing the inexorable force of the logic of this position (well before it was elaborated by Aquinas), equated the doctrine of the uncreated Quran with polytheism, a grave violation of the doctrine of Tawhid: “If the Quran was uncreated then it must be another god, and therefore the unity of God would be violated.” (Hoodbhoy, p.98)
Can Faith and Democracy Coexist? Exploring the Theological Challenges
The government of Zia-ul-Haq in 1987 introduced fundamentalist doctrines in the teaching of science at all levels, from primary schools to universities. The regime organized international conferences and provided funding for research on such topics as the temperature of hell and the chemical nature of jinns (demons). (Hoodbhoy, p.140-54). This created a model for Hindutva for their foolish claims. Hindutva ideology sometimes makes claims about ancient India possessing advanced technologies like airplanes and complex surgeries, often citing obscure or misinterpreted texts. However, there’s a lack of credible archaeological evidence or scientific proof to support these claims. Established historical and scientific research paints a different picture, highlighting the significant contributions of other civilizations in these fields. While ancient India boasts a rich intellectual tradition, attributing these technological marvels to them without proper evidence undermines the achievements of other cultures and hinders a more nuanced understanding of history.
The rich experience of Muslim equality within the faith stands as a powerful ideal. However, this hasn’t fully translated into broader societal structures or interactions with those outside the Muslim community. This discrepancy can be attributed, in part, to certain theological concepts of Muslim exclusivism and exceptionalism. This perspective opens questions for further exploration: How can the core value of Muslim equality be more effectively applied in broader social contexts? Can theological interpretations evolve to embrace a more universal message of equality while still preserving core Muslim beliefs?
The suppression of Islamic speculative traditions arguably led to a decline in independent reasoning (ijtihad) within the Muslim world. This, in turn, allowed for a more literal and all-encompassing interpretation of scripture (over-inclusive scripturalism). As a result, even minor issues began to be seen through a strictly religious lens. For instance, some Muslims might have debated the religious propriety of wearing a watch on a particular wrist.
Robert R. Reilly’s book “The Closing of the Muslim Mind” argues that the triumph of Al-Ghazali and the Ash’ari school over the Mu’tazila school had significant consequences. The Mu’tazila emphasized reason alongside scripture, and Reilly sees their decline as an “intellectual suicide” that contributed to the end of the Islamic Golden Age. He suggests this shift led to a “dysfunctional culture” based on determinism and fatalism. However, it’s important to consider different perspectives. While philosophy involves critical thinking, historical narratives can be complex. The Islamic world boasts rich philosophical traditions, and the decline of the Golden Age likely had multiple contributing factors. Furthermore, linking Ash’arism directly to modern movements like Wahhabism is an oversimplification. Ash’arism itself encompasses a wide range of thought, and Wahhabism emerged much later with its own specific characteristics. While the pursuit of peace is a noble goal, attributing global conflict solely to a theological shift is too broad. Many factors contribute to global tensions.
What, then, of the achievements of Muslim philosophy in Ibn Rushd, Ibn al-Haytham, Ibn Sina, Al-Razi, Al-Kindi, Al-Khawarizmi, and Al-Farabi? Reformist thinker Ibrahim Al-Buleihi, a current member of the Saudi Shura Council, responds, “These [achievements] are not of our own making, and those exceptional individuals were not the product of Arab culture, but rather Greek culture. They are outside our cultural mainstream and we treated them as though they were foreign elements. Therefore, we don’t deserve to take pride in them since we rejected them and fought their ideas. Conversely, when Europe learned from them it benefited from a body of knowledge which was originally its own because they were an extension of Greek culture, which is the source of the whole of Western civilization.” (Ibrahim al-Buleihi, Ukkaz, April 23, 2009)
The degeneration continued with Ibn Taymiyya (1263–1328), who profoundly influenced Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, the founder of Wahhabism, the strict Hanbalite form of Islam practiced in Saudi Arabia and whose thought has been resuscitated by the Islamists today. As Ibn Hanbal declared, “Every discussion about a thing which the Prophet did not discuss is an error.” (Hoodbhoy, p.99) Ibn Taymiyya said that man’s job is simply to obey. Submit. Reason plays no role. According to Lebanese scholar Majid Fakhry, he “insured the victory of Neo-Hanbalism over scholastic theology and philosophy.” (Fakhry, p.323.)
Without a different theology, can one have democracy? Iranian philosopher Dr. Abdulkarim Soroush explicitly answered this question: “You need some philosophical underpinning, even theological underpinning in order to have a real democratic system. Your God cannot be a despotic God anymore. A despotic God would not be compatible with a democratic rule, with the idea of rights. So you even have to change your idea of God.” (Reilly, 2012)
Ibn Rushd believes that the taking by Muawiyah of allegiance for Yazid changed the course of Islam and destroyed the rule of the righteous in Islam. Ibn Rushd says: “The conditions of Arabs during the time of the righteous caliphs (Khulafa Rashideen) was to the side of correctness just as Plato has described his government in his book, The Republic. A democratic government which shall be an ideal for all governments. However, Muawiyah demolished its great foundations. He turned it into a kingdom of Bani Umayyah and the power of their cruelty. In this way he opened avenues of mischiefs which continue to this day in our land of Andalusia.” (Faraj Antun, The Philosophy of Law in Islam (Ibne Rushd wa Falsafatihi), p.60)
Imam Abu Hanifa, the founder of the Hanafi school, made a crucial distinction between faith (din) and law (sharia). He argued that prophets delivered the core message of Islam (din) as a universal truth, but established distinct legal frameworks (sharia) suited to their specific contexts. Therefore, according to Abu Hanifa, following a different legal code wouldn’t compromise one’s faith. This concept of separating din and sharia was later revived by the influential Indian scholar Abul Kalam Azad (1888-1958). Abul Kalam Azad’s revival of Abu Hanifa’s distinction between din and sharia holds significant relevance in the contemporary world. In an era of globalization and cultural exchange, Muslims encounter diverse legal systems. Azad’s perspective allows for a framework where Muslims can embrace their faith while integrating into societies with different legal codes. This fosters a more inclusive vision of Islam, promoting peaceful coexistence and potentially alleviating tensions surrounding religious identity in a pluralistic world.
(This is an excerpt from the book “Al-Ghazali-An Enlightened Critique” available from Amazon.)
V.A. Mohamad Ashrof is an Indian scholar on Islam and contemporary affairs who receives his mail: [email protected]
