Mina, 728 Se ny commen Sve, Nowe, co L's ‘arte Reson o Mase een Bertone oral of we han nis ata) gee rel a ae, Fr 5.20 ‘vee eg tat oo ag) se a) ‘eon snl ae vie nbs tes. tn thon oe fom he st fh Bed norman vied by ron Sr aang mites vo, {Gite alate ne nao) " cp LS on dri ot en ‘Adlon Ghar fo azon we minke (Pin Eons Maconsove nt Las 387,455. CF Allson, The Cruly of Hey An Arman of Cron roan Soi fr retin Chin Ke 188, See, H. Lando, “Ghat and Relionninech in Ache Sine Ager, 4501 (1991) 46 is trevor The Ne of Lips. Buchman (rove, sg Jah i ay Ue re 1 se tne as dain of 8 he | | ° Annotated Translation of Faysal al-Tafriqa Bayna al-Islam wa al-Zandaga The Decisive Criterion for Distinguishing Islam from Masked Infidelity Muhammad IS/I) Abii Hamid Muhammad b, Muhammad al-Ghazali (a. oo1m the name of Gog, the All-Metifu, the Mery-Bestowing 1 Said the noble Imim and scholar, Abi Himid Muhammad by Muhammad b. Mubammadal-Ghacal, may God show him mere: I praise God the Exalted, a a geste of suende to His might and a means of obtaining the optimam of His bounty, Seeking thereby to avail myself of the success, aid, and (erieay of obedience that only He can grant, and to forestall (the travesty of being forsaken by Him and of disobeying Him, that I might bring upon myself His ever-flowing bounty. And {send prayers upon His servant and messenger, Muhsmad, the best of His eration, in open recognition of his prophethood, inhopes of acquiring the bene of his intercession, sumenderng to him his right (es prophet) upon me, seeking refuge in the felicitous ray of hs innermost being and (he put of his soul [send prayers, a well, upon his family, his Companions, fd hs descendant al "To proceed | see, my dea brother and partisan fiend, that ‘when a pary of the envious assaulted your eae with iticisms aztinst Some ofthe books we wrote coneeming the secret of how religion works, alongwith ther claim that these works conidn views that go agaias the doctrine of cur predecessors tnd the masters among the speculative theologians (mashayith ‘almutaalliin), and that igrssing from the Asharite school Of theology. even so mush as a hand's length, isan act of| Unbelef (aj), and hat parting with this seo}, even in the finest of deals, is misuidance and cui, your soul became gated wit ite feelings and your thoughts became dijinted and fayed. But bid you, my dear, partisan fend, tobe easy‘on yourself at nt ta become perturbed. Tame your emotions & Bit be patent with what they ay, and part with them with due civility, Think litle of those who are not envied and ili ‘And think the same of those who are not branded as misguided tnd accused of Unbiet For what more pefet and reasonable toca could there have been than the Master of Messengers"? ‘Yet tay sai of him that he was 80 more than a common ‘madman And what speech could be more glorious and true than that of the Lord of All Being? Vt, they sad about it ‘tis but tls ofthe ancient” So beware of becoming preoccupied with arguing wih these people, oF with entertaining hopes of Silencing them, For to do 80 isto hope for the impossible, indeed ike speeking tothe def. Have you not head the sying, “The esolon ofl ent may be boped er Sive a conics with one who opposes you ou of envy"? Indeed, wete such hope ta be enertnned by anyone, verses foretellng the fait (of inviting certsn persons to the uth) ‘would aot have been reveled tothe best Of people. Yet, have {you not heard the Exalted statement: And iter sing away weighs hea up you, thn sek, {you ce blo in Be ground ew adder tthe even a els bing (len) ign to them (a at would do ay go) Nay, hed boon Go wl He woul ave guhered them al pon {ue guidance So donot he among thse who ae gnaran. (X35) And the Exalted’s statement And were We to open up for them 3 doo tothe heavens ough thc hey contin fo anced (ever higher) thy Would ay," {jes ave simpy ben iced th see dy ay, we ae 3 pple bewitched (AV: 15) And the Bxalte's statement ‘And had We snt downto Book on parchment sich ht hey Would have simpy "Thi x Bt manifest magi (7), And te Bxalle's statement ‘An, ha itcome to pt that West down nga othe so the dead spoke to them (etl) and We eared Before thom every reli a0 tat they oa set facet fs, hey wold til ot ‘skzovledge he ath ules Gods wild, But mo of them ae ignorant (VII) " Now, know that he reality and tue definition of what constates Unbeliet (Fir) and what constitutes faith (Ind) does not manifest isl to those whose hears have been polluted by the pursuit of reputation and the piling up of wealth; nor does the {nue definition and nar sseet of truth (hagq) ot enisguidance (dala. On the contrary, these things ae reves ony to those ‘whose hears have been cleansed ofthe impurities and pollatants ‘Of this tansent lif, then refined through perfected spiritual ‘exercises and enlightened through pure remembrance of God, ‘then nourished by fight thlaking and embellished with adherence to thereligios law, then drenched in the ight that re from the ich of prophethood, at which time thee hears became as if they wer immaculate miros, the eil-amp of fut (mn) that rests in the enclosed lass around them becoming a source of light, is oil virally glowing thoagh fire touches nat? ow could the hidden truths of the immaterial world (maak) mavifes themselves to a people whose god (WAR) is their undisciplined passions (haw), whore object of worship (ona bid) is thir leaders, whose discon of prayer (gia) ix the dinar, whose religous law is thee own Svat, whose wil (rade) i the promotion of reputation and carl peatures, hose worship (bad) isthe service they render the ich among8 oN 118 NOUNDARES OF TLIC TOLERANCE BLAME them, whose remembrance (of God) is the devilish whispecings of their souls, whose most cherished possession is heit (lationship wth ther) political leaders, and whose every thought is preoccupied with exacting legal dodges (hjal ag. la) 1 sccommodate the ditt of thir (would 0) sense of shame? For such a people, how is the darkness of Unbelief to distinguish itself from the light of faith? By some divine inspiration (ham)? But they have not emptied ther hears of the dreps ofthis transient lie such that they would be in a ston to receive such inspiration. By perfecting the (eliicus) Sciences? But all they possess of the religious sciences is Ieowledge of such thinge ae the rales of ntl purity and whether or aot water distilled ffom safron can be used for "ul pufcation How preposterous (to expect such knowledge to come to such people}! Nay, this questi tee precious and 00 dear tobe realized through sheer wishful thinking or lisurely Parsi. Therefore, busy Youser with your own aft, and ot waste What remains of your time on ther Som away fom him who has ted sway frm Os reminder hd oied ning mor thn he pense 0) hs ae! ie Ste is the ii of ther kowladge’ Bu, ven, your Lord is mot rowledgeabeof hose who have stayed Hom spa He rot krowldganle of those who ae gad. (LIU 29-30) i {As for you yourself if your aim isto extract this rancou fom ‘your heart and from the hearts of those like you who are not Seduced by the provocations ofthe envious and notated by that blindness that copdemas poople to being led around by others (agi), but wh instead thirst fo insight into some of ‘he agonizings that result fom the obscures engendered by sjstamate thinking and sired up by speculative ingity, then fuddress yourself and your companion and ask hint for 4 Aefntion of "Unbeliet. If he claims thatthe definition of ‘Unbeie is that which contradicts the Astarte schol, or the aveaL ALTARQA ° Mural school, or the Hanbalite school or any tht school, then know that he ia gulbe,dimewite fellow who i ied by his enslavement o blind following n ft, eis blinder than the blind. So donot waste your time ring to reform him. Fort ‘would be enough to silence him hat you compare his claim ‘with those of hi opponenis, since he will ot in any difference ‘beeen hitn and the rest of thse who blindly follow some ‘othe school in opposition to him, ‘And may be that, ofall he schools, his paren (whom he follows is inctined toward the Ash'arte schoo), holding tat to 0 against this school, even nthe finest of detail, is an fnconrovertble act of Unbele. Ask him, though, how he came to enjoy this monopoly over the tith, seh that he cpu eudge (ihe likes ff Bilan? tobe an Unbelover (afr) because the afer goes against him on the question of God's possessing the atrbate of eternity, holding that this attribute is indistinet from the esence of God. Why should al-BSgilz be more ‘serving to be branded an Unbliover forgoing against the Asivarte choo! than the Astrarites would befor going against ‘1-Baqilni? Way shoald one ofthese parties enoy a monopoly Cover the rth to the exclusion ofthe other? Ts it onthe bass of who preceded whom in time? If his be the ease then al-Ash'an® was himself prvoded by ohes ke the Muvtazlites, Let the rth, then, rest with precedence. Oris Ion the basis of one possessing more virtue and Knowledge than dhe other But by what scale and by what measuring device is this knowledge and ire wo be quantified, such that it would be proper for him to claim that ao one in existence is more ‘rtuous than the one he has chosen o follow? onthe other hand ts permissible for al-Bgilnt to go sgainat the Astarite school, why sbould this be denied to thers? What is the difference between al-Biqillinh and f-Karbis” or al Qaliisit and others? On what basis do we restrict his cence (to a- Baila)? If he claims thatthe disagreement with al-Bagitn is rally ‘only a disagreement over eminalogy as opposed to substance ‘8 some biased partons have tied to insist through freed and90 OW THE HOUNDARIS OF THELODICAL TOLFRANCE BLAM affected arguments, claiming tht toth pats are really in agreement on the eternity of (God's) existence and tht the disagreement over whether tis eterity is coneubeatil with (God's estnce of isan atwibae add fo and stint fon that essence i realy @ minor disagreement that dacs not cll for citer party to take a strong position against the other then way does he have such strong words for the Mu'tazlite regarding the latier’s negetion of the divine attributes (qua attcbutes) while flly acknowledging that God is knowing and hs knowledge ofall thing, and that He is powerful ard has power overall pessibiliies, his disagreement with the Astartes being simply over whether God is knowing and poweeul by His estence or by an attribute (vz, knowledge, Power) that is distinct fom His essence? What ete difference between these two disagreements? And what issu could be more momenfous aod more senous than scholarly inguty into the negation versus the acknowledgment of the atnbutes of God The sys, 1 simply deem the Mu'taite a Unbeiver bac he his hat cep, power, fe emerge from a sngle este, while thot things al fer Gm each otter both tn ema ef tei deft tir reality, nt impose for ifn esis tobe descied esa ndifeentistedwni o foraingl sen io represent ham, ms then why does he not look askance atthe Ash'rite when the later saya speech (alam) isan atu distin om essenes that ataces to the esence of God, while it remains single realty that manifests itself a¢ Torah, Gospels, Psalms, and Quen? Indeed, it includes commands, prohibitions, reports and inguiies; and all ofthese are fret realities, And ow could ‘hey not be while the definion of a report is “hat which is subject to being believed or disbelieved, while no suc definkion applies commands and prohibitions? How could these things ‘onsite single reality tat hot sujet to and not subject fo asht ALTATRIQN o being belived or disbelieve, which would amount oan atbute snd is opposite aplying a single entity? 'Now, if he fables about tying to find answers to these questions, or proves incapable of laying these mates, know that he isnot thinker bat 9 mere follower Qmugali), And fmong the restrictions tht go along with being a follower is that one not take it ypon oneself o adress (scholarly) issues, nor should others address ane (about such sss), because (8 8 follower) ope isnot eapable of traveling the path of (sound) rational argument. For were one capable of doing s, one woul fot be 4 follower but one who is followed, one would be ‘Someones ind, rather hun the other way around So when 4 mere follower engages in (intelectual) argument, this constitutes no more than prurient meddling on his part. And fone wi indulges im i like e man who test beat (hrsechoes fut of) cold ses, or one who ties lo restore to freshness what time has aleady spoiled, But, alas, how can the perfumes ‘merchant restore to eshness what ime hes already ravaged? If you are fae, you will probably know that one who gives any paiculr thinker armonopoly over the this himself closer {0 being pulty ofboth Unbelle? and contradictoriness. As for bis beng closer to Unbeli, hii Because he puts this thinker inthe positon of the Prophet, who alone 1s exempt from commiting errs (in doctrine), and though whom alone fain Gmin) obtains by agrocing with him and Unblit btaias by disagreeing with him, Ax for his Being closer to contre distrinss, ths is because every tinker hos rational inquiry to bea personal obligation, and that one should give assent only to the results oThis own rational inquiry, an thatthe resus of this inquiry constite a (binding) proof For him). But what is the difference between one who siys, ‘Follow me in my doctine” and one who sys “Follow me in beth my doctrine ‘nd my proof”? Ts this not acontadicion?™IRE 92 oN THE BOUNDARIES OF THFOLOICA. TOLERANCE BLAM wv After suring al he contains ofthe vaious ftions of ‘ind flowers, you may desi to kao the (ve) deiaon of “Unb Know that afl explanation ofthis matin would be suite lng, andthe means tough which it might be faly {ppreended are quite ube and elusive, But I wil provide you witha sound erterion which you should apply even cos the Doar, that may serve to Kee you ng focsed (onthe real ise) and provide you wit a means of awoding Be ener of eondemning various group as Unbelover and casting aspersions on te people of Islam however uch their maps Im dere hy old at tothe sateen, Thee n> fd but God; Muhammad is His messenger, being sincere therein and na eatgoialyconaditig i nan way. This Ioey ‘Unley i to dsem anything the Prophet brought o be lie And ith (indo dee Every bing he brow be ie. Ths, the Jew andthe Cita ae Unbives tae they deny the truthfulness ofthe Propet. Deist ae al he more Unlicversbocase in tonto oot mesenger, hey {cet all of the mesenges’" Akeles shen) ae ven tuoeso Unbaieves Beaute ination oour messenger Who sant thy et he ey Ged wo ese pe ogres.” Nossal of hiss based on he ft that “Unbeli is epal designation (hukm shar, like slavery and freedom, is implication being the Tine of sedcng the blvd of one (G0 designates)” and passing a idgemen upon i the ele {tat be wll dwell in the Helle forever. And since this ts etn, cane te aonb he of er at explicit weet fom stipe (na) or tn salogy (ght) rave from an expt text Now, there are ex et garding the (satus of ews nd Chron Deis Duals Coton, (atzoniigals snd, an Ate ar asgned the sess ona fron rounds. And lof these pais ae associations {asain nara lof them dest one or oro the AyShL, ALTARRIOA * prophets to be Han. Henos, every Unbaiever deems one or ore ofthe prophets o bea liar. And every ane who deems one ‘emote ofthe prophets to be a iar is an Uabeliver. This the ‘terion that should be applied evenly across the board v Know, however, that the simplicity of this criterion potwithstanding, adiionl considerations—nay, the very erdx Of the matterlurk beneath its surface. For every group accuses those who old views contrary to its own of being Unbelievers and of deeming the Prophet? to be a lar. The anbalte for example, brands the Asiarte an Unkeieve, Claiming that the later deems the Propet to be a Tar in his Stibation of aboveness (e-fawg) and (a Hera) mounting of the Throne (al-ietwa' “ala rsh) to God. The Ash’arite brands the Henbalite an Unbeliver, claiming the later to be fn anthropomocphist (mushabBih) who deems the Prophet © bea liar when fe says (about God), "Nothing is anything ike Him’. The Ashante brands the M'tzlite an Unbeliver, Claiming tat the Mi'azlite deems the Prophet to be list ‘when the ater informe us ofthe beatific vision (rar Al, tnd of God's knowledge, powet, and (othe) attributes. The ‘Mattazilite brands the Ash arte an Unbeliver, claiming that {ihe latter's) belict inthe divine attributes consiutes (belie {2) a multiplicnty of eterals and a denial ofthe th of what the Prophet taught in the way of monotheism (owhid). And pothing wil free you from the likes ofthis dilemma save a firm grasp of the meaning of “dacming to he a lie taki)" and deeming 0 be true (ag)’ and the reality of how these designations apply to statements by the Prophet. But once this thvomes clear fo you 0 too will he extremism of thse groups that go round branding each other Unbelievers. And it isto this end that I say: ‘Docming to be tr (or thf)’ can apply to a statement incor tothe author af staterent, And the reality of “deeming to be tre’ (as applies to assertions by the Prophet) is 1094 Ov THE wouNOARIES OF THPOLOGICAL TOLERANCE SLAB ‘acknowledge the existence of everthing whose existence the Prophet informed us of. ‘Existence’ (sujad, however, i of five levels. And iis oly because of ther obviousness to this fact that all ofthe groups accuse their adversaries of deeming some or another aspect of what the Prophet taught to bea ie Existence, meanwhile, cn be: 1) ontological dha); 2) sensory (fs); 3 conceptual (Khai 4) nostic agi) o 5) analogous (Ghabah. And no ove who acknowledges the existence of what the Prophet" informed us of on any of thee five levels can be said tobe categorically deeming what the Prophet aught o be « lie. Let us explain, however, these five levels and ite a few ‘examples (of the role they play) in figurative Interpretation (wast. (Ontological existence: Thit refers to the real, coneete existence of things (in the word) extemal to both the senses and the mind. The senses and the mind, however, receive impressions of these things, which process is refered to a8 apprehension (ira). This slike the existence of the heavens. ‘he earth, anil and plants. This, in oter words, is apparent realty. Nay, this the existence” lnown to most people thee than which they know no existence Sensory existence: This refers to things tht acquire form through the visual power of the eye, while they have no existence in the world ouside the eye. They exit in other word, om the level ofthe senses and are pticlar tothe one whose senses grasp them, no one else sharing in their apprehension. For cxample, a sleeping person, or even «