3 Ibid., p. is.
4
VIII
Ghazal- and After
(-1 HA Z A L s prestige as a philosopher and theologian was
G
bound
immense, and his doctrinal formulation of Sufism was
profoundly to influence the whole future development of the
Sufi movement. In the years of his retirement from which none of
the blandishments of Sanjar's Grand Vizier, Fakhr al-Mulk, could
withdraw him,' he must have written his last great work, the
Kitniya-yi Sa'arlat. This an,d the short treatise, the Mishkat al-
Anwar, were singled out for criticism by his enemies,3 for these
works contain propositions which were unlikely to find favour
with orthodoxy. These propositions were (i) that the formula
`There is no God but God' was a definition of the divine unity
only fit for popular consumption, whereas the 'privileged', the
khawdg, preferred the formula 'There is no He but He', (ii) that
light in its reality is God, and (iii) that the soul of man is a stranger
in this world and originated in the world above. In defence of
these propositions Ghazal wrote the al-Aram, though he
evinced little hope of convincing his critics. 'Nowadays', he writes,
`if anyone [ventures to] speak the truth, the very walls rise up in
enmity against him.'3 Yet he can scarcely have been surprised at
the criticisms levelled against him, for he confesses that in the
Kimiya he was adumbrating doctrines `to explain which would be
heresy'4 and 'pure infidelity'.5
Now, to judge from the Kimiya it would appear that Ghazili
held two doctrines, the precise formulation of which would con-
stitute heresy or worse: the first concerns the indwelling of God in
creatures, and the second the denying not only to God but to the
1 Facleil al-Anim, ed. M. Sabiti, Tehran, 1333 A.H. (solar), p. is.
2
Ibid., p. 17. KS., p. 898.5 Ibid., p. 745. G H AZAL!
AND AFTE R I3
human soul as it is in its essence of any attributes whatever. Th
he says that the soul, as king of the psycho-physical body, is bi-cnun
and bi-chiguna, that is, absolutely unqualified, 'exactly as the king
of the world (God) is bi-chim and bi-chignna'.1 This, he admits, is
the Mu`tazilite doctrine of ta`ti1,2 the denying to God in his essence
of any attribute whatever; but the whole doctrine would become
clear, he says, if 'one were openly to proclaim the peculiar nature
of the soul in its secret essence (sirr); but this is not permitted'. The
doctrine, however, is already formulated, though not precisely, in
the tradition, 'Verily God created Adam in his own image'.3 From
the two passages from which we have been quoting it seems fairly
clear that the secret doctrine Ghazali speaks of is that the soul, in
its total denudation of all qualities, is identical with God, and there
are passages in the Kimiya and the Mishkat which show that this
conclusion is correct.
The second secret doctrine is usually called huhu! and was par-
ticularly associated with Hallaj; and this again is justified not
only by the imago Dei tradition but also by the tradition we have
already quoted with reference to Junayd: 'When a servant of mine
draws near to me, then do I accept him as my friend, and once I
have befriended him, I become his, ear, his eye, and his tongue.'4
This doctrine of the indwelling God receives additional
confirmation from a tradition which purports to be God's words to
Moses, but which is in fact based on Matthew M. 36-40. '0
Moses,' so the tradition runs, 'I was sick and thou visitedst me
not.' [Moses] replied: 'Thou art the Lord of the whole world, how
shouldst thou be sick!' [God] said: 'Such-and-such a servant of
mine was sick; and hadst thou visited him, thou wouldst have
visited me.'5 It seems slightly ironical that the words of one who had
claimed to be God's only-begotten Son should be used by a
man who had earned himself the title of the 'Proof of Islam' in
support of the heretical doctrine that God indwells all men—a
doctrine, moreover, the originator of which had, like Jesus, died
upon a cross.
3
1 Ibid., p. 45. 2 mid., p. 79. Ibid , p. 45
4
Following the Persian version as given in the KS., p. 95%
6
KS., ibid.