You are on page 1of 2

3 Ibid., p. is.

Ibid., p. 17. KS., p. 898.5 Ibid., p. 745. G H AZAL!

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
VIII 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
Ghazal- and After 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
(-1 HA Z A L s prestige as a philosopher and theologian was
immense, and his doctrinal formulation of Sufism was
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
profoundly to influence the whole future development of the clear that the secret doctrine Ghazali speaks of is that the soul, in
Sufi movement. In the years of his retirement from which none of its total denudation of all qualities, is identical with God, and there
the blandishments of Sanjar's Grand Vizier, Fakhr al-Mulk, could are passages in the Kimiya and the Mishkat which show that this
withdraw him,' he must have written his last great work, the conclusion is correct.
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 The second secret doctrine is usually called huhu! and was par-
works contain propositions which were unlikely to find favour ticularly associated with Hallaj; and this again is justified not
with orthodoxy. These propositions were (i) that the formula only by the imago Dei tradition but also by the tradition we have
`There is no God but God' was a definition of the divine unity already quoted with reference to Junayd: 'When a servant of mine
only fit for popular consumption, whereas the 'privileged', the draws near to me, then do I accept him as my friend, and once I
khawdg, preferred the formula 'There is no He but He', (ii) that have befriended him, I become his, ear, his eye, and his tongue.'4
light in its reality is God, and (iii) that the soul of man is a stranger This doctrine of the indwelling God receives additional
in this world and originated in the world above. In defence of confirmation from a tradition which purports to be God's words to
these propositions Ghazal wrote the al-Aram, though he Moses, but which is in fact based on Matthew M. 36-40. '0
evinced little hope of convincing his critics. 'Nowadays', he writes, Moses,' so the tradition runs, 'I was sick and thou visitedst me
`if anyone [ventures to] speak the truth, the very walls rise up in not.' [Moses] replied: 'Thou art the Lord of the whole world, how
enmity against him.'3 Yet he can scarcely have been surprised at shouldst thou be sick!' [God] said: 'Such-and-such a servant of
the criticisms levelled against him, for he confesses that in the mine was sick; and hadst thou visited him, thou wouldst have
Kimiya he was adumbrating doctrines `to explain which would be visited me.'5 It seems slightly ironical that the words of one who had
heresy'4 and 'pure infidelity'.5 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
Now, to judge from the Kimiya it would appear that Ghazili support of the heretical doctrine that God indwells all men—a
held two doctrines, the precise formulation of which would con- doctrine, moreover, the originator of which had, like Jesus, died
stitute heresy or worse: the first concerns the indwelling of God in upon a cross.
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. 1 Ibid., p. 45. 2 mid., p. 79. Ibid , p. 45
Following the Persian version as given in the KS., p. 95%
KS., ibid.