Mehmet Özay 31.12.2022
Although Ghazali's (Abu Hamid) relatively short life ended, according to calculations, in December 1111, 911 years ago, the works he left behind continue to enlighten, ponder and provoke minds in the East and West today.
Social and political ruptures
The year of Ghazali's birth (1056) corresponds to an important period in Islamic history. In 1055, in the 5th century of Islam, or the middle of the 11th century B.C., the Shiite Bûheyvi dynasty ruling in Egypt, the early center of today's Middle Eastern borders, was confronted by the emerging Seljuk-oriented political structure in Baghdad, the center of the Abbasid caliphate.[1]
This development was not only an attempt to ensure the continuation of the authentic tradition against the existence of an alternative political structure and caliphate, but also brought about changes in various social and religious structures and ideas.
It is possible to say that Ghazali's early childhood and youth were subject to such a transformation, and that in his later years he developed a system of thought in response to this transformation and the various political, social and religious ruptures that caused and/or triggered it.
From individual to society
Ghazali's life, which must begin by recognizing him as a member of the society in which he was born, does not only give us the development process of a (b)scholar.
At the same time, this individual, i.e., through Ghazali, serves an important function in conveying news, networks of relations, problems and solutions, etc. from his immediate and distant environment and geography to us secretly and openly.
For this reason, in Ghazali studies, at least in some of them, the authors consider it an obligation to include a biography of this scholar, even if it is brief.
The intention behind following such a method is to reveal the possibility of capturing clues about the conditions under which a scholar or a thinker developed, how and under what conditions he or she produced his or her works, etc.
These biographical narratives are also important in that they provide us, the people of today, with insights into the sociological reality of Ghazali as a person and the social groups in which he participated, regardless of the authors' intentions.
At this point, it is worth mentioning that it is possible to briefly evaluate the attitudes and approaches that have led Ghazali to be understood in contemporary (b)scholarly circles and at the same time criticized by certain circles through his biography.
In understanding Ghazali in his various dimensions, one should not ignore the post-Ghazali period and, in this sense, the social and intellectual conditions that were imposed by the emergence of the modern period after a long period of time or the increasing interaction with modernization in various dimensions.
At this point, new problems in understanding society and the 'burden' of the concepts used to define them are important in their own right.
For example, as the late Mr. Sabri Orman expressed in his work on the concept of "social justice in Ghazali's thought",[2] The difference in the sociological conditions of Western Europe, which gave birth to 'social justice' as a concept - at least, which began to reveal its nuclei from the 17th century onwards - pushes us to be careful in understanding the 11th century thinker and/or how we should evaluate his view of the concept that stands directly, closely and related to this concept.
Experience limits
The fact that the main factor that left its mark on Ghazali's early adolescence and late life is linked to Sufism reveals that he had a significant life experience.
Undoubtedly, an important part of the experience that Ghazali faced throughout his life and in which he himself was an actor is the process that we can call the 'middle period', which developed through his scholarly and academic endeavors such as teaching, consultancy, etc. and his relations with the rulers of the period.
When we try to take a closer look at these periods, the following picture emerges.
It is possible to see the first period of Ghalazi's life as an act of self-directed learning by an ordinary student and, at this point, as a process of adaptation to the wider society in which he was embedded.
The striking aspect of the first period in question is that it is a preparation for the third period and - to some extent - there is a similarity between these two periods. In the first of these periods, Ghazali is in the process of learning Sufism - beyond and outside other fields of knowledge - while in the second, he is in the process of experiencing Sufism in the context of a 'school' approach.
The second period, or 'middle period', on the contrary, corresponds to a period in which the criticism of the social structure - already present in one form or another in Ghazali's thought - matured, after a considerable period of dialectical knowledge, including Islamic (b)sciences and Greek philosophical traditions, and its position and function in the structures of the state and educational institutions.
Social criticism
These three main periods reveal the evolution, change and renewal in Ghazali's personal life, and are also decisive in his stance and attitude towards the social, political and religious structures he witnessed.
However, Ghazali's point that the concept does not develop a truly 'sociological' perspective or address social problems[3] should be evaluated cautiously.
At this point, the question of what Ghazali's life experience means for the wider society is undoubtedly very meaningful and worthy of further consideration.
In this framework, the scholarly methods, thoughts and practices of his teachers and of the educational institution in which he was unintentionally involved in the early education process constitute the beginning of his relationship with Sufism.
In a sense, it is possible to consider this period as a process that has not yet settled down or that is developing spontaneously at the beginning of the process of becoming conscious.
However, when his criticisms of this period came to the fore, and not much time had passed, Ghazali's Sufi (mystic) seems to be an important factor in determining the attitude and understanding towards the structure or structures.
His inclination and orientation towards various fields of Islamic (b)sciences, which developed with this process and then became increasingly intense, led to his discovery by the political authority/center of the period.
Ghazali's life, scholarly attitude and approach - especially in the field of Islamic law (jurisprudence), it seems that he retreated to an environment that was favorable for him to have a position, to put it in today's discourse, at a period not too late in his maturity.
While these three main processes in Ghazali's life gradually build his scholarly personality and thought structure, Ghazali - as a direct condition in itself - attempts to repair the society, religion and thought system into which he was born, lived and witnessed, in a sense by making it a fundamental target of his criticism.
[1] A H. Johns. (1993). "Political Authority in Islam: Some Reflections Relevant to Indonesia", (ed.), The Making of An Islamic Political Discourse in Southeast Asia, (ed.), Anthony Reid, Aristoc Press Pty, Centre of Southeast Asian Studies, Monash University, Clayton-Victoria, Australia, p. 23.
[2] Sabri Orman. (2018). "Al-Ghazali on Justice and Social Justice", TUJISE (Turkish Journal of Islamic Economics), p. 2.
[3] M. Amin Abdullah. (2000). Kant and Ghazali, Frankfurt: Verlag Y. Landeck, p. 36.
English and Indonesian versions translated with DeepL AI
