Thursday, August 20, 2009

What rank in God's world is there that is lower than the rank of one who adorns himself with the abandonment of the truth that is traditionally believed by the hasty embracing of the false as true, accepting it without [reliable] report and verification? The imbeciles among the masses stand detached from the infamy of this abyss; for there is no craving in their nature to become clever by emulating those who followed the ways of error. Imbecility is thus nearer salvation than acumen severed [from religious belief]; blindness is closer to wholeness than cross-eyed sight.

al Ghazali, Incoherence of the Philosophers, 3.6


Anonymous said...

Ghazali was ahead of his time and behind ours. A new Islam that is more tolerant is needed. I recomend a book called; a Deadly missunderstanding. It tries to build a bridge between Islam and Christiandom using Aramaic as an mode to decifer the workings of both the bible and the koran, it is amyzing. Ayman Hakki

Maysaloon said...

Ghazali was ahead of his time and behind ours

That is a strong statement to make, especially from one with little knowledge of Ghazali. There are many who would say that in fact we are far more backwards than we have ever been in our present time.

I have also had a look at this book "A Deadly Misunderstanding" and it is, I am sorry to say, nonsense.

Anonymous said...

If I understand you correctly you say that we (in Ghazali's time) were ahead of where we are today!

I could accept that statement if it was made in the spirit of relativism, but we in Ghazali's time were backward, though we were rightfully proud. We owned slaves, beat our women, and were not exposed to anything. those who claims anyone who lived a thousand years ago is "far from backward" is wrong.

Ghazali was a great man (for his time) and I'll leave it at that. Give me Siljander over Ghazali any day.


Maysaloon said...

Hello Ayman,
Yes you did understand correctly. I am not sure how you define backward and modern but I have a sneaky suspicion that your sentiment of modern will probably drive terrified Muslim people to hide in the mountains and on top of trees! :)

Men still beat their women today, all over the world in fact, as some did back then. There are still slaves today as there were then and these exist throughout the world as well. Whether they are sex slaves, bonded in child labour or crushing debt payments, or as entire nations.

As for not being exposed to anything, you will be happy to know that the Arab world is today fully "exposed" to anything and everything but you will have a tough time convincing the normal Syrian on the street (one who only knows how to speak Arabic) that this exposure is of benefit to our peoples.

Anonymous said...

I don't know how exposure has helped us either..., but it has offered us all a window to a new world. A world where dogma just isn't enough and the Moon circles the earth as it circles the Sun. A modern world where tolerance of gays, athiests, and the "Other" is key to any Umma's empowerment.

No one who has something to say, or has a deed to contribute, is shunned. Muslims world wide who live by a code written a thousand years ago can not accept these changes, so a new Islam based on the well meaning thoughts of men like you and I are more likely to advance our global cause than the writings of Ghazali and others.

This is not to suggest that you and I (or anyone living today) are equal to men like Ghazali who were giants of their times. It just means we are better suited to the task of finding what Islam is supposed to be like today, instead of what some wished it to be like yesterday.

Maysaloon said...

Thank you for your comment and kind words, but there is no we in the project you mention for I would rather destroy it :) respectfully disagreeing with you and fundamentally. I'll see you on the 'battlefield' unless you choose to surrender and defect. You are more than welcome to :)

Anonymous said...

Destroy what? Surrender to whom? Defect to which camp? I am in my own camp of one: A Muslim Akhrawai who shuns both Duniawi Muslims and their antagonists.

I respectfully suggested that you and I (without a collaborative we implied) are individually more likely to understand the world as we see it today than Ghazali.

If you would rather fight than challenge this assumption...that's your prerogative. I'm just saying; not all that's old is true, nor is it sacred in any way.