بیشترتوضیحاتافزودن یادداشت جدید
60the proposition in question"(1). He examined afterwards, all the various claimants of "Certain Knowledge" and finally found it in Sufiism. With their view of the nature of substance, the Ash`arite, rigid monotheists as they were, could not safely discuss the nature of the human soul. Al-Ghazali alone seriously took up the problem, and to this day it is difficult to define, with accuracy, his view of the nature of God. In him, like Borger and Solger in Germany, Sufi pantheism and the Ash`arite - dogma of personality appear to harmonise together, a reconciliation which makes it difficult to say whether he was a Pantheist, or a Personal Pantheist of the type of Lotze. The soul, according to Al-Ghazali, perceives things. But perception as an attribute can exist only in a substance or essence which is absolutely free from all the attributes of body. In his Al-Madnun (2), he explains why the Prophet declined to reveal the nature of the soul. There are, he says, two kinds of men; ordinary men and thinkers. The former, who look upon materiality as a condition of existence, cannot conceive an immaterial substance. The latter are led, by their logic, to a conception of the soul which sweeps away all difference between God and the individual soul. Al-Ghazali, therefore, realised the Pantheistic drift of his own inquiry, and preferred silence as to the ultimate nature of the soul. 1 Al-Munqidh,p. 3. 2 See Sir Sayyid Ahmad's criticism of Al-Ghazali's view of the soul, Al-Nazru fi ba'di Masaili-i Imami-i humam Abu Hamid Al- Ghazali; No. 4, p. 3 sq. (ed. Agra).
لطفا منتظر باشید ...
