Knowledge being a Translation with notes of Kitab al-‘Ilm of Al-Ghazzali’s Ihya’ ‘Ulum al-Din by nabih amin faris

ON THE INTELLECTUAL DISPARITY AMONG MEN

Men have disagreed concerning the disparity which exists among their intellects (`aql). But there is no use in repeating the arguments of those of little knowledge. It is more important to proceed immediately tothe declaration ofthe truth. The obvious truth in this case is that this disparity pervades all the four parts of the intellect except the second, namely axiomatic (daruri) knowledge, such as the possibility of possible things and the impossibility of impossible things. Thus he who comprehends tha: iwro are greater than one will also comprehend the impossibility for one object being in two different places at the same time, or for a thing being both eternal (qadim) and originated (hadith). The same is true of all other similar facts and whatever is comprehended with certain comprehension free of any doubt. The three other parts, however, are subject to disparity.

As to the fourth, namely, the ability of the power ofthe instinct to conquer the appetite, the disparity in it among men is evident and clear; in fact it is evident and clear that, at times, even the individual betrays a certain degree of disparity therein. This is sometimes the result of variation in the intensity of different appetites. A wisemen may be able to overcome one appetite more readily than another; but the problem is not restricted to this only. The young man may fail to overcome the appetite of sex and desist from fornication, but when he advances in age and his understanding becomes mature he will be able to subdue his lust. On the other hand hypocrisy and pride increase and grow stronger with age.

This disparity may also be the result of difference in the mastery of the knowledge which reveals the evil of the other appetites. Thus a physician may be able to abstain from some of the harmful foods, while another man may fail simply because he lacks medical knowledge, although he may be the physician’s peer in intellect and of the same belief in the harmful effects of those foods. Again the more mature the physician’s intellect, the stronger will his fear be. Hence fear is an aid in the service of intellect, an instrument with which to overcome and break appetites. Similarly, the learned man is more capable of renouncing sin than the ignorant, because his knowledge of the evils of sin is greater. I mean the true learned men and not those of the flowing robes who dote and rave and prate of things they know little about.

If this disparity is due to appetite it will have nothing to do with the disparity of intellect, but if it is due to knowledge, then we shall call this kind of knowledge, intellect, because it strengthens the native intellect and hence the disparity will be that of the particular knowledge then involved, after which it will also be named. It may also be caused by disparities in the native intelellect the ability of which to stamp out appetite becomes inevitably stronger as it grows more powerful.

As to the third part, namely, empirical knowledge (‘ulum al-tajarib),ithe disparity of men in it cannot be denied. They differ therein in the number of times they are right in their quickness to comprehend. This may be the result of either disparity in the instinct, (i.e. native intellect), or disparity in practice and experience. In the case of the first, i.e. the instinct, which is the origin, the disparity cannot be denied. It is like a luminary which shines upon the soul, whose dawning and first rays begin to illuminate the soul at the age of discrimination and continues to grow and increase very gradually until it reaches its fullness around the age of forty. Or like the light of the morning, the beginnings of which are hard to discern but it increases little by little until it attains its fullness at the rising of the sun. The disparity of insight is like that of eye sight where the difference between the weak-sighted man and the keen-sighted is quite evident.

The law of Allah operates universally among all His creatures and follows the principles of gradual development. Thus the sex instinct does not appear at puberty all at one time suddenly; rather it appears little by little gradually. The same is true of all the other forces and facilities. In fact he who denies the disparity of men in this instinct is loose outside the confines of sanity, and he who thinks that the intellect of the Prophet is the same as that of any of the outlandish peasants and desert ruffians is himself filthier than any of those peasants.

Furthermore how could the disparity of instinct (i.e. the native intellect) be denied when without it men would not have varied in their ability to understand knowledge, nor would they have been divided into the stupid who fail to understand anything except after long and tedious explanation byateacher, the brilliant who respond to the least sign, and the perfect from whose soul truth emanates without any previous instruction. Thus Allah said, “Whose oil would well nigh shine out, even though fire touched it not! It is light upon light.” (24:35) Such are the Prophets to whom recondite things are clarified in their inward thoughts without having learnt or heard anything of the sort. This is expressed by the word inspiration (ilham). The Prophet expressed the same thing when he said, “Verily the holy spirit whispered into my heart and said, `Love anyone,, thou shalt part from him; live anyway thou desirest, thou shalt verily die; do anything thou wilt - thou shalt be accordingly rewarded’.” This kind of imparting information by the angels to the Prophets is different from explicit revelation which involves hearing a definite voice with the ear and seeing the angel with the eye. Consequently the stage (of revelation) has been described as whispering into the heart (al nafth fi al-ruh). As to the stages of revelation (wahi), they are many, but to embark on a discussion of them under practical religion (‘ilm al-mukashafah) is not fitting, because they fall under the science of revelation (‘ilm al-mukashafah). Do not think, however, that the knowledge of the stages of revelation requires that a person be himself a receiver of revelation, because it is not unlikely for a sick physician to know the different stages of health or for the trespassing learned man to know the various stages of justice despite the fact that he lacks justice. For knowledge is one thing and the existence of what is known is another. Consequently not everyone who knows what prophethood and sainthood are will be a Prophet or a saint, and not everyone who knows what piety and godliness are will be pious or godly.

That men are divided into those who take notice by themselves and understand those who do not understand except through warning and instruction, and those who benefit from neither, is like the division of the bosom of the earth into parts where water collects and increases until it brusts out by itself into springs of living water, parts where water collects but cannot be reached without digging, and and parts where not even digging will avail. This is true of the disparity of men in native intellect. Attesting to the disparity of the intellect is a tradition narrated by `Abdullah ibn-Salam to the effect that the Prophet at the end of a long conversation, described the throne and stated that the angels once asked Allah saying, “ O our Lord! Hast thou created aught greater than the throne?” Allah replied, “Yes, the intellect.” The angels said, “How great is it?” Allah answered and said, “Verily no one can grasp its greatness. Can you number the sand of the sea?” They said, “No.” Allah then replied, “Verily I have created the intellect in different kinds as numerous as the sand of the sea. Some men were given one grain, others two, three and four grains, still others received a good portion, others a portion equalling a camel-load, and others even greater.”

You may say, “Why then do some groups among the Sufi disparage the intellect and reason as well as the rational and the reasonable?”You should know, then, that the reason for it is that men have transferred the term intellect or reason (`aql) and the term rational or reasonable (ma’qui) from their real and original meaning to another and false meaning, namely argumentation and debate over contradictions and requisites, which is scholastic theology. Consequently the Sufis could not tell that men have erred in this terminology, especially since it has not been possible to remove that from their minds in view of its current and well established usage. As a result they disparaged reason and rationalism. Could it be imagined, however, that the light of the insight, through which Allah is known and the truthfulness of His Apostle is recognized, will ever be disparaged or belittled when Allah Himself praised it? And if it were ever disparaged what other thing could be praised? But if the praiseworthy knowledge be the law, by what is its truth known? If it were known through the blameworthy and unreliable intellect, that the law itself is blameworthy. No attention, however, is paid to him who says that the law is known through certainty itself (‘ayn al--yaqin) and the light of belief rather than through intellect, because we mean by intellect what he means by certain sight and the light of belief, namely the inner characteristics by which man is distinguished from the animal and through which he comprehends reality. Most of these wild errors have arisen from the ignorance of some who sought realities in words and erred wildly therein, because of the confusion which exists in the technical terminologies of men.