المنقذ من الضلال والموصل إلى ذي

المنقذ من الضلال والموصل إلى ذي

المنقذ من الضلال والموصل إلى ذي العزة والجلال ❴PDF / Epub❵ ✅ المنقذ من الضلال والموصل إلى ذي العزة والجلال Author Abu Hamid al-Ghazali – Larringtonlifecoaching.co.uk النيل والفراتألف الغزالي المنقذ من الضلال بعد عودته من عزلته التي قضاها متنقلا بين الشام والقدس ومكة إذن فهو النيل والفراتألف الغزالي المنقذ من الضلال الضلال والموصل ePUB ✓ بعد عودته من عزلته التي قضاها متنقلا بين الشام والقدس المنقذ من PDF \ ومكة إذن فهو يقع في المرحلة الثانية من حياة الغزالي، مرحلة النضج وتوضيح الخيارات النهائية وفي المنقذ من الضلال والموصل MOBI ñ من الضلال يذكر أن سنه قد نافت على الخمسين مما يحدد وضعه الكتاب أواخر عام هـ وبدايات من الضلال والموصل إلى ذي PDF \ عام هـ في نيسابور،حين عاد إلى التدريس في نظاميتها لتبيان حقيقة النبوة أما دافع الغزالي إلى تأليف كتابه هذا وهدفه منه، وكما يبدو من مقدمته، أنه رسالة إلى أخ في الدين، يطلب فيها هذا الأخير من الغزالي أن يبث إليه غاية العلوم وأسرارها وغائلة المذاهب وأغوارها، وأحكي لك ما قاسيته في استخلاص الحقائق بين اضطراب الفرق وإذا كان ذلك هو الدافع الحقيقي، أو أن هناك دوافع أخرى، فإن الملاحظ أن الغزالي أراد من خلال منقذه أن يبين لنا مسار حياته الفكرية والروحية، وكيفية خروجه من الشك وصولا إلى خياراته النهائية في الحصول على نور اليقين، والتصديق النهائي إن دواعي التصديق لم يجدها الغزالي لا في علم الكلام ولا في الفلسفة ولا في مذهب التعليمية بل عند الصوفية فهل يكون الهدف من كتاب المنقذ تبيان صحة مذهب الصوفية وما هي الاعتبارات التي حدته إلى اعتماد هذا الخيار؟ هل هي اعتبارات فكرية، روحية، أم سياسية الإجابة عن هذه التساؤلات توجب قراءة واعية لهذا الكتاب، ومهما يكن من أمر وكيفما جاءت الإجابات فان المرء لا يستطيع أن ينكر بأن غرض الغزالي الأساسي هو إنقاذ الناس من الضلال والإفصاح عن الأحوال، ولا يكون ذلك إلا بنشر حقيقة النبوة، وما بان من الضلال والموصل إلى ذي PDF \ من خلال هذه الحقيقة وتجدر الإشارة ‘إلى أن مخطوط هذا الكتاب يعود نسخه إلى عامين فقط بعد وفاة الغزالي أي عام هجرية وهي أقدم نسخ عثر عليها حتى الآن، وبالتالي فإنها ستكون أكثر دقة من غيرها وأقل ابتعاداً عن المصدر الأساسي، وما يمكن أن يكون قد دخل عليها من تحريفات مقصودة أو إسقاطات غير مقصودة وقد تميزت هذه الطبقة بعمل المحقق الذي شمل تعريفاً بعصر الغزالي وحياته ووصف للمخطوط وتحليل لمضمون كتاب المنقذ من الضلال مع شرح له وتعليق عليه.


10 thoughts on “المنقذ من الضلال والموصل إلى ذي العزة والجلال

  1. Tim Tim says:

    I knew with certainty that the Sufis were masters of states not purveyors of words 52 This uote has a footnote that basically states the reason that Sufis were not known for their words was because they considered many of their experiences beyond words or ineffable as the compilers state it here This is how I feel as I read the account presented by Ghazali of his own spiritual transformation To those who are not in the same phase of life these accounts can seem irrelevant or even trivial boring perhaps I know that they have for me in the past Yet I also know that the seemingly mundane to some can be the most profound experiences of a lifetime for others That's where I'm at with my study of Islam Ghazali's account has similarities to my own spiritual awakening I see similarities between his account and those of other religions as well In fact that's one of the main reasons I'm so drawn to Islam as rightly understood Because Islam does claim to be a universal religion which encompasses all previous rightly guided revelations This universality combined with an intellectual knowledge at a time of life when I've experienced a universal divine presence alongside the maintenance of sobriety and purpose in direction is coming together in a center that points to The ONE That is the best that I can legitimately explain it There has been a consistent draw towards this way of viewing divinity Islam since my own profound rift in time near death moment I have consistently found myself turning to readings from this tradition for the past four years I have yet to see where it takes me Whatever life decisions I make from here on out must be genuine Yet I too realize the shortness of life as I've tasted mortality individually in two major ways through my own brush with death and through the death of the one I loved It is perhaps telling that I am able to consistently communicate this in a public way But I feel there are forces beyond what I can understand that are directing things now I could guess that what I feel is mystical but I would have nothing to compare it too Everything I've encountered though from William James to Al Ghazali seems to tell me that this is exactly what's happening


  2. Miroku Nemeth Miroku Nemeth says:

    In truth while I love Fons Vitae it is imperative that they start using Muslim translators for many of these texts The overall tone of the text lacks the passion of absolute conviction and yain certainty that Imam Al Ghazali's words exude and the footnotes while scholarly for an orientalist and terribly deficient and sometimes downright insulting to a believing Muslim with an informed background in Islamic studies I have been wanting to read this text for years as Al Ghazali's personal dilemma as to the fate of his own soul when he was at the height of power within the very powerful realm of Islamic scholarship is extremely compelling I very much loved the documentary film The Alchemy of Happiness and I was hoping that of an autobiographical narrative would comprise much of Al Munidh It did not Most of the text is very analytical and scholarly Those autobiographical moments of disclosure are priceless however This is perhaps one of the most touchingI reflected on my intention in my public teaching and I saw that it was not directed purely to God but rather was instigated and motivated by the uest for fame and widespread prestige So I became certain that I was on the brink of a crumbling bankMundane desires began tugging me with their chains to remain as I was while the herald of faith was crying out Away Up and away Only a little is left of your life and a long journey lies before you All the theory and practice in which you are engrossed is eyeservice and fakery If you do not prepare now for the afterlife when will you do so? And if you do not sever these attachments now then when will you sever them?Al Ghazali gets to the point where he can no longer lecture in front of his many students He cannot speak at all his tongue is frozen He abandons his prestigious post after distributing his wealth to provide for his family and leaves to live in retreat and prayer and to break his ego before GodMay God have mercy upon the Proof of Islam Abu Hamid Al Ghazali


  3. Dan Dan says:

    I read this book for a medieval philosophy class and the way Al Ghazali was taught was in juxtaposition mostly to Ibn Rushd so that we could see exactly what each of them were attempting to explain and explore This review is actually a paper I wrote on how I understood what each philosopher was teaching but since I really like Al Ghazali I think it's fitting to use it as my review of the book tooThough they disagree how Al Ghazali and Ibn Rushd are both attempting to explain how exactly it is that God operates the universe Al Ghazali an occasionalist mostly sees God active in everything at all times whereas Ibn Rushd a formalist and scholar of Aristotle describes God as the agent and connective cause of all things At first glance these brief and laughably inadeuate descriptions might seem to be saying the same thing but in this paper I will explain how upon closer inspection their philosophies differ with regard to how they lead to uestions and disagreements about what it means to be an agent cause how the constancy of nature can be explained and how a person could hope to have any knowledge about the universe The Agent ActorWhile the philosophers and Al Ghazali both agree God is the agent efficient cause that created the world Al Ghazali challenges what he believes to be the philosopher’s definition of what it is to be an agent Al Ghazali says an agent is something that via an act of will chooses an action rather than some other action This agent is something that knows it has the choice to act in one way or another that it has free action and also has the freedom and ability to also do otherwise and can choose amongst alternatives In other words this agent can bring about deliberate change More specifically what Al Ghazali is reacting to against how he understands the philosophers is that God is just some sort of natural principle and that the world came about because there was no other possibility and so God had no choice in the matterIbn Rushd’s reacts to what he believes is Al Ghazali’s misunderstanding of what the philosophers are saying is an agent Ibn Rushd believes Al Ghazali’s claim of an agent as an actor choosing amongst alternatives is not self evident and ambiguous and thus what an agent is needs to be fully explored Ibn Rushd first explains that there are two types of actors in our everyday world First there are Natural Actors such as fire the things that act with necessity where necessity means that it is impossible for that thing to act otherwise The second actor is a Voluntary Actor such as a human that lacking something acts and choses among actions based on an awareness of possibilities Yet neither the definition of a Natural Actor or a Voluntary Actor satisfies anyone’s definition of God even including Al Ghazali because God does not lack anything nor is God’s knowledge anything like a human’s knowledge And neither is God like a Natural Actor such as fire which lacks knowledge and can only act by necessity Yet God does seem like a Voluntary Actor than a Natural Actor but Ibn Rushd cautions that this is only by analogy Thus Al Ghazali’s definition of an agent as that which has will is problematic because God isn’t choosing one action over another possible action nor is God transforming stuff into other stuff harnessing potency into actuality but radically God as the efficient cause is that which can transform non existence into existence ex nihilo Natural CausesAl Ghazali’s denial that a natural cause necessarily produces some action stems from a problem as he sees it with the word necessity For something to be necessary it means that it is impossible for it to be otherwise and for something to be possible then there must be alternatives Therefore if a natural cause can only necessarily produce some specific result then it would be impossible for any other result to occur This gets at what he believes is the bigger issue in that this logic leads to atheism and the denial of miracles In other words there would be no alternative for a fire for example to do anything other than burn some thing it comes in contact with and thus the possibility that Abraham for example not be burnt by the fire would not actually be a possibility If fire can only ever burn then Abraham would have had to have been burned and thus there would have been no miracle nor would there be the possibility that God could ever perform any miracle since fire can only ever burn God is constrained via this line of thinking to be subservient to all the natural causes in the worldIbn Rushd’s reacts to Al Ghazali’s claim that natural causes leads to atheism by pointing out that a natural cause is only a transformative occurrence that some already existent stuff is just transforming into some other existent stuff And this transformation in no way leads to a denial of God because what God can do is far beyond basic transformation God can create some thing out of nothing ex nihilo God has thus already created the natural stuff of the world God as the efficient cause and thus these natural things and the essences they posses can now be manipulated and transformed without incurring a philosophical crisis that leads one into atheism Constancy of NatureAl Ghazali claims that the philosophers actually are saying that miracles are impossible because they say that natural causality is necessary the fire must necessarily burn the cotton which leaves no room for God to perform a miracle and thus not be God He accuses the philosophers of saying that there is no connection at all between causes and effects such as when fire and cotton are in separate places then when the fire and cotton are brought together and finally when there is the remaining ash Al Ghazali is accusing the philosophers of saying there is no causality at all no God if all there is in the world is just stuff and then some other stuff and then again even stuff Al Ghazali’s reaction to this is to claim that what it is for a thing to be what it is such as fire is all because of God’s will but that it’s also not necessary the fire burn because God could do otherwise if he chose to as with Abraham In other words God is in all things at all times because since God is the agent cause and so the only cause of anything is God Yet since God is typically in the habit of allowing the fire to burn cotton and prophets we can have knowledge of God’s consistency in natureHowever Ibn Rushd describes a natural actor as that which has a potency within it that can be realized in some actual way such as a fire having the potency to cause the burning of a piece of cotton In other words fire has the capacity to burn because fire is a kind of activity in this case a burning activity and this cannot change because if some part of the fire changed to prevent it from burning Abraham for example then it would no longer be fire it would be some other thing The fire’s essence is fire’s proper activity and Ibn Rushd says we define any thing by its essence because there is a necessary connection between a thing and its essence Knowing and GraspingIbn Rushd tells us that this necessary connection is the foundation in how we structure knowledge because if there was no relationship between fire and burning for example then there could be no knowledge at all the structure of knowledge depends on their being a relationship between cause and effect He is also reacting to Al Ghazali’s belief that the only cause is the agent cause and that cause is God who is in the habit of willing things together so that usually one thing follows another but that there is no necessary connection between fire and burning for example and that there is a separation between the essence of a thing from the thing itself While Ibn Rushd says that knowledge is dependent on relationships Al Ghazali believes that knowledge is merely our awareness of God’s constancy habitsAnd it is in the way Al Ghazali and Ibn Rushd each attempt to deal with knowledge where we can see how both of them are ultimately attempting to explain the structure of reality and how the universe works For Al Ghazali he sees an occasionalist universe in which God has his finger in all things at all times and though he can perform any number of miracles he typically does things in a regular way And from a lay person’s point of view they can have knowledge of how things behave in the world because God has given each person the ability to know how God typically does something but they can also have knowledge of God’s ability to perform miracles when he chooses to do so In other words Al Ghazali explains reality in a way in which a person can know and understand it because it is constantly being revealed to the individual by God either in the regular way the world seems to normally behave or in a prophetic way in which miracles are revealedIbn Rushd’s approach however is formal in that he sees the universe as structured in a way as that it is something which can be explained because of the necessary connections between the essence of things and their activities Ibn Rushd sees knowledge as a process of understanding how things truly behave in reality how the fire’s essence causes the burning of cotton but this also does not limit or eliminate God because God is still the agent efficient formal cause of everything who gave all things their essence and potentiality as well as that which can create something out of nothing Who’s Correct?I find it difficult to disagree with Ibn Rushd Ibn Rushd explains the world we live in as a rational system in which the essences of things behave in a certain and based on our knowledge at the time usually regular predictive way However the one aspect of Ibn Rushd’s philosophy I find troubling is in regard to non material things such as the virtues good honor bravery etc Ibn Rushd can explain the essence of fire and how that essence causes it to burn the cotton but I don’t see as strong a connection between the essence of goodness and how that essence can for example save a drowning victim True saving a person from drowning is good and thus the essence of goodness is made manifest in the action of saving the drowning victim but what if the person drowning is a murderer? Is it good to rescue a murderer? Has the essence of goodness truly been made manifest in the cause of saving the life of someone who has committed a terrible crime? Ibn Rushd would argue that I just didn’t have the knowledge necessary at the time I jumped in the river to save the drowning murderer and thus I still was engaged in the essence of good However Ibn Rushd’s philosophy does accept that the world we live in is full of uncertaintyAl Ghazali on the other hand does posit a greater degree of certainty God is continually acting in all things at all times so even if the drowning victim I save turns out to be a murderer I would be certain that it was God’s will which brought about the final action and I wouldn't have to live in doubt upon the river bank about whether or not what I did was good The downside is that it becomes very easy to start attributing all one’s actions to God and thus washing one’s hands of any moral responsibility however this would be of an issue with someone who is not a Al Ghazal approved Sufi someone who is not practiced in religion or philosophy and thus according to Al Ghazali must remain subservient to a master who can guide one towards proper morality Thus if I had to decide who I thought was correct I would side with Al Ghazali because living in a world in which there is so much doubt so much room open for someone to not have immediate knowledge of what is good is too much like the world we currently live in


  4. Justin Evans Justin Evans says:

    A great and still useful run through the ways that most people think about the world and why you probably shouldn't think about the world in those ways I'm not about to convert to Sufism but I'm glad Ghazali found what he was looking for Very disappointed by the typo in the figure on page 75 Can you not add up people?


  5. Mark Moorman Mark Moorman says:

    Al Ghazali’s Path to Sufism truly deserves to be considered one of the canonical Great Books of Western and Islamic civilization The sympathetic spirit of its author reaches across a gulf of 1000 years to all with the wisdom to listen The fact that he is an Islamic thinker well versed in the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle has special significance in a civilization if our culture can be so described which is flirting with the intolerant ignorance of Islamophobia This is not the place to grind that ax It is enough to be reminded that there was a time when Christendom slept in barbarism and Islam found appropriated preserved interpreted and passed on the great works of classical antiuity Al Ghazali’s himself calls for toleration of the other These others may be in error with regard to choice of religion but they may be right and truthful in many things He even admits that there are “Godly men” in every age that is the pre Islamic ancients were in some cases such men The book begins with a very sympathetic account of the author’s “instinctive” and “natural thirst” for philosophical inuiry He early on noted that most simply choose religion based on the accident of birth He vows to seek the true meaning of things by the light of reason He then embarks on a series of reflections that are reminiscent of Descartes some 600 years before Descartes I am unaware of whether Al Ghazali had read Augustine or Boethius who also trod a pre Cartesian path of doubt Al Ghazali like Plato and Descartes shows that knowledge provided by the senses is unreliable Unlike Plato and Descartes and perhaps instructively for our own age he does not see mathematics as the path to ultimate truth It is a mistake to assume that all of the sciences have the same “lucidity and apodictic clarity” as the mathematical ones The most important science metaphysicshere divine science does not Philosophers are men of logic and apodictic demonstration Much that they say is true and the fact that they may err in not being Muslims does not negate the instances in which they speak the truth Higher than philosophical knowledge stands the vision of the Sufis who seek through “fruitional experience” the unseekable If one doubts this Al Ghazali says picture a man born blind who doubts the accounts of the visual world given him by the sighted He holds that there are three ways of knowing faith theoretical knowledge and fruitional experience Each has its role to play and for the many and the ignorant—faith suffices Al Ghazali’s search for the highest truth of the Sufis is a lifelong and lived uest He begins in the world of man—a teacher of law and philosophy in Baghdad More and he withdraws from teaching and the world seeking solitude Until solitude is all he seeks He travels to Damascus and Jerusalem Spending three years in the former—mostly sitting alone in minarets Family needs necessitate his return to Baghdad Over the course of ten years he slowly returns to his role as a teacher This time around to pass on knowledge of the path of the Sufis All in all a book that is well worth reading The contemporary mystic the student of philosophy those interested in religion or in humane letters—in being put into contact with a first rate mind and sympathetic spirit from a past age—will all find this to be a “great book” by a great man


  6. Wayfarer Wayfarer says:

    The late Muhtar Holland may Allah shower him in mercy after a lifetime of service in translating wonderfully the classics of the Islamic world into English for the English speaking world has left us with a parting gift Al Munidh mina'd Dalal 'The Saviour from Error' being the autobiography of the erudite Imam of Islam Abu Hamid al Ghazali in which Imam Ghazali details his uest for the Ultimate Truth God full of insights and wisdoms This is my preferred translation of the Munidh of Imam al Ghazali ra in the English language considering all the other widely available translations on the market as I believe it captures accurately the Ghazalian Spirit without the flowery verbiage that certain academic translations are plagued with which seems to obscure the voice of the original author


  7. Ahmad Abugosh Ahmad Abugosh says:

    This book literally changed my life I started reading it when I was in a transitional period of my life and what Imam Ghazali went through had many similarities to my own personal struggles with what I believed and the reality of the world around me This book is highly recommended for anyone who wants to re examine their Islamic beliefs and relate it to their day to day lives


  8. Fatima Ar Fatima Ar says:

    Anyone who has ever tried to become aware of their own thought process or the origin of their thoughts would find this relatableI do wish that Al Ghazali had defined certain terms or at least what they mean to himHe uestions his ability to arrive to true conclusions using his reasonsenses but at the same time refers to things like “his soul” and “God’s Light” and divine revelation in this process The natural progression of uestioning would be what exactly he means by the soul why he believes it even exists the origin of thoughtand whether what he refers to as being God’s light penetrating his soul and allowing him to come to terms with doubts can really be known as that beyond some sort of emotional intuition or simply the bias of previously held opinionsviews He also uses verses of the uran to try to make sense of his experience without explaining his reasoning for belief in it that leaves this feeling incomplete and as if he uses circular reasoning It’s interesting that he describes his skepticism and doubt as a mental illness and seems to admit that rational alone cannot relieve that but ultimately it is a light from God that allows him to trust his mind and feelings which I suppose are necessary prereuisites of accepting that you are able to know somethingAgain I wish that he had analyzed that claim a bit There is an apparent beauty in his admiration for asceticism howeverTo me it seems that his approach to finding truth was to first accept that with divine aid he is able to trust himself then to study the ideologies of all those who claim to have a monopoly on it at a level of mastery He finds fault in all of these but ultimately finds that the Sufis have the purest and sincerest intentions with no ulterior motives but even so it is only through practicing the teachings and not simply knowing theory can he make a claim about their reality As someone who finds modern day Sufism problematic in many ways it is refreshing to be reminded of what the essence of it is God alone I only wonder how someone with al Ghazalis inclination and skepticism might come to know truth through Sufism today as even Sufis claim it is only a few of those who even set out on the path that reach a level of true witnessing and that this cannot be described in words


  9. Aung Sett Kyaw Min Aung Sett Kyaw Min says:

    Al Ghazali falls into a radical incapacitating doubt of presumably spiritual origins prompting him to embark on a uest for the cure Should he trust his sense data or reason or something beyond reason from which the latter derives its authority? He settles on the third the closest analogue being the dream state and credits the Sufi mystics for this discovery This faculty is the faculty of prophecy However he has pretty mean things to say about the falsafa or the philosophers like Avicenna and Al Farabi whose followers were corrupting Baghdad The philosophers impressed by the apoditicity of mathematical and logical proofs sought to secure the same grounds for metaphysical problems as well but in doing so they run into antinomies and eventually heathenism Of course Al Ghazali is not implying we should dispense with philosphical learning but demands only that its excesses be reigned in by the study of the uranWhile the arguments are not particularly difficult to follow it can get pretty obscure in places where you don't know which Islamic tradition or school of thought that Al Ghalazi is reacting against since you lack the background context Fortunately this edition of the slim volume of is blessed with copious amounts of footnotes to remedy this defect


  10. AJ AJ says:

    An autobiography of the man many refer to as Hujjat al Islam He was clearly ahead of his time in regards to being reflective and understanding himself He saw himself as just giving lip service and not feeling spirituality as it should be He ended up leaving his hometown in which he was an established scholar and ended up spending much time in seclusion before returning He concludes that sufism to be of the way to really feel spirituality rather than just learning and not using the knowledge learned He found practising is what is of main importance and just not reading He discusses the senses and the idea that the prophets had almost a type of sense that we did not have access to For example if you had never had the sense to hear and then all of a sudden that sense became available would it not be miracle like? Would it not completely change how comprehensive we then become The prophets were exposed to such a thing and we are not aware of this type of sense Imam Ghazali gives many analogies and that is what makes the reading enjoyable


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *