Al Radd al-Jami#l: Ghaza#li#’s or the pseudo-Ghaza#li#’s?
Al-Radd al-Jami#l is a polemical work refuting the Christian concept of the divinity of
Jesus Christ. It was probably written between the tenth and twelfth centuries; three
manuscript copies of it exist, two of them giving Abu H$a#mid al-Ghaza#li# as its
author. Two of these manuscripts are located in the Aya Sophia library in Istanbul,
under the numbers 2246 and 2247; the third copy, in the University of Leiden, has the
classification OR828.
In 1932 L. Massignon discovered the copies in Aya Sophia and wrote an article with the
title ‘Le Christ dans les Evangiles selon al-Gha#za#li#’ in the ‘Revue des Etudes
Islamiques’1 giving a good summary of this treatise and accepting its attribution to alGhaza#li#. Later, in 1939, R. Chidiac2 edited and translated the text of Aya Sophia 2246
into French. In the same year, we hear from C. E. Padwick3 that Miss K. Henrey
prepared an English translation in Beirut, but it seems that this translation was never
published. A. J. Arberry translated some parts of the text of Al-Radd in his book
Aspects of Islamic Civilization, 1964.4 J. W. Sweetman gave a detailed summary of AlRadd with a translation of many passages in his two-volume work Islam and Christian
Theology5 in 1945. Franz-Elmar Wilms produced a German translation of the Arabic
text, as edited by Chidiac, in 1966,6 and Muhammad al-Sharqawi, an Egyptian scholar,
edited the Arabic version of the same copy of Chidiac in 1986.7 All the scholars
mentioned above accept al-Ghaza#li# as the author of Al-Radd al-Jami#l, with,
however, the reservation that it may have been delivered in the form of lectures and that
the text represents lecture notes taken by a student or several students of his. The reason
1
which made Chidiac consider this possibility is mainly its style, which in some parts
does not present the typical features of Ghaza#li#.
The first to have challenged the authenticity of this work as al-Ghaza#li#’s was the
French scholar M. Bouyges in his Essai des Oeuvres de al-Ghaza#li#.8 He placed AlRadd al-Jami#l among the books doubtfully attributed to this author. A. Badawi
followed Bouyges, also considering the book to be doubtful in its attribution to alGhaza#li#. Watt and F. Jabr do not mention the book at all when dealing with alGhaza#li#’s works. However, it was Lazarus-Yafeh’s thorough criticism, in her book
Studies in al-Ghazz#li#, 1975,9 which presented a serious threat to the authenticity of
this book as a product of al-Ghaza#li#. Recently, G. S. Reynolds confirmed her
criticism and added significant points to it in his article “The Ends of Al-Radd al-Jami#l
and its portrayal of Christian Sects”.10
Thus, well-known scholars have disagreed as to whether al-Ghaza#li# is the author of
Al-Radd al-Jami#l. My task in this paper, therefore, is to present the arguments on both
sides, to discuss some passages which might bring us a step further and draw some
conclusions which may shed light on the question of the authorship of the treatise. To
do so, this paper will first give a brief summary of its content and will then move to
examine what can be learnt from the external evidence and the internal evidence in turn.
In a separate section, it will attempt to answer the question of who did write Al-Radd alJami#l and finally will draw some conclusions.
2
Summary
The author of Al-Radd al-Jami#l discusses here the most important and crucial concept
in Christian belief: the features of divinity attributed to Jesus which declare him the
Messiah, Jesus Christ, the son of God. He starts his task by accusing Christian
theologians of misinterpreting some biblical verses which lead to the concept of the
divinity of Jesus. He introduces at the very beginning of his discussion the two main
rules of interpretation to be used in his refutation, which should be the guiding
principles for any one who reads these texts. They are as follows:
[Firstly,] if the passages presented accord with what is rational, their literal
meaning should be allowed to stand and if they are opposed or resist a
rational explanation it will be necessary to resort to ta’wi#l…to believe that
the [literal] realities of them are not intended and to fall back on the
metaphorical meaning. The second principle is that when the indications are
contradictory, one affirming and the other negating, the contradiction should
not be allowed to stand unless we have come to the conclusion that it is
impossible for us to reconcile the two and bring them down to one single
agreed meaning” 11
These two rules establish the intellectual basis on which the discussion of the whole
treatise will be built. Here and elsewhere the author repeats that the main criterion for
accepting a certain concept is its agreement with the clarity of the intellect, bi-s$ari#h$
al-‘aql, a sentence which is repeated very frequently in the whole treatise. If a text in
itself is clear to the intellect then it should not be interpreted, but if it contradicts other
texts or it cannot be rationally accepted then these passages must be clarified and
3
considered as metaphors with a symbolic meaning. Thus his refutation of the Christian
belief in the divinity of Jesus rests on interpreting many passages from different gospels
which present or imply the divinity of Jesus metaphorically in order to point out his
sainthood and prophetic powers but not to attribute divinity to him. Using metaphor
here, explains the author, must be in accordance with what the intellect accepts; in
contrast, interpreting metaphorical passages to express what the mind cannot accept is,
for him, absurd. An example here is when he deals with the concept of the “Word” in its
sense of ‘the logos’. He accepts the interpretation that ‘the logos’ means the essence of
God, as in the text of John 1:1 but when the Word as the logos is applied to Jesus so as
to mean that the Word became flesh, as in John 1:14, he insists that the word in the
second case cannot be interpreted as denoting God but rather refer to His order (kun) or
the essence (logos) of the human. The main point here for him is that since it is
unacceptable to the intellect to acknowledge that the Word as God became flesh, then,
according to the two rules cited above, one has to apply a metaphorical interpretation
here rather than accepting its literal meaning.
In this manner the author goes through six different texts which imply the attributing of
divinity to Jesus and interprets them either by means of metaphorical methods or of
connecting them with other texts which clearly present Jesus as human, but with
different human experiences and limited human abilities.
In a second part of his treatise, the author seeks to refute the divinity of Jesus through
his discussion of the concept of Union, as interpreted by the three main Christian sects:
the Jacobites, the Melkites and the Nestorians. Here it seems, as Reynolds rightly
maintains, that his argument is based on a sound knowledge of the Jacobites and their
refutations of the other two sects.12 While this could imply that the author had access to
the Coptic or Jacobite literature, it does not necessarily declare him to be himself a
4
Copt, as Reynolds claims. Jacobite writings had in fact spread all over Jerusalem and
Iraq; the famous Jacobite scholar, Yeh$ya Ibn ‘Adi#, who was known for collecting
texts, probably collected Jacobite writings in his library in Baghdad. C.E. Padwick
explains that the Syriac-speaking Church of Iraq had maintained close contact and deep
friendship with the Coptic Church of Egypt and that Coptic literature was available
there and was also widespread in Jerusalem.13 Thus non-Christian polemicists such as
Abu ‘Isa al-Warra#q and al-K$asi#m Ibn Ibrahi#m did have access to works
representing the three sects and by the time of al-Ghaza#li# many of these works were
also available in Arabic. The author of Al-Radd probably studied the beliefs of these
sects from the works of polemicists which referred at length to discussions among these
sects.
In his third part, finally, the author examines the different divine titles by which Jesus is
known, such as God, al-ilah; the Son, al-Ibn; the Word, al-Kalima; and also those
which attribute eternity to him, led by the verse in John 8:56 which implies that Jesus
existed before Abraham. In it, Jesus says: “your father Abraham longed to see my day
and he saw it and was glad”. Again in this section the author refer to many biblical
verses which show that many of these titles were also attributed to other prophets and
that Jesus’ existence before Abraham must be metaphorically interpreted, since even the
claim that Jesus became the Messiah through union with God acknowledges that this
happened at a certain point in history long after Abraham’s death. At the end of the
treatise the author discusses the Qur’anic verse “O people of the book do not exaggerate
in your religion and speak of Alla#h nothing but the truth. The Christ Jesus son of
Maryam, is only apostle of Allah and His Word which He has cast into Maryam and a
spirit of [H]im”.14 (Q. 4:170) Here the author gives a long explanation that the meaning
of the Word in the K$ur’anic text should be taken to mean, not the Christian ‘logos’ but
5
a divine word, which may be “kun”, the Word of God and the order of creation, as it is
understood in other K$ur’anic passages.
Having presented the intentions of the author by this summary of his arguments against
the claim of the divinity of Jesus, I turn here to examine first the external evidence
against the attribution of this treatise to al-Ghaza#li# and then the external evidence for
it. In the same manner I will go on to treat the internal evidence, hoping by the end of
this paper to have discussed all the possible arguments for and against the attribution of
this work to al-Ghaza#li#.
External Evidences
Lazarus-Yafeh and other scholars argue that there is a certain amount of evidences
which points to the spurious nature of this work; the most important evidence is
external. The book was totally unknown to any of the historians who dealt with the
biography of al-Ghaza#li#. M. Bouyges points out that the work appears for the first
time in modern lists compiled at the beginning of the twentieth century by alK$abba#ni# and al-
15
Lazarus-Yafeh, though she admits that the Copt Abu#
al-Khayr Ibn al-T$ayyb mentions al-Ghaza#li# as the author of Al-Radd al-Jami#l in an
appendix to one of his treatises, considers that the work was mainly known in a Coptic
environment, which supports her thesis that the work was written by a Coptic convert to
Islam. In addition, while al-Ghaza#li# himself had the habit of referring to his previous
works, never refers to this book when he is talking about the Jews and the Christians in
some of his other works. 16
6
Lazarus-Yafeh also considers that some of the scholars who accept this work as alGhaza#li#’s are influenced by the claim that he visited Egypt during his ten years of
seclusion and worship. But since she considers this visit to be apocryphal, she rejects
the connection between Al-Radd and al-Ghaza#li#, though she does connect the book to
Coptic Egypt.17
Important in our discussion of external evidence for his not having written the treatise is
the fact that Muslim historians do not mention Al-Radd among al-Ghaza#li#’s books.
Clearly most historians were not interested in a thorough investigation of al-Ghaza#li#’s
actual works, since they mention in the same list both authentic and non-authentic
attributions. This probably results from their practice of copying from one another.
However, Ibn al-Murtad$a# al-Zabi#di# (d. 1791)18 who, Lazarus Yafeh says, “deals
with the question of the spurious books of al-Ghaza#li#” does mention in his book
Ith$a#f al-Sa#da al-Mutak$yyn (p. 42)19 a book with the title Al-Qawl al-Jam#l fi# AlRadd ‘ala man Ghayyr al-Inji#l) among al-Ghaza#li#’s works. This title was copied by
‘Abd al-k$adir ibn ‘Adualla#h Ibn al-‘Aydus Ba‘lawi# in his book Ta‘ri#f al-Ih$ya#’
bi-kita#b al-Ih$ya#’, which is written in the margins of al-Zabidi’s book. H$aja#
Khali#fa mentions the book in his Catalogue IV 584 no 9650 under the title of Al-Radd
al-Jami#l ‘ala man ghayyar al-Tawra#ti wa al-Inji#l.20 Wilms here explains that this
title of the book (and also the one mentioned by al-Zabidi) has a problem concerning its
second part; it gives the impression that al-Ghaza#li# accuses Christians and Jews of
corrupting scripture, but this impression is false. However, these writers all confirm that
al-Ghazali wrote a polemical work against the Christians with title of Al-Radd or AlK$awl al-Jami#l.21
Yet there may be many reasons why the book was not well known; some scholars
consider that accepting the authenticity and integrity of the biblical text by a very
7
important figure and a judge, faK$i#h, such as al-Ghaza#li# made the book unpopular;
this is the opinion of Chidiac, Abu Rida and Wilms.
However one important piece of evidence which supports al-Ghaza#li#’s authorship of
this work is the long quotation which Abu# al-Khayr Ibn al-T$ayyib (d. 13th century)
used in his treatise. Contradicting Lazarus-Yafeh and Chidiac, Al-Radd al-Jami#l is
quoted at length, not in an appendix but in the main body of the text of Ibn al-T$ayyib’s
treatise “Maqa#la fi# Al-Radd ‘ala al-Muslimi#n”.22 The treatise mentions the work
entitled Al-Radd al-Jami#l as a well-known and important work of Muslim polemic
which is written by Abu# H$a#mid al-Ghaza#li#. The treatise of Ibn Al-T$ayyib, in
fact, consists mainly of one long quotation and another very short from Al-Radd. The
quotation is concerned with providing an explanation of the trinity in which alGhaza#li# presents the philosophical interpretation of a Christian commentator and
which he accepts as plausible.
These quotations are mostly identical with Chidiac’s text, pp. 43-45 & 26. However,
while comparing the two texts, I discovered differences in four places. Ibn al-T$ayyib’s
text on page 177 line 5 from the bottom has the words al-dha#t al-Ilahyya while in
Chidiac in page 44 line 8 the words are dha#t al-Ilah and the same on page 178 line 3:
Ibn al-T$ayyib’s text gives dha#t Alla#h and in Chidiac 44 line 15 the phrase is dha#t
al-Ilah. Again even in the two lines short quotation of al-Ghaza#li# at the end of Ibn alT$ayyib’s treatise page 178 line 4 from the bottom the words ‘al- Ba#ri#’ ta‘a#la’ are
turned to ‘al-Ilah’ in Chidiac page 26 line 7. Another difference is than in Ibn alT$ayyib’s text God is referred to as the Intellect (al-‘Aql) while in Chidiac He is the
Pure Intellect (al-‘Aql al-Mugarad). However the greatest difference appears in an
addition in Chidiac’s text which is absent from Ibn al-T$ayyib’s. This addition is as
follows: “So the father connotes the idea of existence, the Word (or the Son) connotes
8
the idea of knowledge and the Holy Spirit connotes the idea of Essence, of the creator
being intellected by itself.” 23
This passage mainly presents the argument that the Father is a metaphor of the (pure)
Intellect, al-‘Aql, the son is the intellectual, al-‘A#qil, and the holy spirit is intellection,
al-Ma‘qu#l. The author of Al-Radd considers this interpretation as an admission that the
Father, the son and the Holy Spirit are only metaphors and symbols of the pure intellect,
the intellectual and intellection, which Muslim philosophers also consider aspects of the
one essence of God. He seems also to accept this as a plausible interpretation of the
essence of God as the single source of knowledge, the one who perceives knowledge
and what is perceivable. He ends this paragraph by these words: “if the ideas are
correct, there is no need to quarrel about phraseologies or terminologies 24, idha
s$ahh$at al-ma‘ani fala mashah$h$at fi# al-alfa#z$” This sentence not only expresses
al-Ghaza#li#’s logic, with which we are familiar in many of his works, but they are
also, as Lazarus-Yafeh admits,25 his actual words which can be traced in other books of
his. The author explains that this interpretation comes from one of their commentators;
who could probably be the Jacobite Christian philosopher Yeh$ya Ibn ‘Adi#. However,
Chidiac’s text, mentioned above, seems to add a little more explanation to the older text
of Ibn al-T$ayyib.
Another observation arises here. Ibn al-T$ayyib seems to have quoted not from the text
of Al-Radd al-Jami#l directly but rather from the work of another Muslim scholar. He
starts his treatise by reporting that some Muslims say that the Christians worship three
Gods because of the text in Matthew 38:19 that believers should be baptised in the name
of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. To this point he answers that Christianity is a
product of the Gospels, the Epistles of Paul and the Acts of the Apostles and that these
are a witness to their belief. He explains that he does not want to go into details but
9
mainly to present a summary of the Muslims’ thesis as follows; and here he starts to
quote from a work which seems to be written by a Muslim scholar who includes one
long quotation and another short one from Al-Radd al-Jami#l. First he gives a very short
summary of the passage which he then quotes at length and explains that he is reporting
here the great Imam Abu# H$a#mid al-Ghaza#li# in his well known book (kita#bihi alma‘ru#f), Al-Radd al-Jami#l.26 He next cites a long passage from Al-Radd which has its
equivalent in Chidiac pp. 43-45. At the end of the quotation he says that al-Ghaza#li# in
this book also explains “the humanity of Jesus which is taken from Mary”27; and gives a
short quotation from another passage (Chidiac p. 26), which is the opening of the part
on the three sects in the middle of the text. This could suggest that the writer has the
whole text in front of him. Here appears his second reference to al-Ghaza#li#, whom he
now calls al-Shaykh Abu# H$a#mid al-Ghaza#li#, (rad$ya allahu ‘anhu - peace be
upon him), and he ends by saying “he (al-Ghaza#li#) clarified, mercy be upon him, (fa
aba#na rah$imahu allah). These two expressions, peace be upon him (rad$ya allahu
‘anhu) and mercy be upon him (rah$imahu alla#h)28 are typical Muslim expressions
when showing great respect. If my deductions are correct, then this shows that the text
of Al-Radd al-Jami#l was first found by Muslims and in a Muslim source which is
either an account of al-Ghaza#li#’s biography and works or a work which refutes
certain Christian beliefs and mentions part of al-Ghaza#li#’s Al-Radd as an authority in
this matter.
Thus it seems here that the later text of Chidiac was edited to prove a certain point. The
word ‘Alla#h’ is once rendered as ‘al-Ilah’ and the phrase ‘al-dha#t al-Ila#hya’ as
‘dha#t al-Ilah’ and the word al-Ba#ri#’ turned to al-Ilah,29 with three added sentences
for further clarification and adding ‘pure’ to the Intellect. It is also important here to
mention that Chidiac shows that the threes copies we have are by no means identical,
10
and the third, which he calls G, is a much later copy and has a list of omissions which
extends to two pages. The other two copies, which he calls B and S, have many
differences and they contain two mistakes in the copying of the K$ur’anic text which he
finds very strange.30 Can this support the possibility that the texts which we have are
copied by Christians? For the differences which are shown above are obviously not
copyists’ mistakes but editorial ones. The question which cannot be answered here,
however, is: were there other editions and corrections in the texts which survived, can
our text of Chidiac and its style actually prove the identity of the author?
Finally, we should explore the claim that al-Ghaza#li# visited Egypt, which Massignon,
Chidiac and Hourani accept and use as an important argument for considering Al-Radd
as authentically one of his works. This trip is supposed to have begun some time
between 489 and 490 AH, after his visit to Jerusalem.31 Ibn ‘Asa#kir, Ghaza#li#’s
contemporary, did not report this trip, however, but said instead that after al-Ghaza#li#
visited Damascus and Jerusalem he returned to Khorasa#n. But al-S$afdi#, al-Subki#32,
al-‘Ayni#, Ibn Khalika#n33 and Yaqu#t34 all confirm this visit. Al-S$afdi#35 seems to
have been the first to report it in some detail. After al-Ghaza#li# left Jerusalem, “he set
himself towards Egypt and stayed a while in Alexandria. It is said that he intended to
sail towards Morocco to meet the prince Yusu#f Ibn Tashfi#n because of what he had
heard of his enthusiasm and support for people of knowledge. But after he (alGhaza#li#) was informed of his death he returned to his own land, T$u#s”.36 However,
Wilms attempts to give a more plausible interpretation of this visit, in addition to his
intention to go to Morocco. Al-Ghaza#li#, he believes, was probably ordered by the
caliph to write a series of polemical books against those scholars and sects who would
introduce instability into the empire. These are his polemical works against: the
philosophers, the Isma#‘i#li#s, the Christians (of Egypt) and the liberalists.37 Al-
11
Ghaza#li#, then, was probably sent to Egypt to meet some Muslim scholars who were
involved in the publication of polemical works against the Coptic Christians, who
enjoyed great privileges under the Fatimid.
Internal Evidence
This part of the paper will concentrate on the internal evidence against attributing the
work to al-Ghaza#li#, which is best summed up by Lazarus-Yafeh in the appendix of
her book Studies in al-Ghazza#li# and by G. S. Reynolds in his article “The Ends of AlRadd al-Jami#l and its Portrayal of the Christian Sects”. To my knowledge these are the
most thorough refutations in the question of the authorship of Al-Radd. Below, I also
present the counter arguments of those who tend to accept Al-Radd as al-Ghaza#li#’s
composition.
The writing style of the author of Al-Radd, first of all, seems to be in general different
from what we are accustomed to in al-Ghaza#li#’s books, though Chidiac and LazarusYafeh herself admit that the text also contains some expressions which are typical of
him.38 However, Lazarus-Yafeh considers this unfamiliar style to be the main ground
for rejecting the work as al-Ghaza#li#’s, while Chidiac and Wilms use the explanation
that it may have been delivered in the form of lectures on which notes were taken by
one of his students. The main reason for this compromise is that the reasoning and
argumentation which the author uses here are very close to what al-Ghaza#li# uses in
two other polemical works, one against the philosophers, Taha#fut al-Fala#sifa, and
one against the Isma‘ili, Fd$a#’ih$ al-Bat$i#niyya,39 as will be demonstrated below.
Nevertheless, from the text of Ibn al-T$ayyib above we can identify additions and
12
alterations of some words in the text of Chidiac, which suggests the possibility that the
texts have undergone some editing in their expression.
Lazarus-Yafeh also mentions the problem of the usage of philosophical terminology40 in
this work and identifies it with her general conclusion that all the books which alGhaza#li# wrote after he began to follow Sufism (from 488/1095) are distinguished by a
new style of writing, which avoids the use of philosophical language and terminology.
However, it is quite obvious that al-Ghaza#li# used more than one style of writing in the
period when he wrote to different groups of thinkers, before his conversion to Sufism.
This can be seen in his Taha#fut, which uses philosophical language, while his
Ik$tis$a#d is written in the same period but in a totally different style, since this is
directed to theologians. Thus Ghaza#li# did not restrict his style but could freely use
whatever was the appropriate style for his intended readers. In the last years of his life,
when he devoted his writing to Sufi subjects, his style obviously followed the subjectmatter of his writings. However, this should not mean that he totally abandoned the use
of any other style. An example here is Al-Mustas$fa, one of his last works; this uses
legal terminology and style and even brings in different forms of reasoning from those
found in his Sufi writings. Therefore it is not reasonable to exclude the possibility of his
using the philosophical style when the communication required it and a certain
readership was targeted, especially since it is possible that Al-Radd must have been
written at a time not long after his other philosophical writings, at the beginning of his
retirement.
Both Lazarus-Yafeh and Ryenold consider the author of Al-Radd to have been quite
familiar with the Bible and the different writings of the Christian sects refuting each
other, a feature which al-Ghaza#li# does not show in any other of his writings and
13
which allow for the possibility that the writer of Al-Radd could well have been a Coptic
convert to Islam.41
It is quite clear from Al-Radd that the author is fairly well acquainted with the New and
Old Testaments, which demonstrate that he made a thorough study of the Bible before
producing his criticism, a feature which well evokes al-Ghaza#li# when we remember
his efforts to master philosophy and his completing the important work Mak$a#s$id alFala#sifa before writing his actual polemical work Taha#fut al-Fala#sifa. Of course,
this feature is not limited to the author of Al-Radd, as Accad demonstrates in his work
The Gospels in the Muslim and Christian Exegetical Discourse,42 but to all Muslim
polemicists who demonstrated great knowledge of both the bible and the early Christian
writings of different sects, such as the works of al-Ja#h$iz$, al-Qa#sim Ibn Ibrahi#m,
Ibn H$azm, ‘Abd al-Jabba#r, al-Bak$illa#ni# and finally al-Ghazali’s teacher alJuwa#yni#.43 Besides, most of them benefited greatly from the detailed works of Abu
‘Isa al-Warra#q44 in refuting Christian concepts. Nevertheless the author lacks other
important knowledge: he seems to believe, as Arberry points out, 45 that John’s Gospel
was written originally in Coptic since he refers to the sentence in John 1: 14 “the Word
became flesh”46 in its Coptic translation to prove that in Coptic the sentence should be
read as “the Word made flesh”. His long discussion about the correct reading of this
sentence makes clear that he really believed that John wrote his gospel in Coptic.
Clearly no Coptic scholar who had converted to Islam would lack such basic
knowledge. At another point, the author wants to present Jesus’s original words on the
cross, believing them to be in Hebrew without realising that Jesus spoke Aramaic. In
any case, this limited knowledge of the nature of the Bible does show that the author
could have not been a Coptic convert, since someone with much reasoning and
argumentation as is demonstrated in Al-Radd al-Jami#l must have been a
14
knowledgeable scholar and must, if he had been a Christian, have known such basic
information about the original language of the Bible and the language which Jesus
spoke. Moreover Al-Radd offers very simple argumentation in one short paragraph on
the subject of salvation. While it is very untypical for a Christian to ignore the
importance of salvation, most Muslim polemicists, as al-Sharafi demonstrates,47 do not
give any attention to the concept of salvation considering it to be not worthy of
thorough discussion. As a result it is indeed very unlikely that Al-Radd al-Jami#l can
have been written by a Christian convert on the basis of his knowledge of the Bible and
its original language.
Here, however, we should refer to the problem of quoting verses in a foreign language,
which al-Ghaza#li# never does elsewhere in his writings, as Lazarus-Yafeh maintains.48
There are three quotations in which the author includes two sentences in Hebrew and
one in Coptic. It is very unlikely that al-Ghaza#li# knew Hebrew or Coptic, since no
other source suggests that he did. These three sentences are the words of Jesus on the
cross: “My god, my God why did you leave me?” Here, the author wants to refer to the
actual words of Jesus, which he takes to be in Hebrew. The second sentence is “the
Word became flesh”, about which he argues that their meaning in Coptic should be “the
Word made flesh” and the third sentence is in connection with a miracle of Moses in
Exodus 4:6 “Behold his hand was leprous as snow”. While there seems to be no great
reasoning behind quoting the latter sentence in Hebrew, the former two sentences are
quite famous and are used in many Muslim and non Muslim refutations of the concept
of the divinity of Jesus. Thus it is possible that the author copied these sentences from
other writers. Chidiac, nevertheless, considers the author to have no thorough
knowledge either of Hebrew or Coptic, for all three quotations are inaccurate.49
15
After discussing the external evidence and the internal evidence, we are now in a
position to draw some conclusions.
Did al-Ghaza#li# compose Al-Radd al-Jami#l?
In answering this question I need first to look at the content of Al-Radd, comparing
some crucial passages to closely related ones in some of al-Ghaza#li#’s known works.
The aim here is not only to exhibit the relation between this work and other works of alGhaza#li#, but also to demonstrate the similarities in argumentation in both his
philosophical and his Sufi works.
Before starting our task we need to refer briefly to the introduction of Al-Radd, in order
to provide grounds for accepting Chidiac’s suggestion that this work was written by a
student of al-Ghaza#li#. Examining the three copies of the text in question, we first
observe that there is no introduction, such as most Muslim and Christian writers used to
preface their works. Instead, the author starts his text with the three words “wa bihi
thik$ati#” (in whom I trust), followed by the formula of praising God and his prophet
Muhammad, the best of His creation. The author then immediately goes into his
discussion. Even though at the end of the work the author briefly dedicates the work to
God and whoever wants to follow the guidance of the light of God, none of the three
copies has a colophon which could give any information about the writing or copying of
the text. The lack of any form of introduction or a colophon at the end does support
Chidiac’s suggestion that the work consists of lecture notes.
Comparing Al-Radd with other works of al-Ghaza#li#, Wilms shows that it has some
similarities to the two other polemical works of al-Ghaza#li# which were probably
16
written shortly before. He explains that the author of Al-Radd is clearly interested in
discussing the root of the problem, which is the Christian interpretation of Jesus’s
nature and Jesus’s experience of union with God in which he himself became God.
Instead of insisting of the humanity of Jesus, as other Muslim polemicists did before
him, he goes to the root of the problem and provides proofs that while it is possible to
have union with God, it is logically impossible to become God. Other features which
relate this work to other polemical works of al-Ghaza#li#, as Wilms explains, are that
he provides all the possible logical arguments and thereby closes all the doors to his
opponents. Finally, as in his other polemical works mentioned above, al-Ghaza#li# uses
irony and heavily insulting accusations against his rivals; these are numerous in AlRadd, Taha#fut and Fad$a#’ih$.50 Wilms also a list of expression and sentences which
compares with the works mentioned above.51
In support of Wilms’ proposal, there are many passages (see below) which prove this
claim. The author explains that those who have a smattering of the rational sciences
follow blindly, tak$li#d, the philosopher (Aristotle?) in his concept of the union
between the soul and the body and draw analogies from this concept to apply the same
kind of union to Jesus and God. Therefore, he says,
They are mistaken because analogy is the referring of some particular to a
general principle on the account of some common cause on which the
judgement depends. But what is the cause in this case which could be held to
be applicable to the essence of the Creator, as to make the analogy right in
His case?” Then he asks, “who knows what the relation between the body
and soul is so that it may be used as one element of the analogy over against
the relation of the divine and human in Christ?”52
17
Here one cannot miss the characteristic of al-Ghaza#li#’s argument, which we know
from Taha#fut, of frequently demanding the proof of his opponents’ concept and
accusing them of following Greek philosophers in religious matters, which cannot be
proved in the way that mathematical and physical propositions are. The author is also
challenging the Christian to accept other parts of Greek philosophy if they want accept
the analogy of the soul and the body:
But any one who holds a view like this must also follow [yuk$lid-tak$il#d]
the philosophers in regarding to other matters, e.g., that prophethood can be
acquired, that the universe is eternal and not susceptible to generation and
corruption, that the creator does not know the particulars, that there proceeds
from the one nothing but one, that the God of Creation is an abstract essence,
that in his essence there does not subsist knowledge life or power, and the
other matters in which they have contradicted revealed religion and declared
the prophets sent from God to be untrue”53
Here the author clearly presenting the main themes of Taha#fut; this even suggests that
Taha#fut was written at a time close to the writing of Al-Radd.
In another occasion in his discussion on the possibility that God created the body of
Christ and was united with it, the author puts a rhetorical question: “if God cannot be
attributed by any contingent quality then by the creation of every new creature a new
attribute would be acquired to God”. This question was the one which al-Ghaza#li#
formulated in Taha#fut to express the philosopher’s claim that God cannot create every
contingent thing, for this will attribute contingent qualities to the divine. Here the author
gives the same answer as al-Ghaza#li# gives in Taha#fut:
18
What it meant by Alla#h is being a Creator is His fore-ordination (tak$di#r)
of creation in eternity and so this attribute of being a Creator is positive in
Him from all eternity; when He has created a creature, His knowledge of its
existence at the time He created it and the power He had to produce it at that
time also, were externally positive (thabit) and nothing was originated except
the creature’s existence which is not an attribute subsisting in the eternal
essence of God.”54
In this passage the author is expressing the idea that God determined in eternity the
creation of the world in all its details and when he actually created the world nothing
new happened except the actual existence of His creatures. Ibn al-Rushd in his Taha#fut
al-Taha#fut challenged this idea and explained that eternal knowledge cannot know the
changing particular, even if this particular is itself eternal.55
Turning to another feature which connects Al-Radd to al-Ghaza#li#, there are passages
which refer to Sufism. The author of Al-Radd is clearly interested in discussing the
possibilities of union between God and Jesus but rejects the idea that the two become
one. He lays his arguments for the question of a union between God and Jesus on the
gospel of John which is distinguished by its metaphorical and esoteric nature.
Throughout the discussion we realise that he by no means rejects the concept of union
(Itih$a#d), but disapproves its Christian implication that it makes two become one. He
repeats in Al-Radd that being united with God is not exclusively and solely attributed to
Jesus: many other saints and prophets have also experienced it. Moreover, the sense of
intoxication which is connected to it at the time of experiencing a glimpse of this union
and which had led some Sufis to the same confusion, is not restricted to Christ. Even
some great individuals have fallen into error here. They have said ‘Glory be
to me’ or another, ‘how great is my dignity’ Mans$u#r al-H$alla#j said, ‘I am
19
Alla#h’ and ‘there is nothing in my gown except Alla#h’. This has been
accounted for as issuing from them in the mystical experience (ah$wal)
which saints have and which diverts them from the usual reservations of
speech so that some people have said ‘these persons are intoxicated and the
talk of drunken men ought to be concealed and not divulged’”.56
In this same manner al-Ghaza#li# explained the experience of union in the works
Ih$ya#’ and Mishka#t and referred many times to Saints’ experiences of union.
Although he admired them, he condemned them for not concealing their moment of
divine intoxication, which should have been hidden from public view. The same text is
to be found in Mishka#t.57 In describing the experience of indwelling, the author gives
an example of this experience with a H$adi#th:
the prince of the apostles (Muhammad) on whom be blessing and peace said
as from God: ‘of those drawn near (to God) no one draws nearer to Me than
those who fulfil what I make obligatory to them. Then the servant (‘abd)
ceases not to draw nearer unto me by means of supererogatory prayers, until I
love him. And when I love him I am his ears by which he hears and his sight
by which sees, his tongue by which he speaks and his hand by which he
grips’ but it is impossible that the creator should indwell in each of these
members, or that God meant them actually”58
The author’s choice of this H$adi#th to express the experience of indwelling here is
quite remarkable because this H$adi#th is known to have been used by Sufis to express
the experience of indwelling and al-Ghaza#li# in many places in Ih$ya#’ and
Mishka#t59 bring this H$adi#th into his discussion of this experience. In Ih$ya#’ he
holds that it expresses the full identification of the Sufi’s will with God’s will. However
when al-Ghaza#li# mentions this H$adi#th in Mishka#t we become uncertain whether
20
he means more than simply the total identification of the will. This could relate Al-Radd
to al-Ghaza#li#’s works within the period of his early work, Ih$ya#’, begun during his
stay in Jerusalem before his unconfirmed visit to Egypt.
The last passage I have chosen in this context is when the author presents an important
biblical passage on the indwelling experience from John 1 4: 12. Here he totally accepts
the experience of indwelling, not however to be interpreted as becoming God but rather
experienced as a light and a mystical illumination. He says in his elaboration of John’s
statement ‘Because he has given us his Spirit’ that this means “(God) has poured upon
us (afa#d$a) a (divine) secret and (His) providence, by which we have learned what is
appropriate to His Glory and has then enabled us to act in accordance with it so that we
want only what he wants and love what he loves”60 The whole sentence comes
evidently from a Sufi mind, which is indicated by using such words as “fa#d$a” (poured
upon) and “sir” (divine secret) in connection with this experience of indwelling.
To conclude, I have attempted in this paper to discuss the major themes brought up by
this book, its importance as a polemical work which refutes the concept of the divinity
of Jesus and its connection to the Sufi understanding of this concept. In the course of
this discussion I have shown that the external evidence against attributing this work to
al-Ghaza#li#, though significant, cannot prove that al-Ghaza#li# could not have written
the book. The book is mentioned and quoted by the thirteenth-century scholar Ibn alT$ayyib, who himself quotes probably from a Muslim work which seems to pre-date
the thirteenth century. The possibility that al-Ghaza#li# had visited Egypt is granted by
five historians; hence the possibility of this visit cannot be rejected. The internal
evidence, however, sheds a clearer light on the question of authorship. Although the
style might not be typically that of Ghaza#li#, the arguments and the thought behind
the book prove, from the above passages, to be very similar to al-Ghaza#li#’s
21
argumentation in Taha#fut and other late works of his. The accusation of his lack of
biblical knowledge in other works cannot be taken as grounds for believing that he did
not write this work, since al-Ghaza#li# did not write any other works in which such
knowledge is in any way required; nor did he write any other work which is directed to
Christians or Jews. However, it is hardly possible that al-Ghaza#li# could have written
such a polemical work, directed to a very knowledgeable audience, as Al-Radd seems to
be without having studied the Bible thoroughly. This was his practice in two of his other
works, Mak$a#s$id al-Fala#sifa and Taha#fut al-Fala#sifa. Yet, though I read AlRadd with great pleasure, I did not find it an unusually original work or that it did more
than simply refer to many passages from the New and Old Testaments. Nor is the depth
of the argument very innovative; rather it brings in a traditional Sufi argument which is
consonant with the period in which al-Ghaza#li# could have written this work, before
his late Gnostic mystic period. The above discussion demonstrates the reasons which
made scholars such as L. Massignon, Chidiac, J. Arbery, Abu Rida, Wilms, Padwick, G.
F. Hourani and Sweetman accept this book as al-Ghaza#li#’s without much discussion
about the authorship problem. Chidiac’s explanation that the book was probably written
by one of his students and was probably delivered in the form of lectures can be
endorsed by the fact that it has no long introduction unlike most books by respected
authors of the time, who used the introduction to explain the content of the book after a
long prayer and dedication. The lack of a colophon at the end of all three manuscripts
also points to its nature as a set of lectures and not a book written at its author’s
dictation.
Finally, al-Sharafi informs us in his book , Al-Fikr al-Isla#mi# fi# al-Radd ’ala alNas$a#ra that most of the important theologians and philosophers wrote a book or a
treatise refuting, discussing or explaining Christian and Jewish beliefs and concepts and
22
that most of these are lost. Thus if it is logical to include al-Ghaza#li# in the list of such
authors, then the book which he would have written can only be Al-Radd al-Jami#l li
Ila#hyat ‘Isa bi S$ari#h$ al-Inji#l.
Bibliography
1. Accad, The Gospels in the Muslim and Christian Exegetical Discourse, unpublished
PhD thesis, Chapter II A
2. A. J. Arberry, Aspects of Islamic Civilization, London: George Allen and Unwin
LTD, 1969, pp. 300-307.
3. M. Bouyges, Essaides Oeuvres de al-Ghaza#li#, ed. M. Allard, Beirut: Imprimerie
Catholique, 1959; Appendix VI pp.125-6.
4. Abu# H$a#mid al-Ghaza#li#, Al-Radd al-Jami#l li Ilahi#yat ‘Isa bi S$ari#h$ alInji#l, ed. M al-Sharqawi, Cairo: Dar al-Hidaya, 1986.
5. Abu# H$a#mid al-Ghaza#li#, Al-Radd al-Jami#l li Ilahiyat ‘Isa bi S$ari#h$ alInji#l, ed. and tans. R. Chidiac, Paris: Libraire Ernest Lerox, 1939.
6. Abu# H$a#mid Al-Ghaza#li#, Mishka#t al-Anwa#r, in Majmu#`at Rasa#’il alIma#m al-Ghaza#la#, Beirut: Da#r al-Mashriq, 1986,
7. Ibn Rush, , Taha#fut al-Taha#fut, ed. S. Donia, Cairo: Dar al-Ma‘arif, 1999.
8. H. Lazarus Yafeh, Studies in al-Ghazza#li#, Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, 1975.
9. L. Massignon, “Le Christ dans les Evangiles selon al-Ghaza#li#” in the Revue des
Etudes Islamiques 6, 1932, pp. 523-36.
23
10. Al-Murtad$a Ibn al-H$usayn al-Zabi#di#, Ith$a#f al-Sa#da al-Mutak$yyn bi Sharh$
Asra#r Ih$ya#’ ’Ulu#m al-Di#n, Princeton, N.J. : Princeton University Library, (10
volumes) Vol. 1, p. 42.
11. C. Padwick, “The Arabic Gospel”, in Moslem World 29, 1939, pp. 130-140.
12. G. S. Reynolds “The Ends of Al-Radd al-Jami#l and its portrayal of Christian Sects”
in Islamochristiana, 25, 1999, pp. 45-65.
13. S$alah al-Di#n Ibn Ibak Al-S$afadi#, al-Wa#fi Bayn al-Wafyya#t, Istanbul:
Matba‘at al-Dawla, 1931.
14. A. al-Sharafi, Al-Fikr al-Isla#mi# fi# al-Radd ’ala al-Nas$a#ra, Tunis: al-Mu’sasa
al-Wat$ania li al-Kita#b, 1986.
15. J. W. Sweetman, Islam and Christian Theology, Part two, vol. one, London.
Lutterworth Press, 1945.
16. Ta#j al-Di#n Ibn Nasr al-Subki#, Tabak$a#t al-Sha#fi‘iyya, Cairo: Mat$ba‘at ‘Isa
al-Ba#bi# al-H$alabi#, no date, Vol. 6, p. 199
17. Abu al-Khayr Ibn al-T$ayyab “Maqa#la fi# al-Radd ‘ala al-Muslimi#n aldhi#na
yatahimu#na al-Nas$a#ra bi al-I`tiqa#d bi Thala#that Aliha” in P. Paul Sbath, Vingt
Traites, Cairo: H.Friedrich et Co., 1929, pp. 176-178.
18. Abu# Isa al-Warra#q, Anti-Christian Polemics in Early Islam, ed. D. Thomas,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003
19. F. E. Wilms, Al-Ghazalis Schrift Wider die Gottheit Jesu, Leiden: Brill, 1966
24
Notes
1
L. Massignon, “Le Christ dans les Evangiles selon al-Ghaza#li#” in the Revue des
Etudes Islamiques 6,1932, pp. 523-36.
2
Abu# H$a#mid al-Ghaza#li#, Al-Radd al-Jami#l li Ilahiyat ‘Isa bi S$ari#h$ al-Inji#l,
ed. and tans. R. Chidiac, Paris: Libraire Ernest Lerox, 1939.
3
C. Padwick, “The Arabic Gospel”, in Moslem World 29, 1939, (pp. 130-140) p. 132.
4
A. J. Arberry, Aspects of Islamic Civilization, London: George Allen and Unwin LTD,
1969, pp. 300-307.
5
J. W.Sweetman, Islam and Christian Theology, London. Lutterworth Press,
6
F. E. Wilms, Al-Ghazalis Schrift Wider die Gottheit Jesu, Leiden: Brill, 1966
7
Abu# H$a#nid al-Ghaza#li#, Al-Radd al-Jami#l li Ilahi#yat ‘Isa bi S$ari#h$ al-Inji#l,
ed. M al-Sharqawi, Cairo: Da#r al-Hida#ya, 1986.
8
M. Bouyges, Essaides Oeuvres de al-Ghaza#li#, ed. M. Allard, Beirut: Imprimerie
Catholique, 1959; Appendix VI pp.125-6.
9
H. Lazarus Yafeh, Studies in al-Ghazza#li#, Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, 1975.
10
G. S. Reynolds “The Ends of Al-Radd al-Jami#l and its portrayal of Christian Sects”
in Islamochristiana, 25, 1999, pp. 45-65.
11
12
Sweetman, Theology, p. 267.
Reynolds, “The Ends”, pp. 16-18.
13
Padwick, The Arabic Gospel, p. 136.
14
Sweetman, Theology, p. 305.
25
15
Bouyges, Essai, p. 126.
16
Lazarus-Yafeh, Studies, pp. 459-60
17
Ibid, p. 459.
18
Ibid, p. 461
19
Al-Murtad$a Ibn al-H$usayn al-Zabi#di#, Ith$a#f al-Sa#da al-Mutak$yyn bi Sharh$
Asra#r Ih$ya#’ ’Ulu#m al-Di#n, Princeton, N.J. : Princeton University Library, (10
volumes) Vol. 1, p. 42.
20
Wilms, Al-Ghaza#li#s Schrift, p. 34, note 4
21
Ibid.
22
Abu al-Khayr Ibn al-T$ayyab “Maqa#la fi al-Radd ‘ala al-Muslimi#n aldhi#na
yatahimu#na al-Nas$a#ra bi al-I`tiqa#d bi thala#that Aliha” in P. Paul Sbath, Vingt
Traites, Cairo: H.Friedrich et Co., 1929, pp. 176-178.
23
24
Arbery, Aspects, p 300. see also Chidiac, al-Radd, p.44 line 6-7
Arbery, Aspects, p. 301
25
Lazarus-Yafeh, Studies, p. 467.
26
Ibn al-T$ayyab, Maqa#la, p. 177.
27
Ibn al-T$ayyab, Maqa#la, p. 178.
28
Ibid, p.178, line 9 and line 13.
29
Chidiac, al-Radd, p. 44, 26
30
Ibid, p. 98.
31
This the date which M. al-Sharqawi give in his edition of al-Radd, I could not find it
in other sources, see M. al-Sharqawi, Al-Radd al-Jami#l, p.15.
32
Ta#j al-Di#n Ibn Nasr al-Subki#, Tabak$a#t al-Sha#fi‘iyya, Cairo: Mat$ba‘at ‘Isa al-
Bab# al-H$alabi#, no date, Vol. 6, p. 199
33
Wilms, Al-Ghaza#li#s Schrift, p. 23
26
34
Ibid.
35
S$alah al-Di#n Ibn Ibak Al-S$afadi#, al-Wa#fi# Bayn al-Wafyya#t, Istanbul:
Mat$ba‘at al-Dawla, 1931, Vol. 1, p. 275
36
Al-S$afadi#, Wafyya#t, p. 274.
37
Wilms, Al-Ghaza#li#s Schrift, p. 27-31.
38
Lazarus-Yafeh, Studies, p. 467.
39
Wilms, al-Ghaza#li#s Schrift, pp. 27-30.
40
Lazarus-Yafeh, Studies, 468-9.
41
Ibid, p. 472-3, See also Reynolds, The Ends, p. 55.
42
Accad, The Gospels in the Muslim and Christian Exegetical Discourse, unpublished
PhD thesis, Chapter II A.
43
Ibid.
44
Abu# Isa al-Warra#q, Anti-Christian Polemics in Early Islam, ed. D. Thomas,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003
45
Arberry, Aspects, p. 300.
46
Chidiac, al-Radd, pp. 46-7
47
A. al-Sharafi, Al-Fikr al-Islami# fi al-Radd ’ala al-Nas$a#ra, Tunis: al-Mu’sasa al-
Wat$ani#a li al-Kita#b, 1986, pp. 397-405
48
Lazarus-Yafeh, Studies, p. 469
49
Ibid, see also Chidiac, al-Radd, p. 32
50
Wilms, Al-Ghaza#li#s Schrift, pp. 25-30.
51
Ibid, pp. 37-9.
52
Sweetman, Theology, p. 266.
53
Ibid
54
Ibid, p. 280
27
55
Ibn Rush, , Taha#fut al-Taha#fut, ed. S. Donia, Cairo: Da#r al-Ma‘a#rif, 1999, pp.
643-76.
56
Sweetman, Theology, p. 288.
57
Abu# H$a#mid Al-Ghaza#li#, Mishka#t al-Anwa#r, in Majmu#`at Rasa#’il al-Ima#m
al-Ghaza#la#, Beirut: Da#r al-Mashriq, 1986, p. 12.
58
Sweetman, theology, p. 268.
59
Al-Ghaza#li#, Mishka#t, p. 15.
60
Chidiac, al-Radd, p. 16, (my translation)
28