Yazar: Ghorban Elmi
This article studies Ghazali's viewpoint
regarding Satan or Iblis. Ghazali's interpretation of Satan is very different
from that of traditional ones. Despite the Koran's negative portrayal of Satan,
Ghazali elaborates a new transformative theology of Satan. He defends Satan and
considers him as the paragon of lovers in self-sacrifice. According to him,
Satan's refusal to bow down before God's creation, Adam, signifies that Satan
alone manifests the purest devotion to God's oneness and is thus the unrivalled
champion of tawhid. Ghazali's sympathetic understanding of Satan is a
logical outcome of his theory of love. He depicts Satan not only as a sincere
worshipper, but also as a true lover. He loves God even though he curses and
casts him out. Because of being cursed, he has acquired a long life and a
position of power over the whole world.
Keywords: Ahmad Ghazali; Iblis;
Satan; Sufism; Love.
One of the important and interesting issues in Islamic culture is
the story of Satan or Iblis, his worship and disobedience, his refusal to
prostration to Adam, his rejection by God and, finally, his hostility to Adam's
children until the Day of Resurrection. The Koran does not tell a simple story
of Iblis but weaves a complex and suggestive narrative that allows for a range
of diverse interpretations. The Koran indeed not only allows its exploration
but also invites and encourages it. Therefore, Satan, through the centuries,
has been a figure of speculation among Muslim scholars, who have been trying to
explain his ambiguous identification.
Traditions on this point are numerous and conflicting. Among Muslim
scholars, the Sufis' view of Satan is one of the most controversial and at the
same time most attractive categories reflected in their most important texts.
But their portrayal of Satan is different, and in some cases opposite. Although
some of the Sufis are not in agreement with a positive portrayal of Satan, and
their viewpoint on him is much more in tune with Islamic orthodoxy, but a
number of them, who believe in the unity of existence, consider Satan's refusal
to bow before Adam as full devotion to God alone; consequently, they depict him
as an example of a true lover of God and a teacher of monotheism (El-Zein
2017:44).2 Therefore, one of the most fascinating aspects of
mystical psychology in Islam is the way in which the Sufis have dealt with
Satan, the power of evil (Schimmel 1975:193).
Of the three most famous Sufis who defended Satan, two were executed
for heresy. Even today they are widely revered by many who consider Sufism to
be true Islam, and they are seen as martyrs to a blind puritanical reaction.
The first and best known was Husayn ibn Mansur al-Hallaj, executed in Baghdad
in A.D. 922 (Wilson 1993:88). The second sheikh who defended Satan was Ahmad
al-Ghazali, who avoided execution (if not execration) both by the
very density of his mystical language and by having a powerful brother, Abu
Hamid Muhammad al-Ghazali, famous for the impeccable orthodoxy of his Sufism.
Ahmad al-Ghazali,4 a Sufi master from the late 11th and early 12th
centuries, echoed Hallaj on many points, saying for instance, that ‘whoever
does not learn adherence to Divine Unity from Satan, is an unbeliever'
(Schimmel 1975:195) and ‘Though Satan was cursed and humiliated, he was still
the paragon of lovers in self-sacrifice' (Ghazali 2013; Wilson 1993:88).
Although Ghazali has been studied by many critics and scholars, no
specific study has been made of the image of Satan in his writings. This
is when he was the first and influential Sufi who elaborated a new
transformative theology of Satan. Even Peter Awn in his Satan's Tragedy and
Redemption: Iblis in Sufi Psychology, too, has not dealt with Ghazali's
views on Satan, independently and completely. The purpose of this
article is to study his viewpoint regarding Satan.
‘Bow down before the other!' I didn't bow down, but you
turned toward the mountain'. At this point, Ahmad Ghazali inserted: ‘Whoever
doesn't learn monotheism from Satan is a heretic (zindiq)'.
2.
Moses:
‘Your external form has been transformed from the angelic to the demonic'.
Satan: ‘This is only a state of the moment which is transitory and will change
again. Oh Moses, the greater His love becomes for someone other than me, the
greater my love becomes for Him'.
3.
Moses: ‘Do
you still recollect Him (do you still mention His name)?' - Satan: ‘I'm
mentioned along with His mention (when He says (Koran 1983, XXXVIII, 78)): ‘And
upon you is My curse (wa 'inna 'alayka la'nati)'. 'Does He not use the
pronoun of the second and the first person together?'
4.
And he
(Ahmad Ghazali) said: ‘When Satan was repudiated, neither his service, nor his
love, nor his recollection of God was thereby decreased'. (Ghazali 1376:13; Ibn
al-Jawzi 1986:77; Ritter 2003:558-559)
Many aspects of Ghazali's thought, particularly his emphasis on
sympathy for Satan (ta'assub al-shaytan), have clear precedents in the
early Sufi tradition. The two major apparent sources of Ghazali's
representation of Satan are the Koran and the writings of previous Sufis,
especially Hallaj's Tawasin.
According to the traditional Islamic interpretation (e.g. Koran
1983, II, 30-37; VII, 10-19; XVIII, 50; XXXVIII, 71-85), Satan refused to
submit to God's command and was sentenced to hell by him for his disobedience.
Why would God want the angels to worship something other than God himself, especially
something apparently younger and inferior to them? Some of the great masters of
Sufism did not agree with the traditional interpretation of the story of
Satan's disobedience and were puzzled over God's command and concluded that God
could not have truly wanted Satan to worship Adam. To illustrate this point,
they told stories depicting conversations with Satan; the following story comes
from Ahmad Ghazali:
1. Moses met with Satan on Sinai and
said to him: ‘Oh Satan, why didn't you prostrate to Adam?' Satan: ‘No! I will
never bow down before a human being, oh Moses! You made the claim to be a
monotheist, but I am a monotheist and have never turned to another.' You,
however, said: ‘Let me see You!', and then you looked at the mountain. Thus I'm
more upright in monotheism than you. He said:
This story contains a motif which must have particularly enticed the
mystics to formulate a reinterpretation. The demand to bow down in worship
before a created being, someone other than God, is in fact a direct slap in the
face to the most sacred command of mystical monotheism. Strictly speaking, the
refusal to prostrate oneself before a being other than God must have seemed to
them an act of genuine monotheistic adoration of God. In this way, Satan now
becomes, so to speak, more monotheistic than God himself, unless God wants
something other than what he ordered. In fact, the latter is what comes to be
taught (Ritter 2003:555).
Satan's refusal to bow down with all the other angels before God's
creation in human form signifies that Satan alone manifests the purest devotion
to God's oneness. He will not compromise his adherence to this monotheistic
ideal even if God himself commands him to. Satan the disobedient thus becomes
the improbable champion of tawhid, the unwavering conviction that God is
eternally and essentially one and alone to be worshipped. Satan practises pure
worship of God contrary to the explicit command of God. He becomes cursed for
his disobedience to God's command, which, however, was really an act of
exclusive adoration as God had otherwise demanded (Ritter 2003:555). Therefore,
his disobedience was because of his love and single-heartedness (see Ghazali
2013:75). Ghazali was the classical representative of Satan's rehabilitation,
who dared to say: ‘who does not learn tauhid from Satan, is an infidel'
(Ibn al-Jawzi 1986:221) - a remark that infuriated the orthodox but
found an echo in many later Sufi writings (Schimmel 1975:194).
In several instances, Ghazali follows the standard Islamic teaching
in which Satan is presented as a disobedient Jinn, who had risen to the
level of the angels but was then obstinate when ordered to prostrate before
man, claiming ‘I am better than him. You created me from fire and created him
from clay' (Koran 1983, XXXVIII, 76). Having been cursed by God, he then became
the enemy of both man and God, who will be punished for his intransigence
(Ghazali 1376:26, 29, 32, 52). But at the same time, in his Majalis and
in several excerpts from his sermons preserved in the biographical tradition,
he portrays Satan as the greatest lover and the foremost of God's servants in testifying
to unity (tawhid). According to this strange and touching theory, he is
represented as the great lover who did not want to worship anything other than
God and therefore refused to prostrate, obedient to the Divine Will, yet
disobedient to the Divine Command (Schimmel 1993:208).
But how are these two opposite viewpoints brought together by
Ghazali and how he explains the rest of the Koran's negative descriptions of
Satan. In reply to this problem, it must be said that Ghazali's understanding
of religion and God is different. His thoughts go far beyond the
institutionalised religion and its doctrines. He transcends all artificial
boundaries and looks inward. For him the major thrust of religion is love. God
is the ultimate object of man's love.
Ghazali does not abrogate the established theological and legal
schools, nor does he dismiss their relevance. But, according to him, apart from
established religions, there is another religion, ‘religion of love'.7
The Sufis of the ‘religion of love', including Ghazali, assert that those
scholars who deny the primacy of love and limit themselves to the ‘externals'
are ‘highway robbers and immature children' (Safi 2003). The lovers of God
follow the madhhab-i 'ishq [path of love] and madhhab-i khuda
[God's path] (Hamadani 1994:115-116). The Sufis of the path of love were
presenting not a new religion, but a fresh, dynamic and ever-transforming
understanding of themselves, the world around them and the Divine based
primarily on love (Safi 2003). After quoting the Koranic verse ‘He loves them
and they love Him' (Koran V, 54), Ghazali (2013) moves on to a quatrain which
identifies the madhahb followed by him and other members of the path of
love:
From before existence
our steed set out with love.
Our night forever illuminated
from the lamp of Union.
Until we return to non-existence
you will not find our lips dry
from that wine
un-forbidden in our path (madhhab).
(p. 17)
Ghazali's depiction of Satan can only be understood within the
general framework of his Sufic thoughts, especially his religion of love. His
sympathetic understanding of Satan is a logical outcome of his theory of love.
Therefore, Ghazali's Satan should be seen from a mystical point of view. It is
interesting to note that the central theme of Ghazali's works, that is, love,
is explained here by Satan.
His Satan does not give up his love for God, no matter what happens
to him. A lover's duty is to love even if the beloved decides to send the lover
away for some time or even if the beloved decides to afflict sufferings upon
the lover. Satan's refusal to bow to man is thus a deep expression of sincere
monotheism and hence of pure love. The lover is one who accepts without
questioning, one who surrenders completely to the will of the beloved.
Ghazali's Satan claims that God's Will (Iradah) was that he
should not bow down to anybody except him, and his Command (Amr) to bow
down to Adam was only a test for him. Thus he remains loyal to God's Will and
disobeys his Command. Here Satan's action of disobedience derives from his
single-headed devotion to God. He remains faithful to God's first Will
regardless of its consequences. Ghazali sees Satan as a perfect example of
ardent lover. His refusal was not out of disobedience or pride but out of
jealousy. He wants to have all the love of the beloved for himself and does not
want to share the love of his beloved with anybody else.
Therefore, Ghazali, though a true Muslim, is not a follower of
institutionalised religion. That is why his Satan does not literally correspond
with the Koranic image. He, as a result of his inheritance of a rich Sufi
tradition, interprets the Koran in a new way and presents a different image of
Satan.
Satan as a lover and sincere
worshipper
The tragic situation of Satan inspired Ghazali to express his
sympathy with him whose predicament, in a certain sense, foreshadowed the
difficulties humans would have to undergo in this world. It was Ghazali who
elaborated a new transformative theology of Satan. Of course, as previously
observed, this is not entirely his own; he owes a debt to earlier masters, and
especially to al-Hallaj. The latter, after all, had been bold enough to
declare:
There was no monotheist like Satan among the inhabitants of the
heavens. When the essence revealed itself to him in stunning glory, he
renounced even a glance at it and worshipped God in ascetic isolation. . . God
said to him, ‘Bow!' he replied, ‘To no other!' He said to him, ‘Even if My
curse be upon you?' He cried out, ‘To no other!'. (Awn 1993:124; Hallaj
1913:43-44; Ormsby 2008:36)
For Ghazali, Satan is a tragic lover of God. Ghazali defends him by
saying, ‘The poor guy didn't know that the claws of Providence draw blood when
they scratch and that the arrows of Predestination kill quickly when they fly'
(Ibn al-Jawzi 1413:vol. 9:p. 261; Ritter 2003:557). This unexpected
transformation of Satan may not be unconnected with the renewal and gradual
elaboration of the doctrine of the love of God that spread among Muslim mystics
and was to become one of the defining characteristics of Sufis in later
centuries. Some Sufi Muslims held to a view of Satan which emphasises his love
for God as the motivation for his decision not to bow to Adam (see Hallaj
1384:52-53; Nuri Ozturk 1382:331-332; Zarrinkoob 1393:141). Sufi teachers such
as Hallaj present the story of Satan as a predestined scenario in which Satan
plays the role of a tragic and jealous lover of Allah who, unable to perceive
the Divine Image in Adam, was compelled to disobey the divine mandate to bow
down to him (see Hallaj 1913:52-53; Nicholson 1923:31-33).
Satan, as a lover of God, was confronted with a tragic dilemma.
Either he must dishonour the 'Beloved' (God) by bowing down to something
lesser, or he must disobey him and accept the banishment and condemnation.
Satan was faced with a predicament presenting a choice between God's will and
his command. The myth of Satan in an allusive and paradoxical way explains the
demands of a total lover for God above even the obedience to God set forth in
his commands. This love was an affliction (bala') - affliction in love.
This affliction was not merely the trial that the lover - here Satan - had to
endure; it was the 'jewel of God's treasury'. Ahmad Ghazali (2013) connects
this affliction to a sophisticated love theory:
Love, in its true nature, is but an affliction (bala'), and
intimacy (uns) and ease are something alien to it and are provisionally
borrowed. This is because separation in love is indeed duality while union is
indeed oneness. (p. 36)
Ghazali depicts Satan not only as a sincere worshipper, but also as
a true lover. The ultimate significance of Satan is found in an account related
by Ibn al-Jawzi in which al-Ghazali says, 'whoever has not learned tawhid
from Satan is a dualist (zandiq) (Ibn al-Jawzi 1413:vol. 17: p. 239). It is
interesting to notice that the central theme of Ghazali's works is love, and
his sympathetic understanding of Satan is a logical outcome of his theory of
love. The relationship between God and his creatures is depicted as the
relationship between the beloved and the lover. As the lover has been separated
from his beloved, he is restlessly and constantly searching for that state of
union again. Even Satan functions within the love of God. For him there is
nothing that can function outside the sovereignty of God's love. Everything is
in love with God and desires him. Ghazali believes that all of creation must
necessarily have a face of beauty turned towards the beloved, otherwise it
could not exist. From this perspective, the ugliness of Satan as he turns
towards creation is because he knows that God alone possesses true beauty.
His refusal to bow to a human is thus a deep expression of sincere
monotheism and hence of pure love. Ghazali's Satan here is very different from
that of the Koran. It is not a matter of disobedience and pride but a matter of
love. Satan is depicted as a lover, and not simply an admiring but a devoted
and sincere lover.
For Ghazali, as for Hallaj before him, Satan is perfect in
testifying to unity. His refusal to bow to Adam results not from arrogance, but
from the purest and most sincere love of God. He is, therefore, a model for
those who follow the path of love.
Satan is in one sense the ultimate lover of God. He loves God even
though God curses and casts him out; indeed, he loves God because God banishes
him. To be singled out by God in such a way is, perversely, to assume the badge
- perhaps 'scar' would be the better word - of a radical distinction. To love
God against God is to love God for his own sole sake. No reward for such love
may be expected. And with the removal of reward, love is based purely upon
itself (Ormsby 2008:37).
According to his theory Satan, or Iblis, was a true lover of God,
and his disobedience was because of his love and single-heartedness. As he says
(Ghazali 2013):
Love has a (high) aspiration (himmat) so that the lover
desires a beloved who has a sublime quality. Thus he does not accept as his
beloved just any beloved who may fall in the snare of union. (p. 75)
This is why when Satan was told (by God): 'My curse shall be upon
you' (Koran 1983, XXXVIII, 78), he responded: 'I swear by Thy Glory' (Koran
1983, XXXVIII, 82). By this he meant (Ghazali 2013):
I myself love this manifestation of Glory from Thee, for no one is
worthy of being needed by Thee, nor is anyone suitable for Thee, for if
anything (or anyone) were suitable for Thee, then the Glory would not have been
perfect. (p. 75)
Being cursed of Satan in Sufi literature, especially in Ghazali's
understanding, comes to be evaluated positively. Satan, within his feelings,
sees himself as a true lover. Having the curse placed on him has not been
completely without benefit for Satan. Because of it, he has acquired a long
life and a position of power over the whole world (cf. Koran 1983, XVII, 62
'Verily, if You allow me to live until the Final Day, I will surely force his [Adam's]
descendants to be under my power except for a few'). And he stands continually
at God's door.
Being cursed also appears to be a distinction which is intended on
God's part and not just perceived as such by Satan. Only outwardly does it have
the character of an unmasking to conceal the real intimacy. Satan himself wants
this distinction, the curse. He wants to possess something special which
distinguishes him from all the other angels and creatures.
That which would be an evil for everyone else is a precious gift for
Satan. Satan behaves like the authentic lover who gladly endures whatever the
beloved does to him, indeed experiences it as something that makes him happy
because in such a case the beloved focuses his will on him (Ritter
2003:563-565).
As a real lover, he goes further than this and considers his being
cursed by God as a felicitous distinction because, in contrast to all the other
angels, he has become the object of an expression of God's will aimed
especially at him (Ritter 2003:556).
Ghazali stresses rather emphatically the viewpoint that the
beloved's cruelty because it entails active attention given to the lover, must
signify happiness and joy for the latter. Indeed, the beloved, when he punishes
the lover, confers distinction on him by being attentive to him, whereas he may
be utterly indifferent towards others. Bad treatment, after all, amounts to
establishing a relationship. If the archer wishes to hit you with his arrow, he
must turn his face towards you completely. To hit you he must focus his mind on
you completely (Ritter 2003:408-409); as he says: 'How can such a connective
bond not be enough for you? After all, in this way he has given preference to
one above all the others'. 'Take an arrow with my name out of the quiver and
draw it on your strong bow! Are you looking for a target? Here's my heart! Your
part is to strike hard, my part is to cry: 'Woe!' (Ghazali 1359:20). Finaly,
Ghazali has great sympathy for Satan and believes that he was a martyr and his
martyrdom was a martyrdom of love (Hayes 2003:163).
The foregoing passages and references indicate that despite the
Koran's negative portrayal of Satan, Ahmad Ghazali defends Satan and considers
him as the paragon of lovers in self-sacrifice. His mystical interpretation on
the paradoxical struggle of Satan centres on his apparent disobedience to God's
second command (to bow before Adam), in order to remain faithful to God's first
command to worship only God. He believes that Satan refused to bow not because
of his pride, but because of his extreme fidelity to God. Satan was only doing
what he had been created to do. Ghazali attempts to rehabilitate Satan, so he
dares to say: 'who does not learn tawhid [monotheism] from Satan, is an
infidel'. Satan's refusal to bow down before God's creation, Adam, signifies
that Satan alone manifests the purest devotion to God's oneness and is thus the
unrivalled champion of monotheism. Ghazali's sympathetic understanding
of Satan is a logical outcome of his theory of love. Ghazali sees love as the
essence of God and the substance from which all else is woven. From this
perspective, every existent thing is a selfdisclosure (tajalli) of the
God. He depicts Satan, not only as a sincere worshipper, but also as a true
lover. Satan is in one sense the ultimate lover of God. He loves God even
though God curses and casts him out. Having the curse placed on him has not been
completely without benefit for Satan. Because of it he has acquired a long life
and a position of power over the whole world. As a real lover, Satan considers
his being cursed by God as a felicitous distinction because, in contrast to all
the other angels, he has become the object of an expression of God's will aimed
especially at him. Finally, Ghazali's image of Satan is both similar to and
different from that of the Koran. The difference comes back to Ghazali's
mystical perspective and his theory of love. As a result of this perspective,
he presents a new interpretation of the Koranic verses and a different image of
Satan. In the framework of his mystical thoughts, especially his religion of
love, in a true sense of the word Islam (submission), Satan is a Muslim because
he submits totally to God, his Beloved. Satan is only playing the role that has
been assigned to him by the Almighty God. Satan is a lover of God and perhaps
the true lover of God because he loves him regardless of all the suffering and pain
that he has to endure. But there is still a question, if he was a true lover,
why he did not completely succumb to God's command and refused to prostrate
before Adam?
Awn, P.J., 1983, Satan's tragedy and redemption: Iblis in Sufi
Psychology, E. J. Brill, Leiden.
Chittick, W.C., 1983, The Sufi path of love: The spiritual
teachings of Rumi, State University of New York Press, New York.
El-Zein, A., 2017, Islam, Arabs, and intelligent world of the
Jinn, Syracuse University Press, New York.
Ghazzali, A., 1376sh, Majalis, (with Persian translation) A.
Mujahid, (ed.), Mu’assiseh- ye Intisharat va Chap-i Danigah-I, Tehran.
Ghazzali, A., 1359sh, Sawanih, N. Pourjavady (ed.), (based on
Hellmut Ritter’s edition), Intesharat-e Boniad-e Farhang, Tehran.
Ghazzali, A., 2013, Sawanih: Inspirations from the world of pure
spirits, transl. N. Pourjavady, Kegan Paul, London.
Hallaj, Abu l-Mughith Husayn b. Mansur, 1384, Kitab at-Tawasin,
ed. L. Massignon, transl. Mahmood Behrouzifard, Ettela't, Tehran.
Hallaj, Abu l-Mughith Husayn b. Mansur,
1913, Kitab at-Tawasin, ed. L. Massignon, Paris.
Hamadani, 'Ayn al-Qozat, 1994, Tamhidat, 'Afif 'Usayran, ed.,
Kitabkhana-yi Manuchihri, Tehran.
Hayes, C.S., 2003, An ontological study of Iblis al-Shaytan,
The University of Texas, Austin.
Ibn al-Jawzi, Abu-l-Faraj, 1413, al-Muntazam fi ta'rikh al-muluk
wa-l-umam, Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyya, Beirut.
Ibn al-Jawzi, Abu-l-Faraj, 1986, Kitab al-qussas
wa-l-mudhakkirin, ed. and transl. Merlin S. Swartz, Dar al-Mashreq, Beirut.
Massignon, L., 1982, The passion of al-Hallaj: Mystic and martyr
of Islam, transl. H. Mason, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Mujahid, A., 1376sh, Majmu'eh-yei athar-I farsi-ye Ahmad Ghazali,
Intesharat-e Danesgah-e Tehran, Tehran.
Nicholson, R.A., 1923, The idea of personality in Sufism,
Cambridge University Press, London.
Nuri Ozturk, Y., 1382sh, Shahid-e rahe haqiqat va Ishq Husayn b.
Mansur Hallaj va athar-e 'ou, transl. T. Sobhani, Rauzaneh, Tehran.
Ormsby, E., 2008, The three faces of Satan in Islam, in Deliver
Us from Evil: Essays on the Worst of Problems, ed. by M. David Eckel and
Bradley L. Herling, University of Notre Dame Press, South Bend, pp. 28-43.
Reynolds, G.S., 2004, 'A reflection on two Quranic words (Iblis and
Judi), with attention to the theories of A. Mingana', Journal of the
American Oriental Society 124(4), 675-689.
Ritter, H., 2003, 'The ocean of the soul: Man, the world, and God in
the stories of Farid al-Din 'Attar', transl. J. O'Kane, with editorial
assistance of B. Radtke, Brill, Leiden.
Rumi, J., 1926, The Mathnawi of Rumi, vol. 2, trans.
R. Nicholson, Cambridge University Press, London.
Safi, O., 2003, 'On the “path of love" towards the divine: A
journey with Muslim mystics', Journal of Scriptural Reasoning 3(2),
22-38.
Schimmel, A., 1975, Mystical dimensions of Islam, The
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
Schimmel, A., 1993, The triumphal sun: A study of the works of
Jalaloddin Rumi, State University of New York Press, New York.
The Holy Koran, Text, 1983, Translation
and Commentary by A. Yusuf AIL Brentwood, Amana Corp, Beltsville, MD.
Wensinck, A.J., 1971, 'Iblis', The
encyclopedia of Islam, new edn., vol. 3. Brill, Leiden.
Wilson, P.L., 1993, Sacred drift: Essays on the margins of Islam,
City Lights Books, San Francisco, CA.
Zarrinkoub, A., 1393sh, Jostojouye
dar Tasawwof-e Iran, Amirkabir, Tehran.