Systematization of "the Thought"

What do We Mean by “Al-Ghazali of the Age”?

We mean the scholar(s) who will triumph over modernity.

As is known, the popularity of "philosophy" after al-Ghazali decreased steadily in Muslim world. Even though Averroes made a powerful effort to defend the philosophy approximately a century later, it turned out to be not so successful, and the philosophy lost its charm in Muslim world, especially in intellectual circles. Here, we should see al-Ghazali as the “symbolic figure” of the settling account of Muslim Thought with the philosophy. If there were no al-Ghazali, the Ummah i.e. Muslims of the age would have performed this duty via another competent scholar. The reason can be summarized as follows: it turned out that the efforts made by theologians were not sufficient to defend Islam against the charges leveled by the philosophers, and after a while Muslims came to the conclusion that the task should have been performed in another way, that is to say, using the philosophers’ “language” against them or giving the philosophers a taste of their own medicine. In other words, the theologians of the day were using an “apologetic” discourse just like today's Muslim Modernists, and accordingly they could not achieve a great success against philosophy. But al-Ghazali realized the problem, took the  bull by the horns and settled accounts with philosophy by using its own language, so much so that he accused the “Muslim philosophers” such as al-Farabi and Avicenna of infidelity on the grounds that they followed in the footsteps of ancient Greek philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle and held views contrary to Islam. A similar effort should be made today to defeat modernity in an ideological combat. It is impossible to win an ideological war waged against modernity by using an “apologetic” or “defensive” discourse peculiar to Muslim Modernism. Instead, modernity (or postmodernity) must first be analyzed in detail and criticized competently, then the views contrary to Islam in it must be determined precisely and be announced to the public frankly by making no bones about declaring them. We can easily say that only if we manage to do this, we can prevent modernity from causing confusion about Islam or creating suspicion about the truthfulness of Islamic teachings in the minds of the people.

This responsibility can be fulfilled boldly only if the thought is systematized. ‘Al-Ghazali of the age’ is the scholar who will be able to systematize the thought.

However, it should be remembered that al-Ghazali can be seen as a scholar who was brought about by the collective work of the Ummah itself. Before al-Ghazali, the Muslim Thought had reached to a certain level of maturity and what the Ummah needed was merely a final assault to reap the fruits of settling account with the philosophy. From this point of view, it can fairly be said that if Ilmu’l-Kalâm i.e. theology did not exist, al-Ghazali would not have existed. In another saying, what matters in the process of systematization of thought is working collectively rather than endeavoring separately. When the intellectual dynamics of a society tend towards specific areas of concentration, sooner or later the production of systematic thought appears to be real. So, rising of a well-educated and informed “critical mass” whose knowledge level is higher than that of large masses is a necessary condition for systematizing the thought. In order to do this, a qualified reading activity supported by the society as a whole needs to be done. As is known, Baytu’l-Hikmah (The House of Wisdom) founded under the sponsorship of Caliph al-Ma’mun had an important role in rising of the “philosophy” in Muslim world as a distinct school of thought. Muslims in contemporary age should do the same thing in the field of modernity. In order to have a good knowledge of modernity and then to reach the stage of systematization of the thought, we need the institutions like The House of Wisdom.