Al-Ghazali as a Key Historical Witness to the Ismaili Doctrine of ta'lim.

• Author: Walker, Paul E.
• Position: Abu Hamid al-Ghazali

Abu Hamid al-Ghazali's (d. 505/1111) encounter with the Ismailis of his time produced in the thought of this great Sunni theologian profound and lasting results, quite possibly of more serious import and significance than generally recognized even by the specialists who have studied the body of his work most carefully. On the opposite side, that of the Ismaili Shi'is who drew so much of his ire and condemnation over the length of his career, those years were equally a period of dramatic changes, of a movement splintering and breaking apart, new doctrines and leadership, events to which he was (and is) a key historical witness. However, despite considerable fine scholarly study of al-Ghazali and his works, little of it concerns the Ismailis or his preoccupation with them, a subject to which he returned again and again in separate treatises over more than a decade. Understandably, few whose primary interest lies in his contributions to Islamic law and theology or philosophy might be expected to have also more than a passing concern for the history of Ismailism. By contrast, among specialists in the Ismaili movement in the late eleventh and early twelfth centuries, the anti-Ismaili polemic of this Sunni authority commands more attention, including some detailed studies, most particularly Farouk Mitha's Al-Ghazali and the Ismailis. (1) Although often based on sound scholarship, they nevertheless have not sufficiently focused on the history of the clash itself and its repercussions for both sides. In short, there is considerably more at stake in this confrontation, particularly in the thought of the one and in the history of the other. The analysis that follows brings together and compares events and details of both the earliest evidence for the use of the ta'lim argument--propounding the authoritative teaching of each Imam, a new technique recently introduced to support the Ismaili side--and al-Ghazali's concern with refuting both them and it.

THE ISMAILIS NOW CALL THEMSELVES TA'LlMIS

In a project like this it is often hard to know where exactly to start chronologically. Fortunately, a natural beginning centers on the famously masterful vizier, Nizam al-Mulk, who also happened to be both a key patron of al-Ghazali and a formidable archenemy of the Ismailis in his domain, which was the empire of the Seljuks in Iraq and Iran. This vizier was also unusually well informed about the Ismailis of his day and earlier. His justly famous Siyãsatnama (Book of government) constitutes an especially detailed record of the advent and continuation ofthe Ismaili mission in the territories of most concern to him. (2) The material of the final sections on the Ismailis in his own era dates to 485/1092, shortly before he was assassinated by an agent of these same enemies. About these, for him heretical, opponents, whom he calls Batinis--using the fairly standard Sunni pejorative epithet for the Ismailis in that period--he remarks that they are known in various cities and regions by different names (Ismailis. Qarmatis, Mubarakis, Jannabis, and others). At the end of his list he reports almost casually that "they call themselves Ta'limis" (va ishan khishtan ra ts 'limi khanand)? Here he tells us a critically important fact, a clear indication that by that year Ismailis in the Seljuk empire referred to themselves by the term ta'limi, i.e., those who are adherents of the necessity, in determining truth in matters of faith, of having recourse to an infallible instructor. In other words, the people who uphold, in issues of their religion, the requirement of teaching and a teacher. Further explanation of the meaning and its implications follows later below as it is of central concern to both the Ismailis and to al-Ghazali.

For the moment, what is striking and new is not the concept but the use of the term in and of itself. The doctrine behind it, which is based on the view that God would never have left his community devoid of divinely sanctioned leadership, of a supreme guiding authority, that is, an Imam, is the very essence of Shi'i Islam going back to the succession of the Prophet. It is a constant feature in Shi'i discourse. Among earlier Ismaili works, it appears, for example, as a key element in the fourth/tenth-century Ikhiilaf usul al-madhahib of Qadi al-Nu'man, or the early fifth/eleventh-century writings of al-Kirmani. (4) However, nowhere in the previous literature does the specific term appear used as it is here, nor does it occur in the Islamic West where the Ismaili appeal of the Fatimid caliphate held sway, or in later writings of its da'wa in Egypt, Yemen, or India. Although the exact implications, or possible advantage, of overtly labeling oneself a ter'limi is not clear at this point, something unique and particular has happened and it consists of a change or alteration of the Ismaili appeal solely in the East. Moreover, it was obviously well underway and likely widely spread by the time that Nizam al-Mulk took notice, that is, the year 485/1092. The next question is who was responsible.

THE ROLE OF HASAN-I SABBAH

The answer is without much doubt or debate Hasan-i Sabbah (d. 518/1124), famed leader of the Ismailis in the East. He was the one who would have initiated its use during the underground build-up to his capture of the mountain fortress of Alamut in 483/1090, where he would establish his headquarters. Possibly there is a valid question as to whether he then directed the da'wa in the East alone or with others in a shared leadership. But the bulk of evidence points to him, although the precise details and the chronology of his pre-Alamut career present problems, in part due to a major conflict in the available sources. The main source is a difficult, often purely legendary and hagiographie text, Sargudhcisht-i sayyidna (Biography of our master), found now recorded selectively in late Ilkhanid chronicles of al-Juwayni (d. 681/1283), Rashid al-Din (d. 718/1318), and Abu al-Qasim Kashani (d. ca. 738/1337). But when and by whom it was composed is unknown and impossible to determine, although in all likelihood not any time near to Hasan's lifetime. As a source for his early career it is fraught with problems: much of it and what it reports is fiction, a hagiography at best. However, as there exists often nothing else, the general tendency is to first confess that it is unreliable but then to rely on it by picking and choosing portions that seem to be based on fact. That can prove dangerous.

A key claim in it--its account of Hasan's trip to Egypt, to Cairo and the seat of the imam-ate--is especially relevant. The Sargudhasht has him set out from Iran and arrive in Safar 471h (August 1078). He stayed in Egypt and Alexandria about two or three years in all and returned to Iran in 473/1081. While in Egypt, hoping to meet al-Mustansir, his Imam, he ran afoul of the all-powerful vizier Badr al-Jamali and eventually left without having seen the Imam. These particular details are commonly accepted and then related as if valid. (5) But that also requires ignoring a second account, unconnected to the Sargudhasht, found in the fairly reliable history of Ibn al-Athîr (d. 630/1234), and then in Ibn Muyassar (d. 677/1278) and al-Maqrizi (d. 845/1442). (6) They insist that Hasan came to Egypt in 479/1086f. and that, although he faced some difficulties, he did obtain an audience with al-Mustansir and the Fatimid caliph gave him a commission to establish an appeal on his behalf in Iran--that, in fact, the Imam told him how to go about it, i.e., what approach to use.

There are, of course, reasons for skepticism about this information as well. It certainly contradicts the first, most particularly on the issue of whether or not Hasan actually met al-Mustansir. However, what lends it credibility is that the well-informed Muhammad al-Shahrastani (d. 548/1153) seems to confirm its key features. He claims that when Hasan instituted the new approach (al-da'wa al-jadida) "he did that after having made a visit to the land of his Imam and having learned from him there how to fashion the appeal (da'wa) to his generation and time." (7) Al-Shahrastani thus reports quite clearly that Hasan had gone to Egypt, that he did in fact have an audience with al-Mustansir, and that one result was the new approach subsequently employed by the Eastern dcrwa, i.e., the restricting of Ismaili doctrines to the argument for tar'lun. By this claim the ultimate source for the resort to the tirllm argument belongs to the Imam, namely, the Fatimid caliph al-Mustansir. He is the one who first suggested it.

It is difficult to understand how it is possible to ignore al-Shahrastani's report in favor of the Sargudhasht. A growing number of modern authorities are convinced that al-Shahrastani himself was secretly an Ismaili and that he had access to Alamut and the inner workings of the da'wa of his time, even possibly to Hasan himself, who died only some three or four years prior to the writing of the work, al-MUal wa-l-nikal, where this information is given along with additional reports of Hasan's teachings. (8) What are we to make of this discrepancy? Could Hasan have made two trips to Cairo, or is one account simply wrong? Alternatively, are both evidence of after-the-fact assertions of a claim made to serve an agenda: either to affirm that Hasan had his Imam's sanction and was acting in full accord with the Fatimid imamate, or to provide a reason for the upcoming breakaway from the Egyptian caliphate, which would happen as a result of the disputed succession to al-Mustansir? (9)

AL-GHAZALI'S ATTACK

The involvement of al-Ghazali in some aspects of these events goes back in his career to his joining the entourage of Nizam al-Mulk, who then became his patron. The vizier next appointed him to a prestigious academic post in the fairly recently created Baghdad Nizamiyya Madrasa. He was thereafter to gain an even higher status, becoming a widely recognized...