Despite my intense interest in Imam al Ghazali, Hujjat Al-Islam (Arabic for a leading scholar of jurisprudence), since I was young, as I have read and edited many books by him, I had never given consideration to his commentary on the balance until I was done with this book, In Zi Alhijjah, 1439 Hijri, while conducting the final review of this book, I realized that I had not tackled the theme of accurate scales, which is mentioned twice in the Holy Quran. And then I remembered Imam al Ghazali’s book, Al-Qistas al-Mustaqim. As I read it, I found out that he discussed the issue of the balance in detail. The following is an overview of my review of al Ghazali’s commentary on the balance, with the purpose of comparing and contrasting his approach to the one adopted in this book.
First, al Ghazali’s book begins with a conversation between al Ghazali and a companion who belonged to the group of authoritative instruction, al-Ghazali’s students.[1] Al Ghazali says,
“The companion unexpectedly questioned me and argued with me like one confident in his skill and his brilliant argument. He said: ‘I see that you claim the perfection of knowledge. By what balance, then, is true knowledge perceived? Is it by the balance of personal opinion and analogical deduction? But that is extremely contradictory and ambiguous and is the cause of disagreement and dispute among people. Or is it by the balance of authoritative instruction? In this case you would be obliged to follow the infallible Teacher-Imam-but I do not see you desirous of seeking him out’. I replied: ‘As for the balance of personal opinion and analogical deduction, God forbid that I should stick to it! It is the balance of Satan. And I ask God Most High to protect religion from the evil of any of my friends who alleges that it is the balance of knowledge, for he is an ignorant friend of religion-and such a one is worse than an intelligent enemy.’”[2]
Second, al Ghazali mentions five types of balance: The Greater Balance, the Middle Balance, and the Lesser Balance are included in the Balance of Parity (Equivalence); the Balance of Correlation (Concomitance) and the Balance of Opposition. Then, he explains these three types, and the following is a brief description of these types:
① The Greater Balance (of Equivalence)
This is the balance adopted by prophet Abraham (Abraham, alkhalil: Arabic for chosen by Allah as a friend) in his debate with the king of Mesopotamia, Nimrod. We have learned this balance, but by means of the Holy Quran. Nimrod claimed to be god, and to have omnipotent power. So Abraham said to Nimrod, “Allah is my God, because He gives life and causes death: He can do it and you cannot do it!” Nimrod replied: ﴾I give life and cause death﴿ (Holy Quran 2: 285﴿ meaning that he could set free a person who was sentenced to death and kill another person instead. Abraham ﷺ recognized that it was difficult for him to convince such person that his claim was unreasonable, so he came up with an irrefutable evidence. He said, as relayed by Allah in the Quran, ﴾Allah brings the sun from the East, so bring it from the West. So the blasphemer was confounded﴿ (Holy Quran 2: 285). That was why the Almighty praised Abraham; ﴾That was Our argument which We gave to Abraham against his people﴿ (Holy Quran 6: 83).
Al Ghazali said,
“Based upon this verse I knew that the argument and authoritative proof were in the utterance and balance of Abraham. So I considered how it weighs, as you considered the balance for gold and silver. And I found out that two premises are strongly correlated, and from them was engendered a conclusion which was knowledge [cognition]. Since the Quran is built on repetition and consistency, the full form of the balance is that we say:
Whoever can make the sun rise is God [one premise]. But my God can make the sun rise [a second premise]. Therefore my God is God-and not you, Nimrod.
Consider now whether one who admits the two premises can then doubt the conclusion. Or is it even conceivable that anyone can doubt these two premises?
It is a fact that God is the one who makes the sun rise because for everyone, God refers to the omnipotent, and making the sun rise belongs to the totality of those things which he can do. This premise is known by convention and agreement.”
And our statement, “The one who can make the sun rise is not you,” is known by seeing. For the impotence of Nimrod and of everyone except Him who moves the sun is proven by sight. And by God we mean the mover of the sun and the one who makes it rise. So we are compelled to conclude, from the knowledge of the first premise, known by agreed-upon convention, and of the second premise, known by seeing, that Nimrod is not God, but God is Allah the Most High.[3]
Al Ghazali, may Allah have mercy on him, uses this balance to discuss the first form of syllogistic reasoning, which includes four forms.[4]
② The Middle Balance (of Equivalence)
In his explanation of the middle balance al Ghazali said to his colleague,
“This balance also belongs to Abraham, peace be upon him. Abraham said ﴾‘I do not love those that set’﴿ (Holy Quran 6: 76). The full form of this scale is: The moon is a thing which sets. But God is not a thing which sets. Therefore the moon is not a God.
But the style of the Holy Quran is based on consistency and repetition. However, knowing that the moon is not a god is only understood after acknowledging these two premises, that the moon is a thing which sets and that God is not a thing which sets. When the two premises are known, then it is acknowledged that the moon cannot be God.
Then he said, ‘I do not doubt that the moon cannot be god based upon these two premises, if both are known. However, I know that the moon is a thing which sets and this is known by sight, but that God is not a thing which sets I know neither innately nor by sight.
I said, ‘My aim, in reporting this balance, is not to make you know that the moon is not a God. Rather it is to apprise you that the balance is accurate and that the knowledge stemming from it by this way of weighing is necessary.
From it knowledge resulted in the case of Abraham, peace be upon him!-only because it was known to him that God is not a thing which sets, though that knowledge was not primary for him, but rather was derived from two other premises which give rise to the knowledge that God is not a thing which changes [a changer]. And every changer is temporary, and setting is changing. So he based the weighing on what was known to him. Take this balance – this means of measuring divinity – and use it where there exists for you knowledge of these two premises.”[5]
This balance is also based on the second form of syllogism, which includes four forms.
③ The Lesser Balance (of Equivalence)
Al Ghazali said,
“The lesser balance we have learned from Allah the Most High as He taught it to Prophet Muhammad ﷺ in the Holy Quran, ﴾They do not value Allah as He should be valued, when they say, ‘Allah did not reveal anything to any human being.’ Say, ‘Who revealed the Scripture which Moses brought—a light and guidance for humanity?﴿ (Holy Quran 6: 91).
The way to deal with this balance is that we say: Their declaring the denial of the sending down of revelation upon men is a false declaration because of the productive coupling of two premises.
The first premise is that Moses is a human, and the second premise is that Moses is one upon whom the Book [Scripture] was revealed. So there necessarily follows from this a particular proposition, that is, there are men to whom the Book is sent down, and by this is refuted the general claim that the Book is not revealed upon any man at all.
The first premise, which is our statement “Moses is a human,” is known by sight. The second premise, which is “Moses is one upon whom the Book was sent down,” is known by their own admission, since they used to conceal part of it and manifest part of it, as the Almighty said, ﴾displaying them [parchments], yet concealing much﴿ (Holy Quran 6: 91).
And He mentioned this only in the manner of arguing by what is better. A particular feature of argument is that it suffices regarding the subject that the two premises be conceded by the adversary and accepted by him, even though doubt about it be possible for another; for the conclusion binds him if he admits it. Most of the evidences of the Quran proceed in this fashion. So if you doubt about some of the Quran’s origins and premises, know that their aim is arguing with one who does not doubt the Holy Quran, but the aim in your regard is that you learn from it [Holy Quran] how to weigh in the other places.”[6]
This balance is included in the third form of syllogistic reasoning.
④ The Balance of Correlation
Al Ghazali said:
“This balance is derived from the following Quranic verses; ﴾Had there been other gods besides Allah in the Heavens and Earth, both realms would surely have been corrupted. So glory be to God, Lord of the Throne, beyond what they allege﴿ (Holy Quran 21: 22); ﴾Say, ‘If there were other gods with Him, as they say, they would have sought a way to the Lord of the Throne’﴿ (Holy Quran 17: 42); and ﴾Had these been gods, they would not have descended into it﴿ (Holy Quran 21: 99).
The effectuation of the form of this balance is that you say: If the world has two gods, heaven and earth would have been corrupted – this is the first premise. But it is a known fact that they have not been corrupted – and this is the second premise. So there follows from these two a necessary conclusion, the denial of one of the two gods. And If there had been with the Lord of the Throne other gods, they assuredly would have sought a way to the Lord of the Throne. But it is a known fact that they did not seek that. So there follows necessarily the denial of gods other than the Lord of the Throne.[7]
⑤ The Balance of Opposition
Al Ghazali said,
“The place of the balance of opposition in the Quran can be traced in the verse in which the Almighty teaches the Prophet ﷺ how to argue with the unbelievers, ﴾Say, ‘Who provides for you from the heavens and the earth?’ Say, ‘Allah. And either you or we are rightly guided, or in evident error’﴿ (Holy Quran 34: 24) for he [the Prophet] did not mention ﴾Either you or we﴿ in the form of equalization or inducement of doubt, but rather in concealment of another premise, which is we are not in error in our saying that the Almighty provides for you from the heavens and the earth, as He who provides from the heaven by sending down water, and from the earth by causing plants to germinate. Therefore, you are in evident error because you deny this fact. The full form of the balance is ﴾either you or we are rightly guided, or in evident error﴿ and this is the first premise. Then we say: “But it is known that we are not in error’’, which is a second premise. So there follows from these two premises the conclusion that you are in error.[8]
After that, al Ghazali mentions the significance of the names of these five balances and the reason behind their designations, as he says,
“I called first one the Balance of Equivalence because in it are two premises in equilibrium as though they were two parallel scale pans.
“I called second one the Balance of Correlation because it involves two parts: one of them an independent variable, and the other a dependent variable, as in the Almighty’s saying: ﴾Had there been other gods besides Allah in the Heavens and Earth, both realms would surely have been corrupted.﴿ (Holy Quran 21: 22). The saying ﴾both realms would surely have been corrupted﴿ is the dependent variable, and the independent variable is ﴾Had there been other gods besides Allah in the Heavens and Earth﴿. Therefore they will not go to ruin, as there are no other gods.
I called third one the Balance of Opposition because it comes down to the restricting of two parts between denial and affirmation so that there follows from the existence of one of them the denial of the other, and from the denial of one of them the existence of the other: thus between the two divisions there is contradiction and opposition.”[9]
Al Ghazali then asserts that he invented these names, and that he deduced these types of balance from the Holy Quran.[10]
Al Ghazali’s Analysis of The Balances of Satan
Imam al Ghazali discusses the balances of Satan, an example of which is included in the issue of Faith: it is the balance of deceiving people into believing that the greatest is one of Allah’s attributes. The way to weigh with it is that: Allah is the greatest, and this is a premise known by agreement, but the sun is the greatest of the stars, and this a second premise known by sight. So it follows from this that the sun is a god, and this is the conclusion. Abraham pondered that issue, as his thoughts are relayed by Allah in the Quran, ﴾This [the sun] is my lord, this is bigger﴿ (Holy Quran 6: 78). Abraham could not see any star greater than the sun, but soon he directed his attention towards the Creator as he saw the sun set. Now this is a balance which Satan uses to create confusion in the minds of people and wishes to deceive them thereby. However, it is a false balance.[11]
I say that Satan has set dangerous balances, including weighing the Creator in comparison to His creation. This says that everything needs a Creator, so he goes to each of the creatures saying, ‘Who created this?’ until he reaches the Creator, and he asks, ‘Who created Him?’ Here the balance is disturbed, because it entails the invalid role and sequence[12] of reason and common sense.
[1] “group of authoritative instruction” or “Studious men”/“men of study” according to the Shiites’ vision were people of enlightenment who followed Imam al-Ghazali in order to learn from him.
[2] Al-Qistas al-Mustaqim (The Correct Balance), by Abi Hamid al-Ghazali (d. 505 Hijri), investigated by Muhammad Rikabi al-Rashidi, (al-Risalah, Cairo, distributed by Ja’afar Modern Library: Cairo), p.11.
[3] Al-Qistas al-Mustaqim (The Correct Balance), by Abi Hamid al-Ghazali (d. 505 Hijri), investigated by Muhammad Rikabi al-Rashidi, (al-Risalah, Cairo, distributed by Ja’afar Modern Library: Cairo) p.21-22.
[4] The first form is universal affirmative + universal affirmative. There is a relationship between the premises and the conclusion such that if the premises are true then the conclusion is true. The conclusion is universal affirmative. For example, the world is a creation. Every creation has a creator. Therefore, the world has a creator. The first premise must be affirmative, and the second premise must be universal. This first form includes four types:
First, the first and second premises are universal affirmative; then, the conclusion is universal affirmative, as exemplified above.
Second, the first premise is universal affirmative, and the second premise is universal negative; then, the conclusion is either universal positive or universal negative. For example, every alcoholic drink is an intoxicant; no intoxicant is permissible; therefore, no alcoholic drink is permissible.
Third, the first premise is particular affirmative, and the second premise is universal affirmative; then, the conclusion is affirmative particular. For example, some metals are made of iron; iron expands as it is heated; therefore, some metals expand as they are heated.
Fourth, the first premise is particular affirmative, and the second premise is universal negative; then, the conclusion is negative particular. For example, some animals lay eggs.
The second form: The second premise must be contained within the first premise and the conclusion. One premise must be particular, the other one must be universal, and the conclusion must be universal. This form includes four types:
- The first premise is universal affirmative, and the second premise is universal negative; then, the conclusion is universal negative. For example, all ruminants have hooves; no bird has a hoof; therefore, no ruminant is a bird.
- The first premise is universal negative, and the second premise is universal positive; then, the conclusion is universal negative. For example, No lazy student is a successful person; all diligent students are successful; therefore, no lazy student is diligent.
- The first premise is particular affirmative, and the second premise is universal negative; then, the conclusion is particular negative. For example, some metals are made of silver; copper is not made of silver; therefore, some metals are not made of copper.
- The first premise is particular negative, and the second premise is universal positive; then, the conclusion is particular negative. For example, some objects are not made of metal; gold is a metal; therefore, some objects are not made of gold.
The third form: The second premise must be contained within the first premise and the conclusion. The first premise must be affirmative, and one of its two premises must be universal. It includes many types, and the following is just an example; all gold objects are made of metal; all gold objects are precious; therefore, some metals are precious.
The fourth form: The second premise must be contained within the first premise and the conclusion. One of its two premises must be particular negative, and the first premise must be universal if the two premises are positive. It includes many types, and the following is just an example; All humans are animals; all those endowed with the faculty of speech are human; therefore, some animals are endowed with the faculty of speech.
See: Tahdhib al-Shamsiyah, al-Taftanadhi, Sharh al-Tahdhib, al-Khubaisi, and Matn al-Salm by al-Akhdari and others; as all books on logical reasoning include explanation of these four forms of syllogistic reasoning.
[5] Al-Qistas al-Mustaqim (The Correct Balance), by Abi Hamid al-Ghazali (d. 505 Hijri), investigated by Muhammad Rikabi al-Rashidi, (al-Risalah, Cairo, distributed by Ja’afar Modern Library: Cairo), p.28
[6] Al-Qistas al-Mustaqim (The Correct Balance), by Abi Hamid al-Ghazali (d. 505 Hijri), investigated by Muhammad Rikabi al-Rashidi, (al-Risalah, Cairo, distributed by Ja’afar Modern Library: Cairo), pp.32-33.
[7] Al-Qistas al-Mustaqim (The Correct Balance), by Abi Hamid al-Ghazali (d. 505 Hijri), investigated by Muhammad Rikabi al-Rashidi, (al-Risalah, Cairo, distributed by Ja’afar Modern Library: Cairo), p.35.
[8] Al-Qistas al-Mustaqim (The Correct Balance), by Abi Hamid al-Ghazali (d. 505 Hijri), investigated by Muhammad Rikabi al-Rashidi, (al-Risalah, Cairo, distributed by Ja’afar Modern Library: Cairo), pp.37-38
[9] Al-Qistas al-Mustaqim (The Correct Balance), by Abi Hamid al-Ghazali (d. 505 Hijri), investigated by Muhammad Rikabi al-Rashidi, (al-Risalah, Cairo, distributed by Ja’afar Modern Library: Cairo), p. 38-39
[12] It is the claim that every act of creation must be preceded with another act of creation with no starting point. It is based on the argument that we can think of a start point for all acts of creation. Thus, there is a series of acts that does not have a start point but has an end point in the present. This is called “the sequence of creation”.