IFAO

Whether the terms : ‘aql, nafs, rûḥ and qalb are real synonyms designating the same entity while considering each one in a specific aspect or do they refer to distinct entities? Concerning this question, al-Ghazâlî shows in different works a variety of theories about the definition of Man : his organism’s structure, his spiritual dimension, as well as the contours of the connecting link between these four terms.

Indeed, according to Iḥyâ ‘ulûm al-dîn, they can be considered as synonyms that may have different meanings because of the various contexts they have been found in. Mîzân al-‘amal does not distinguish the Quranic rûḥ from the nafs (the neoplatonic soul), which among others encompasses the different capacities that qualify the ‘aql in Mi‘yâr al-‘ilm, that in the Aristotelian context means nothing but “intellect”.

As for Mi‘râj al-sâlikîn, it has a tripartite anthropological sense, referring only to the animal spirit, the soul and the body form of the human being. We have too, a dichotomic conception that either divides man into body and soul ; the same way like in Kîmiyâ’ al-sa‘âda, or just into body and heart, like in al-Munqidh min al-ḍalâl.

However, the coherence of al-Ġazālī’s anthropological conception can serve as an illustration when we take into account three elements : first of all, the synchronization between the evolution of al-Ghazâlî’s thinking and the succession of the events which marked the various stages of his intellectual life. For example, we can notice his switch to Sufism and his spiritual retirement which had paramount importance in his work. Hence, the interest to know the chronology of his bibliography ; secondly, the objective approach which allies didactic pedagogy and “contextualization”, of a thinker ; and finally, his integrative tendency which associates cultures with ideals from various sources.