PAKISTAN PHILOSOPHICAL CONGRESS PUBLICATION NO. 3 AL-GHAZALI’S TAHAFUT AL-FALASIFAH [INCOHERENCE OF THE PHILOSOPHERS) TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH by SABIH AHMAD KAMALI 1963 PAKISTAN PHILOSOPHICAL CONGRESS CLUB ROAD, LAHORE—3a eee Copyrigth All rights, including those of translation and reproduction im parts or whole, except for purposes of revies, reserved First published, 1958 Second impression, 1963 Queen's Road, Lahore Published by B. A. Dar, Secretary (Publications) Pakistan Philosophical Congress, Lahore TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE we present work began in 1948 as part of a compre- T hensive plan for the translation of Islamic classics under the auspices of the Muslim Educational Conference, Ali- gath, India. Prof. M. M. Sharif, then the Chairman of the Philosophy Department, Muslim University, Aligarh, was appointed as my guide. Soon after, I left Aligarh, and Prof. Sharif left India. Therefore, I could not submit to him more than the first few pages (i.e., 1-35) of the translation. Prof. Sharif’s departure not only deprived me of his invaluable guidance, but also left the Muslim Educational Conference fh an uncertain frame of mind. Consequently, I decided to have our contractual relationship terminated ; but the trans- lation continued. ‘When in 1953 I came to study at the Institute of Islamic Studies, McGill University, Montreal, Canada, the first draft ‘af this work was complete. The Institute organised a Ghazalt Seminar, at which my readings from that first draft served a twofold purpose. On the one hand, they enabled the mem- bers of the Seminar to acquaint themselves with Ghazalt’s chief philosophical work. On the other hand, they enabled me to revise my translation in the light of the comments made by the ‘auditors.’ Prof. Fadl al-Rahman of the Uni- versity of Durham, England, and Dr. A. G. O’Connor of the University of Montreal were the two members of the Seminar who also kindly read (or audited) the revised version, as I could make it ready for them by slow degrees. It was at this stage that the Institute obtained for us a proof copy of Dr. Simon Van den Bergh’s English translation of Ibn Rushd’s Tahafut al-Tahafut (since published under the aus- pices of the Gibb Memorial Trust and the International Commission for the Translation of Great Works: Oxford University Press, 1954). It gives me very great Ipleasure to acknowledge the use I have made of Dr. Van den Bergh’s scholarly work (vide the Note on pp. 309-10 which now may be taken to refer to the published work as well). ‘When revised and supplied with an Introduction and Notes, this work was submitted to, and accepted by, the McGill University (1945) as my M.A. thesis. That a work vTranslator's Preface originally undertaken outside McGill should have been accept- ed as a Thesis, or that I should have so compelety revised it as to make of it quite a new thing, is due to the interest taken in this work by Prof. W.C. Smith, Director of the Institute of Islamic Studies. Prof. Smith’ has also kindly tried to help me to find a publisher. It is through his good offices that the work has been accepted for publication by the Pakistan Philosophical Congress. It is a great honour for me thus to be connected with, and sponsored by the Congress, even as the sense in which that organisation has connected itself with Gahzali does honour to it. Nor is it a mere coin- cidence that this honour should have been done to me by the Philosophical Congress of Pakistan upon the recommendation ofits President, Prof. M. M. Sharif, who had been my guide, and was one of the architects of the great plan once entertain- ed by the Muslim Educational Conference at Aligrah. Sabils Abmad Kamali Montreat : March 11, 1958 CONTENTS Page Translator’s Preface v Introduction I Problems I, Refutation of the philosophers’ belief in the Eternity of the world 3 II. Refutation of their belief in the everlasting nature of the world, time and motion 54 III, Of their dishonesty in saying that God is the agent and the maker of the world which is His action or product: and the explanation of the fact that these words have only a metaphorical, not real, significance to them 63 IV. To show their inability to prove the existence of the creator of the world 89 V. Of their inability to prove by rational arguments that God is one, and that it is not possible to suppose two necessary beings each of which is uncaused 96 VI. Refutation of their denial of the Divine Attri- butes 109 VII. Refutation of their thesis that it is impossible that something should share a genus with God, being separated from Him by differentia; and that the intellectual division into genus and differentia is inapplicable to Him 125 VIII. Refutation of their thesis that God's is simple being—i.e., it is pure being, without a quiddity of essence to which existence would be related— and that necessary existence is to Him what quiddity is to any other being 132 IX. Of their inability to prove by rational arguments that God is not body 136 X. Of their inability to prove by rational arguments that there is a cause or creator of the world 140 vii