Why Al-Ghazali's Theory of Ethics cannot explain morality in a Mixed Society

In the Islamic community, Al-Ghazali's works and theories are often turned to when looking for solutions to current issues, one of which is the issue of morality and ethics. While it is tempting to turn to familiar theories, Al-Ghazali's theory of ethics actually cannot explain morality in the mixed society we find ourselves in today. In this article, we will outline at why Al-Ghazali's theory of ethics is incomplete and cannot explain morality in a mixed society where Muslims and non-Muslims interact and live alongside one another.  

Who was Al-Ghazali? 

Al-Ghazali was a prominent Islamic theologian, scholar, jurist, mystic, and philosopher in the Sunni tradition. He was known for his refutation and responsa to the prevailing philosophical theories during his era in his book Tahafut al-Falasifa, The Incoherence of The Philosophers. He played a major role in the reformation of Islamic philosophical thought and established himself as a figure head of Islamic philosophy that still stands till this day. 

He was heavily influenced by Aristotelian philosophy and ascribed to a deontological understanding of philosophy and ethics. The deontological school posits that actions and deeds are deemed good or evil based on a set of concrete rules determined by a formal belief system. In Al-Ghazali's case, the system was Islam. Deontological theory demands an absolute belief in the underlying ideology and regards it as an indisputable fact; a fact which sets the premise for all the theory and philosophy that follows.  

Al-Ghazali defined ethics as a tool the soul uses to guard itself from vices. And he defines vices as those outlined by the shariah. Thus, we can see that Al-Ghazali's theory of ethics is rooted in an Islamic world view and cannot be divorced thereof. He explains ethics through his ethical model which is based on the premise of Islam and taqwa. Moreover, the scope of ethics for Al-Ghazali is much wider than the contemporary understanding. His study of ethics comprises of the right behaviour between oneself and one’s fellow man, as well as the right behaviour between oneself and one’s creator. Thus, his ethics concerns both Muamalah and Ibadah.  

It can be understood that according to Al-Ghazali, ethics toward God and ethics towards mankind are inseparable. Therefore, a society with a secularist world view will never be able to attain true morality and is, at its core, immoral. Al-Ghazali's central ethical question is what does it mean to have faith? He intertwines faith with morality and ethics. To have faith is to have ethical conduct and to have ethical conduct is to worship God. 

Free will is also central to his theory. He posits that man is given intellect, but the intellect is easily influenced by shaitan and only by choosing to follow the shariah can the intellect be guided towards righteousness. This concept is at the core of Al-Ghazali's ethical model. Man’s constitution exposes him to a fundamental inner struggle that forces him to use his free will to choose between right and wrong. Thus, the role of choice, absolute good and evil, and the constitution of man is at the nucleus of Al-Ghazali's ethical model.  

What is Al-Ghazali's ethical Model? 

Al-Ghazali's ethical model is based on the relationship between the intellect (aql), anger (Ghadab), appetite (Shahwah), satanic element (Shaytaniyah), and the self (Ruh, qalb, and nafs). It is a foundational creedal understanding in Islam that man is created in perfection (fitrah), yet he is forgetful. Al-Ghazali's theory of ethics interacts with this intimately. He posits that the four elements in the constitution of man and each element affects his nature in separate ways and in different proportions. These constitutional elements interact and inform man’s behaviour and morality. Each element pulls man in a particular direction. The relationship between the divine and satanic elements are of particular interest with regards to morality and ethical conduct. 

The divine element is the element of man that is most god-like and god-aspiring. It is this element of man that guides him towards divinity and urges him to seek to mimic God in His attributes (99 names/attributes of Allah). This element in man’s constitution orients man towards ethics, godliness, morality, and good conduct. The satanic element, however, pulls man towards lowliness, greed, and immorality. Although the satanic and divine elements are of opposing forces, man is inclined towards the divine due to man’s inherent fitrah.  

Although all born in the state of fitrah, man is likewise given free will to choose between the two forces. Thus, it is upon every man to choose his lot. The one of divinity or the one of satan. Al-Ghazali posits that the tool with which man uses to enforce his free will is his intellect (aql). Yet the intellect, too, is subject to the pull of the divine and satanic elements. 

Al-Ghazali suggests that the only way for the intellect to be tamed from the satanic element is through the guidance of the shariah. Once the intellect is free from the protection of the shariah, the intellect runs amok and the satanic element dominates the person, amplifying his propensity for fulfilling his appetites, greed and anger. Al-Ghazali's theory of ethics is thus heavily based on the underlying premise that man can only maintain morality through divine guidance which is done only through following the shariah.  

The Problem 

The primary difficulty in implementing this theory of ethics is that it is dependent on a person having the same deontological beliefs as Al-Ghazali; that is, Islam. It logically follows that Al-Ghazali's theory of ethics implies that without Islam, there is no ethics. This begs the question: to what standard do we measure the ethical conduct of non-Muslims? If there is no morality without Islam, should ethical conduct be expected of non-Muslims? 

Further, what does this say about a society where Muslims live alongside non-Muslims? Since morality cannot be achieved without the guidance of the shariah and the shariah cannot be imposed on non-Muslims, is a mixed society expected, then, to contend with chaos and immorality? Is an integrated society, then, supposed to just fatally accept the unethical behaviour within it? 

Moreover, this begs the question to what extent are Muslims supposed to interact with non-Muslims? If morality is only achieved through the guidance of the Shariah, should Muslims avoid non-Muslims in business ventures to avoid their inevitable unethical conduct? This seems at odds with Islam’s cooperative spirit. Further, if non-Muslims can never achieve morality due to the lack of guidance from the shariah, then are they really liable for their unethical conduct? If an individual is divorced from the key component to maintaining ethical behaviour, is he at fault when he behaves unethically? 

This leaves us in a state of despair. From a creedal perspective, Muslims must believe that Islam is the whole truth and the key to justice. However, according to Al-Ghazali's theory of ethics, the shariah is the only route to morality. It follows that we must, then, accept that so long as individuals in society do not follow shariah, there will be no morality. This lends itself to a fatalistic world view that is not conducive to harmonic cooperation among Muslims and non-Muslims. 

Al-Ghazali suggests that a non-Islamic form of ‘ethics’ will be a form of bounded ethics and not true ethics in itself. Further, the element of the intellect and education Al-Ghazali forwards as a solution to immorality will also be ineffective in a secularist milieu as his definitions of knowledge and the intellect are so tightly intertwined with the Islamic world view. 

We can see from the above line of reasoning that Al-Ghazali's theory of ethics in the context of an integrated society is at its core incomplete. Clearly, his model fails to explain and give solutions to the integrated landscape we find ourselves in today. It must not be forgotten that throughout history Muslims have always lived alongside non-Muslims and conducted business ventures in cooperation with them, yet Al-Ghazali's theory of ethics ultimately leaves no place for a society with non-Muslim players as he fails to provide solutions to unethical conduct outside the sphere of Islam. Thus, Al-Ghazali's theory of ethics is incomplete in both the modern contexts as well as in the historical context. 

Al-Ghazali leaves no room for morality in a secular context. His “no morality without Islam” principle explains unethical behaviour in the world but offers no solution and no way forward for an integrated society. Such an ethical model is of little functionality as it fails to provide actionable solutions to the current state of affairs.