The studies on the principle of causality in the philosophical and religious fields generally center around the views of Imam Ghazali. So far, a lot of academic work has been done regarding his approach to this subject. In fact, Imam Ghazali did not develop a new and original theory on this matter. The ideas he defended belong to leading Ash’ari theologians such as Imam Ash’ari, Imam Bakillani, and Imam Juwayni who lived before him. Even the causality view put forward by Imam Maturidi and his followers is essentially the same. The causality theory put forward by Ash’ari and Maturidi theologians, who are referred to as Ahl al-Sunna, is referred to as occasionalism today. Therefore, the explanations we will make here via Imam Ghazali can be viewed from the perspective of Ahl al-Sunna’s theory of causality.
So, why does Imam Ghazali immediately come to mind when we talk about the principle of causality? There are some understandable reasons for this, in my opinion. First, he presents this topic in a very systematic, detailed, and meticulous manner through his explanations and examples. Second, Imam Ghazali discusses the subject of causality most extensively in his work “Tahafut al-Falasifa” (Incoherence of the Philosophers), which he penned as a refutation of the philosophers’ views, and the discussions on this work have maintained their intensity to the present day. The third and in our opinion, the most important reason is that Imam Ghazali’s views on the subject have been misunderstood as contrary to common sense and scientific data, and he has even been held responsible by some circles for the backwardness of science in the Islamic world.
According to Imam Ghazali, there is no necessary relationship between what we habitually name as cause and effect. These are two independent things. Thus, proving one does not prove the other, and negating one does not negate the other. Likewise, the existence of one does not necessarily imply the existence of the other, nor does the absence of one necessitate the absence of the other. Ghazali gives the following examples to better understand the relationship between cause and effect: drinking water and quenching thirst, eating something and feeling full, contacting fire and burning, taking medicine and finding cure, using a laxative and having diarrhea, the rising of the sun and the emergence of light, the cutting of the neck and death occurring.
According to Ghazali, it is God’s creation and decree that brings about the second events following the first, making the first events cause the second. Otherwise, the results do not inherently stem from the causes, nor are they inseparable from them. Creating satiety without eating, as well as continued hunger despite eating, are within the power of God. Ghazali criticizes philosophers who see this as impossible.
Ghazali further elaborates on the subject using the example of fire and cotton. According to him, it is permissible (possible) for the cotton not to burn upon contact with fire, or for the cotton to burn and turn to ash without the presence of fire. According to those who oppose this view, fire is the active cause, and burning is inherently sourced from its nature. Therefore, it is not possible for fire, which has the intrinsic property of burning, to be prevented from doing so when it comes in contact with a combustible material. Ghazali states, “This is exactly what we refute.” and continues, “The agent of burning is Allah the Almighty. He does this by creating blackness, disintegration, and ash in the cotton.” The Lord may perform this creation either directly or through angels. A lifeless and thus unconscious substance like fire cannot have an act on its own.
Ghazali then focuses on the arguments of those who see fire as the agent of burning. They have no evidence for this claim, and they reach such a conclusion based solely on observation. However, according to him, observation only informs us that burning occurs when fire and cotton are brought together. Otherwise, we could not know from observation alone that burning stems directly from the fire, nor could observation tell us whether there are other causes of burning. However, being next to something does not indicate that it is caused by it. (In the second article, we discussed how centuries later, many Western philosophers, including David Hume, expressed similar views.)
He then provides the following example to prove his views: Consider a person born blind who has never heard anyone else distinguish between night and day. When the blindfold is removed during the day and this person starts to see colors, he might think that his ability to see is due to his eyes being opened. However, when the sun sets and it becomes dark, he realizes that his seeing is caused by the sunlight. So how can someone who thinks differently be sure that the events occurring in the universe stem from certain causes and effects based solely on the precedence and succession of two events? Their only basis is that the chain of cause and effect continues this way, not ceasing. They are not moving objects that they would cease to exist. If they did disappear, then we would recognize this distinction and understand that there are other causes beyond what is apparent.
Imam Ghazali brings up the example of Prophet Abraham not burning despite being thrown into the fire. According to those who say that causes necessarily produce results, this miracle could have occurred in two ways: either the heat was taken from the fire, altering its nature, or the nature of Prophet Abraham was changed so that the fire would not affect him. However, if the agent is understood to be God, who also created the act of burning through His will, then it is also understood that He might not create the act of burning despite contact with the fire.
Imam Ghazali acknowledges that denying the necessity between cause and effect, attributing the results not to the causes but to the divine will that creates them, and not having a specific and special method for this divine will can make everything possible and this means complete uncertainty and chaos. As Ghazali puts it, in such a case, everyone could assume that aggressive monsters, burning flames, steep mountains, or armed enemies prepared to kill might be in front of them, but they do not see them because God has not created sight in them. Or someone who leaves a book at home might return to find a child, an intelligent being, or an animal instead of the book. Ghazali gives other examples as well to demonstrate how we can be sure of regularity in life if we do not see causes as agents and everything is attributed to a Creator capable of creating anything He wishes. This is indeed a topic that needs to be thought through and understood well.
According to Ghazali, attributing all beings and events in the universe to God’s creation does not mean denying the observed regularity in the universe as it might seem. First, there is a law of creation in the universe (adetullah), and second, God, who is the creator of everything, has also created in our minds a knowledge that beings and events will flow according to certain cause-effect relationships, and the extraordinary possibilities mentioned above will not occur. The association between cause and effect that has been observed until today continues in the same manner, so a definitive knowledge has formed in our minds that events cannot occur in any other way. Ghazali’s explanations are made because it is possible for everything with respect to God, both occurring and not occurring are permissible to Him. The fact that something is possible with respect to God and that He might not do it despite being able to, does not contradict the knowledge He creates in us. (Imam Ghazali, Tahafut al-Falasifa, pp. 239-251)
Imam Ghazali also responds to the philosophers’ views on causality in his work “Tahafut” as well as in “al-Iqtisad fi’l-i’tikad”, where he addresses the Mutazilite theory that suggests the events and movements in the world originate from each other. According to him, all events that are named as cause and effect actually continue according to the laws called “sunnatullah” (or adetullah) set by God. He says: All existing entities, with their substances and accidents, come into being by the power of God. It is His power that creates and brings forth all beings, and none of these beings come into being through the mediation of others; all are manifested by His power. (Ghazali, al-Iqtisad fi’l-i’tikad, pp. 323-327)
Imam Ghazali says that people with weak faith will cling to means. For example, such people look at the sunlight when the day brightens. Those who are knowledgeable know that all causes are subjected to God’s command. He compares the situation of those who cling to causes due to weakness in faith to a smart ant assumed to be on paper. When the ant sees the writings appearing on the paper as the pencil moves, it thinks the pencil is writing because it cannot look up to see the fingers, the hand, the will moving them, the human writing these, and then the Creator who created all these. Just like this, most people see only the nearest and lowest cause but cannot see further up to the Supreme Creator who creates these causes. (Imam Ghazali, Ihya’ ulum al-din, 1/34)
Imam Ghazali explains in his work “Maqasid al-Falasifa” that causes cannot truly have an effect on results: “Do not think that poison harms or kills by its nature, that food satiates and benefits by its nature, that angels, humans, devils, the heavens, stars, and other beings have the power to do good or evil, harm or benefit by their nature. Instead, all these are agents appointed by God for certain tasks… When you need food, water, earth, sky, etc., do not think that you need anything other than God… Do not think that a child is independent of God because it needs its mother. The only being it truly needs is God. He is the one who creates the milk in the mother’s breast and the affection she feels for the child. Although beings may seem interconnected, in reality, they all depend on God’s power.”
In the next article, we will address the criticisms directed at Imam Ghazali and how they can be responded to.
