THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA Poverty in al-Ghazali’s Iḥyā’ ‘Ulūm al-Dīn A DISSERTATION Submitted to the Faculty of the School of Theology and Religious Studies Of The Catholic University of America In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree Doctor of Philosophy © Copyright All Rights Reserved By Brooks L. Barber Washington, D.C. 2016 Abstract Poverty in al-Ghazali’s Iḥyā’ ‘Ulūm al-Dīn Brooks L. Barber, Ph.D. Director: Wilhelmus Valkenberg, Ph.D. This dissertation researches the meaning and function of poverty (faqr) in the thought of the Muslim theologian al-Ghazali (d. 1111), whose Iḥyā’ includes an entire book of material devoted to the subject. Here, we find poverty used as a foundational stage of spiritual development in the trajectory of al-Ghazali’s mystical ethics, so that a Muslim who becomes materially poor begins a journey along a path that leads to God and thus overcoming the poverty of existence inherent to all of creation. Although Jesus appears in this text as an important exemplar for both poverty and the related renunciation (zuhd) in al-Ghazali’s work, the author chooses another figure to represent the highest manifestation of poverty in this life: the Prophet Muhammad’s wife ‘A’isha. Her detachment from the wealth of the world demonstrates her attainment to the level of ‘one without need’ (mustaghnī), a designation that aligns her, and any other who reaches it, with the divine attribute of Needlessness (al-Ghanī), and thus with God. This understanding of poverty as a spiritual ideal is then contextualized at various levels: in relation to the broader thought of al-Ghazali, in reference to his historical sources and interlocutors, and inter-religiously in comparison with the writings on poverty of the thirteenth- century Franciscan tradition. Using three primary currents of thought on poverty that emerge from the Franciscan poverty disputes, this dissertation establishes a heuristic device that allows for an inter-religious comparison between al-Ghazali and Bonaventure, both of whom occupy moderate theological positions on poverty in relation to their own religious traditions. This comparison results in the recognition of both superficial similarities and deeper doctrinal and theological differences about Jesus’s role in exemplifying poverty. Such a comparison leads to a mutual understanding of the two theological traditions studied here, and to the realization that differing interpretations of the figure of Jesus can result in inter-religious enrichment. This dissertation by Brooks Barber fulfills the dissertation requirements for the doctoral degree in Religion and Culture, School of Theology and Religious Studies approved by Wilhelmus Valkenberg, Ph.D., as Director, and by Joshua Bencons, Ph.D., and Paul Heck, Ph.D., as Readers. ____________________________________ Wilhelmus Valkenberg, Ph.D., Director ____________________________________ Joshua Benson, Ph.D., Reader ____________________________________ Paul Heck, Ph.D., Reader ii Dedication To my late father, George Gleason Barber, who never allowed me to consider the alternative to finishing. To my mother, Sandra Barber, who always made me believe this dissertation would be possible. And finally, to my loving wife, Amelia, without whom this would not have been possible, and whose love and support have been unparalleled. iii Table of Contents Introduction………………………………………………………………………….………….... 1 Chapter One Approaches to the Iḥyā’ and al-Ghazali’s Mystical Ethics …………………………………..… 28 Chapter Two A Close Reading of the Book of Poverty and Renunciation ………………………………...… 64 Chapter Three Poverty as a Means to Loving God …………………………………………...…………..……107 Chapter Four The Sources and Interlocutors of Book XXXIV of al-Ghazali’s Iḥyā’ ………………………. 152 Chapter Five Scholastics, Spirituals, and Seculars: Establishing a Comparative Heuristic Device ……….... 207 Chapter Six Christ, Poverty, and the Love of God: Theology of Poverty in Bonaventure and al-Ghazali ... 263 Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………………......…... 319 iv Acknowledgements I would like to extend deep thanks to my dissertation director, Dr. Pim Valkenberg, for his willingness to jump into such a project with little knowledge of its author. He has also inspired me with his level of insight, his dedication to completing this dissertation, and his advocacy for my work. I am also indebted to my committee members, Dr. Joshua Benson and Dr. Paul Heck, for their willingness to devote their precious time to guiding me through the writing of this dissertation. I must thank my parents, who have always believed in my ability to complete a doctoral degree, and who have facilitated its pursuit every steop of the way. My other family and friends also deserve gratitude for their aid and concern over the past seven years. The person who deserves my most profound thanks is my wife, Amelia, who has demonstrated uncommon devotion and patience as I have pursued my degree. I hope someday to be able to reciprocate her support in an endeavor of her own. v Introduction Poverty has plagued human civilization for millennia; even what we think of now as poverty, a profound lack of material wealth or access to needs necessary for survival, has persisted for the past thousand years, especially with the advent of large urban areas. Among the many approaches to the alleviation of poverty, religious responses have been varied and universal. Nearly every religious tradition contains within it a call to social justice, which includes providing aid or charity to those in need; some of the most visible manifestations of this come from the largest religions, such as Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, and Hinduism. Furthermore, given their sizes and long histories, each of these religions contains various responses to the problem of poverty. Poverty as a Comparative Religious Concept Poverty has been studied in many ways: as a social problem, a political issue, an economic challenge, a moral dilemma. This dissertation devotes itself to looking at the problem of poverty through the lens of religious responses to it. Even these vary in their method, with some viewing poverty as an inherently negative social phenomenon to be avoided, others as an opportunity for the pious to exhibit charity, and still others as something to be pursued for the purpose of ascetic practice. It is this last approach that has perhaps garnered the most attention from within religious groups, as nearly every major religious tradition has developed a strain of ascetic belief and practice that involves the discipline of bodily desires for the purpose of freeing the soul or mind from the ensnarement of the world around us. A brief look at how some of the 1 2 most widely practiced religions today have dealt with poverty in their systems of thought demonstrates its importance and relevance as a comparative concept. Hinduism holds several profound connections to poverty and wealth, both material and spiritual.1 One of the four legitimate goals for human life, mokṣa, or the pursuit of liberation, frequently includes the renunciation of attachment to worldly goods, known as sannyāsa. The other three goals, however, consist in pursuing prosperity in this life in some way or another. Artha is the pursuit of wealth, kāma is the pursuit of sensual pleasures, and dharma is the pursuit of virtue, which includes among its prescriptions the moral imperative to alleviate or eliminate poverty according to one’s ability.2 Furthermore, India in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries has been mired in poverty, perhaps as a result of British imperialism, which left the former caste system disrupted and exacerbated its problems in relation to poverty. Thus, Indian scholars have continued to struggle with poverty, both its roots and remedies, to the current day.3 Growing out of a conflict with certain Hindu beliefs, Buddhism has had a complicated relationship with poverty throughout its history.4 On the one hand, it is something to be avoided because it causes dukkha, or human suffering, while on the other hand, it is a hallmark of the 1 Gurcharan Das, India Unbound (New York: A. A. Knopf, 2001); C. T. Kurien, “Economic Growth and Poverty in India,” Religion and Society 55, no. 4 (December 2010): 43-53; Arvind Sharma, “Hinduism and Poverty,” in Poverty and Morality: Religious and Secular Perspectives, eds. William A. Galston and Peter H. Hoffenberg (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 160-79. 2 Arvind Sharma, The Hindu Scriptural Value System and the Economic Development of India (New Delhi: Heritage, 1980). 3 Keerti Shah, “Urban poverty in India: a strategic framework for poverty reduction,” Religion and Society 52, no. 3- 4 (S-D 2007): 149-55. 4 David R. Loy, “The Karma of Poverty: A Buddhist Perspective,” in Poverty and Morality: Religious and Secular Perspectives, eds. William A. Galston and Peter H. Hoffenberg (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 44-61; K. Anuruddha Thera, “The Buddhist Attitude to Poverty,” Dialogue 7, no. 3 (S-D 1980): 99-103. 3 monastic sangha, the community of bhikkhu monks who own nothing but clothing and food bowls. Shakyamuni Buddha pursued an ascetic lifestyle in order to escape his suffering, but this did not alleviate his plight. So he came to realize the truth of the impermanence of the world and the necessity of human non-attachment to it. Buddhism defines poverty, then, as positive in the context of monasticism and negative in terms of its laypeople; however, human beings are better served by developing a