Available via license: CC BY
Content may be subject to copyright.
hp://www.hts.org.za Open Access
HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies
ISSN: (Online) 2072-8050, (Print) 0259-9422
Page 1 of 6 Original Research
Read online:
Scan this QR
code with your
smart phone or
mobile device
to read online.
Author:
Ghorban Elmi1,2
Aliaon:
1Department of Comparave
Religions and Myscism,
Faculty of Theology, University
of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
²Department of Science of
Religion and Missiology,
Faculty of Theology and
Religion, University of
Pretoria, South Africa
Research Project Registraon:
Project Leader: J. Beyers
Project Number: 02440237
Descripon:
This research is part of the
research project, ‘Religion,
Theology and Educaon’,
directed by Prof. Dr Jaco
Beyers, Programme Manager:
Biblical and Religious
Studies and member of the
Department of Science of
Religion and Missiology,
Faculty of Theology and
Religion, University of
Pretoria.
Corresponding author:
Ghorban Elmi,
gelmi@ut.ac.ir
Dates:
Received: 21 Dec. 2018
Accepted: 31 May 2019
Published: 12 Nov. 2019
How to cite this arcle:
Elmi, G., 2019,
‘Ahmad Ghazali’s Satan’,
HTS Teologiese Studies/
Theological Studies 75(3),
a5368. hps://doi.org/
10.4102/hts.v75i3.5368
Copyright:
© 2019. The Authors.
Licensee: AOSIS. This work
is licensed under the
Creave Commons
Aribuon License.
Introducon
One of the important and interesting issues in Islamic culture is the story of Satan or Iblis,1 his
worship and disobedience, his refusal to prostration to Adam, his rejection by God and, finally, his
hostility to Adam’s children until the Day of Resurrection. The Koran does not tell a simple story
of Iblis but weaves a complex and suggestive narrative that allows for a range of diverse
interpretations. The Koran indeed not only allows its exploration but also invites and encourages
it. Therefore, Satan, through the centuries, has been a figure of speculation among Muslim
scholars, who have been trying to explain his ambiguous identification.
Traditions on this point are numerous and conflicting. Among Muslim scholars, the Sufis’ view of
Satan is one of the most controversial and at the same time most attractive categories reflected in
their most important texts. But their portrayal of Satan is different, and in some cases opposite.
Although some of the Sufis are not in agreement with a positive portrayal of Satan, and their
viewpoint on him is much more in tune with Islamic orthodoxy, but a number of them, who believe
in the unity of existence, consider Satan’s refusal to bow before Adam as full devotion to God alone;
consequently, they depict him as an example of a true lover of God and a teacher of monotheism
(El-Zein 2017:44).2 Therefore, one of the most fascinating aspects of mystical psychology in Islam is
the way in which the Sufis have dealt with Satan, the power of evil (Schimmel 1975:193).
Of the three most famous Sufis who defended Satan, two were executed for heresy. Even today
they are widely revered by many who consider Sufism to be true Islam, and they are seen
as martyrs to a blind puritanical reaction. The first and best known was Husayn ibn Mansur
al-Hallaj, executed in Baghdad in A.D. 922 (Wilson 1993:88). The second sheikh who defended
Satan was Aḥmad al-Ghazali,3 who avoided execution (if not execration) both by the very density
1.In this study, Iblis, Shaytan, Satan and Devil will be used interchangeably. Satan is called by two names in the Koran: Iblis (Koran, 1983 II,
34; VII, 11; XV, 31–32; XVII, 61; XVIII, 50; XX, 116, etc.) and Shaytan (Koran 1983, II, 36; XX, 120, etc.). Iblis is a proper name which ‘derives
from the root bls, because [it] has nothing to expect (ublisa) from the mercy of God’ (Wensinck 1971:668–669). Most Islamic sources
explain this name with reference to a verbal root b.l.s., which they dene (with reference to iblis), ‘to be cut o ’ (qu’a), ‘to become
silent’ (sakata), ‘to be despondent’ (ya’isa), or ‘to regret’ (nadima). Yet even if b.l.s. is considered a genuine root (and not invented simply
to explain iblis); this etymology is problemac, as iblis is a nominal form with few parallels, parcularly among personal names. His other
name Shaytan is more a common name and means ‘the Tempter’. Each of these names corresponds clearly to one role that the devil
plays. When he is the rebel, the one who refuses God’s command to bow to Adam (e.g. Koran, 1983, II, 34; XX, 116), he is Iblis. When he
is the tempter, who leads Adam to sin (e.g. Koran 1983, II, 36; XX, 120), he is al-shaytan (see Reynolds 2004:680–681).
2.Satan preferred to be cursed than to prostrate himself before someone else other than the ‘Beloved’ (here referring to God). Thus Iblis
became an example for unrequited love and manifestaon of chivalry (Schimmel 1975:195).
3.Majd al-Dīn Abū al-Fotuḥ Aḥmad Ghazālī (c. 1061–1123 or 1126), brother of the more famous Muhammad Ghazali, a Persian mysc,
writer and eloquent preacher, made his way via Hamadan to Baghdad and took his brother’s place when the laer rered from
teaching at the Nizamiyya. He is best known in the history of Susm for his ideas on love, expressed primarily in the celebrated work
entled Sawāniḥ. This book, a series of short and very subtle meditaons in prose and verse upon the trinity of Beloved, Love and
Lover, set a fashion which was followed by, amongst others, Ayn al-Qozat of Hamadan (executed in 1131, the poet Eraqi (d. 1289), and
the great Jami (d. 1492). His thought, centred as it was on the idea of love, le a profound mark on the development of Persian myscal
literature, especially poetry celebrang love. Many of the topoi (maẓāmīn) used by later poets such as ʿAar, Saʿdi, ʿIrāqī and Hafez, to
name but a few, can be traced to his works, parcularly the Sawāneḥ. The most important works of him are al-Tajrid kalimat al-
tawhid, a discussion of the admissibility of sama’ (Su music and dancing), a subtle psychology of love, Sawanih, (probably) the Risalat
al-Tayr, which was the inspiraon for the Mank al-tayr of Farid al-Din ‘Aa’r, and other minor wrings which have not yet been
invesgated. His sermons were very popular in Baghdad and were collected in two volumes by Sa`id b. Faris al-Labbani; of these,
however, only extracts are preserved in Ibn al-Jawzi. In them he undertook the defence of Satan (al-ta’assub li-Iblis), popular in many
Su circles since Hallaj (see: Mujahid 1376:1–199).
This article studies Ghazali’s viewpoint regarding Satan or Iblis. Ghazali’s interpretation of Satan
is very different from that of traditional ones. Despite the Koran’s negative portrayal of Satan,
Ghazali elaborates a new transformative theology of Satan. He defends Satan and considers him
as the paragon of lovers in self-sacrifice. According to him, Satan’s refusal to bow down before
God’s creation, Adam, signifies that Satan alone manifests the purest devotion to God’s oneness
and is thus the unrivalled champion of tawhid. Ghazali’s sympathetic understanding of Satan is a
logical outcome of his theory of love. He depicts Satan not only as a sincere worshipper, but also
as a true lover. He loves God even though he curses and casts him out. Because of being cursed,
he has acquired a long life and a position of power over the whole world.
Keywords: Ahmad Ghazali; Iblis; Satan; Sufism; Love.
Ahmad Ghazali’s Satan
Read online:
Scan this QR
code with your
smart phone or
mobile device
to read online.
Page 2 of 6 Original Research
hp://www.hts.org.za Open Access
of his mystical language and by having a powerful brother,
Abu Hamid Muhammad al-Ghazali, famous for the
impeccable orthodoxy of his Sufism. Ahmad al-Ghazali,4 a
Sufi master from the late 11th and early 12th centuries, echoed
Hallaj on many points, saying for instance, that ‘whoever
does not learn adherence to Divine Unity from Satan, is an
unbeliever’ (Schimmel 1975:195) and ‘Though Satan was
cursed and humiliated, he was still the paragon of lovers in
self-sacrifice’ (Ghazali 2013; Wilson 1993:88).
Although Ghazali has been studied by many critics and
scholars, no specific study has been made of the image of
Satan in his writings. This is when he was the first and
influential Sufi who elaborated a new transformative theology
of Satan. Even Peter Awn in his Satan’s Tragedy and Redemption:
Iblis in Sufi Psychology, too, has not dealt with Ghazali’s views
on Satan, independently and completely. The purpose of this
article is to study his viewpoint regarding Satan.
Many aspects of Ghazali’s thought, particularly his emphasis
on sympathy for Satan (ta’assub al-shaytan), have clear
precedents in the early Sufi tradition. The two major apparent
sources of Ghazali’s representation of Satan are the Koran and
the writings of previous Sufis, especially Hallaj’s Tawasin.5
Ghazali’s view
According to the traditional Islamic interpretation (e.g. Koran
1983, II, 30–37; VII, 10–19; XVIII, 50; XXXVIII, 71–85), Satan
refused to submit to God’s command and was sentenced to
hell by him for his disobedience. Why would God want the
angels to worship something other than God himself, especially
something apparently younger and inferior to them? Some of
the great masters of Sufism did not agree with the traditional
interpretation of the story of Satan’s disobedience and were
puzzled over God’s command and concluded that God could
not have truly wanted Satan to worship Adam. To illustrate
this point, they told stories depicting conversations with Satan;
the following story comes from Ahmad Ghazali:
1. Moses met with Satan on Sinai and said to him: ‘Oh Satan,
why didn’t you prostrate to Adam?’ Satan: ‘No! I will
never bow down before a human be ing, oh Moses! You
made the claim to be a monotheist, but I am a monotheist
and have never turned to another.’ You, however, said:
‘Let me see You!’, and then you looked at the mountain.
Thus I’m more upright in monotheism than you. He said:
4.Ahmad Ghazzali, one of the most important gures in the development of Persian
Su literature, in turn iniated and taught the third of our shaykhs, Ayn al-Qozat
Hamadani. The least known but perhaps most brilliant, he was imprisoned in
Baghdad and executed in his hometown of Hamadan (in northwest Iran) in A.D.
1131 at the age of 33 (Wilson 1993:89).
5.Hallaj is considered to be the rst tangible literary representave of the new
concepon of Satan. A text of Hallaj which has been preserved in the Koran
commentary of Rozbihan Baqli goes as follows: When Satan was told: ‘Bow down
before Adam!’, he addressed God and said: ‘Has the honour of bowing down
(before You) been withdrawn from my interior? Do You no longer wish for
prostraon so that I should bow down before him? If You’ve ordered me to do this,
You’ve also forbidden it (earlier)!’ God said to him: ‘I will torment (punish) you with
eternal torment’. Satan: ‘Will You not look at me while You torment me?’ God: ‘Yes,
I will’. Satan: ‘Then Your gaze directed at me will cause me to endure the sight of
the torment (the punishment). Do what You wish with me!’ God: ‘I will make you
into the pelted one’. Satan: ‘Isn’t it so that nothing else but You has ever penetrated
my interior? Do what You wish with me!’ (Massignon 1982:866–867; Rier
2003:556).
‘Bow down before the other!’ I didn’t bow down, but you
turned to ward the mountain’. At this point, Ahmad
Ghazali inserted: ‘Whoever doesn’t learn monotheism
from Satan is a heretic (zindiq)’.
2. Moses: ‘Your external form has been transformed from
the angelic to the demonic’. Satan: ‘This is only a state of
the moment which is transitory and will change again.
Oh Moses, the greater His love becomes for someone
other than me, the greater my love becomes for Him’.
3. Moses: ‘Do you still recollect Him (do you still mention His
name)?’ – Satan: ‘I’m mentioned along with His mention
(when He says (Koran 1983, XXXVIII, 78)): ‘And upon you
is My curse (wa ‘inna ‘alayka la’nati)’. ‘Does He not use the
pronoun of the second and the first person together?’
4. And he (Ahmad Ghazali) said: ‘When Satan was
repudiated, neither his service, nor his love, nor his
recollection of God was thereby decreased’. (Ghazali
1376:13; Ibn al-Jawzi 1986:77; Ritter 2003:558–559)6
This story contains a motif which must have particularly
enticed the mystics to formulate a reinterpretation. The
demand to bow down in worship before a created being,
someone other than God, is in fact a direct slap in the face to
the most sacred command of mystical monotheism. Strictly
speaking, the refusal to prostrate oneself before a being other
than God must have seemed to them an act of genuine
monotheistic adoration of God. In this way, Satan now
becomes, so to speak, more monotheistic than God himself,
unless God wants something other than what he ordered. In
fact, the latter is what comes to be taught (Ritter 2003:555).
Satan’s refusal to bow down with all the other angels before
God’s creation in human form signifies that Satan alone
manifests the purest devotion to God’s oneness. He will not
compromise his adherence to this monotheistic ideal even if
God himself commands him to. Satan the disobedient thus
becomes the improbable champion of tawhid, the unwavering
conviction that God is eternally and essentially one and
alone to be worshipped. Satan practises pure worship of God
contrary to the explicit command of God. He becomes cursed
for his disobedience to God’s command, which, however,
was really an act of exclusive adoration as God had otherwise
demanded (Ritter 2003:555). Therefore, his disobedience was
because of his love and single-heartedness (see Ghazali
2013:75). Ghazali was the classical representative of Satan’s
rehabilitation, who dared to say: ‘who does not learn tauhid
from Satan, is an infidel’ (Ibn al-Jawzi 1986:221) – a remark that
infuriated the orthodox but found an echo in many later Sufi
writings (Schimmel 1975:194).
6.Ghazali’s version of this story is somewhat dierent, although it reects the
inuence of al-Hallaj (see Hallaj 1913:45–47). Louis Massignon claims that
Ahmad al-Ghazali read porons from the Tawasin in his sermons at the Behruz
Ribat in Baghdad (Massignon 1982: vol. 2: p. 162). This may be so, but it is not
substanated by the sources. There is enough variaon in their respecve
accounts to indicate that al-Ghazali could have received this indirectly through an
oral tradion, rather than having direct access to a text. Both accounts portray
Iblis as a sincere worshipper of the one God. But whereas Hallaj has him cricise
Moses, al-Ghazali uses Moses as a mere interlocutor. Al-Hallaj has Iblis deliver a
lesson regarding the nature of gnosis, but in Ghazali’s account Iblis explains only
the nature of his parcular relaonship with God. This may demonstrate that
al-Ghazali or those from whom he received the account, agreed with al-Hallaj
regarding the nature of Iblis’ trial, but did not agree that Moses was to be
cricised for the nature of his worship.
Page 3 of 6 Original Research
hp://www.hts.org.za Open Access
In several instances, Ghazali follows the standard Islamic
teaching in which Satan is presented as a disobedient Jinn,
who had risen to the level of the angels but was then
obstinate when ordered to prostrate before man, claiming
‘I am better than him. You created me from fire and created
him from clay’ (Koran 1983, XXXVIII, 76). Having been
cursed by God, he then became the enemy of both man and
God, who will be punished for his intransigence (Ghazali
1376:26, 29, 32, 52). But at the same time, in his Majalis and
in several excerpts from his sermons preserved in the
biographical tradition, he portrays Satan as the greatest
lover and the foremost of God’s servants in testifying to
unity (tawhid). According to this strange and touching
theory, he is represented as the great lover who did not want
to worship anything other than God and therefore refused to
prostrate, obedient to the Divine Will, yet disobedient to the
Divine Command (Schimmel 1993:208).
But how are these two opposite viewpoints brought together
by Ghazali and how he explains the rest of the Koran’s negative
descriptions of Satan. In reply to this problem, it must be said
that Ghazali’s understanding of religion and God is different.
His thoughts go far beyond the institutionalised religion and
its doctrines. He transcends all artificial boundaries and looks
inward. For him the major thrust of religion is love. God is the
ultimate object of man’s love.
Ghazali does not abrogate the established theological and
legal schools, nor does he dismiss their relevance. But,
according to him, apart from established religions, there is
another religion, ‘religion of love’.7 The Sufis of the ‘religion of
love’, including Ghazali, assert that those scholars who deny
the primacy of love and limit themselves to the ‘externals’ are
‘highway robbers and immature children’ (Safi 2003). The
lovers of God follow the madhhab-i ‘ishq [path of love] and
madhhab-i khuda [God’s path] (Hamadani 1994:115–116). The
Sufis of the path of love were presenting not a new religion,
but a fresh, dynamic and ever-transforming understanding of
themselves, the world around them and the Divine based
primarily on love (Safi 2003).8 After quoting the Koranic verse
‘He loves them and they love Him’ (Koran V, 54), Ghazali
(2013) moves on to a quatrain which identifies the madhahb
followed by him and other members of the path of love:
From before existence
our steed set out with love.
Our night forever illuminated
from the lamp of Union.
Until we return to non-existence
you will not find our lips dry
from that wine
un-forbidden in our path (madhhab). (p. 17)
7.‘ The religion of Love is apart from all religions. For lovers, the (only) religion and
creed is – God’ (Rumi 1926:vol. 2, p. 312).
8.Religion of love is rooted in the rst principle of Islamic thought – the fact that
there is no god but God, no being but the true Being, no beloved but the true
Beloved, no lover but the true Lover – it follows that lovers see themselves and all
things exisng at the pleasure of the Beloved. His lovers love him as he is, not as
they imagine him to be. This means that they embrace him in all his beauty and
majesty, mercy and wrath, gentleness and severity. Hence, they experience
constant ups and downs, all of them reecng the joy of union and the pain of
separaon (see Chick 1983:45–47).
Ghazali’s depiction of Satan can only be understood within
the general framework of his Sufic thoughts, especially his
religion of love. His sympathetic understanding of Satan is a
logical outcome of his theory of love. Therefore, Ghazali’s
Satan should be seen from a mystical point of view. It is
interesting to note that the central theme of Ghazali’s works,
that is, love, is explained here by Satan.
His Satan does not give up his love for God, no matter what
happens to him. A lover’s duty is to love even if the beloved
decides to send the lover away for some time or even if the
beloved decides to afflict sufferings upon the lover. Satan’s
refusal to bow to man is thus a deep expression of sincere
monotheism and hence of pure love. The lover is one who
accepts without questioning, one who surrenders completely
to the will of the beloved.
Ghazali’s Satan claims that God’s Will (Iradah) was that he
should not bow down to anybody except him, and his
Command (Amr) to bow down to Adam was only a test for
him. Thus he remains loyal to God’s Will and disobeys his
Command. Here Satan’s action of disobedience derives
from his single-headed devotion to God. He remains faithful
to God’s first Will regardless of its consequences. Ghazali
sees Satan as a perfect example of ardent lover. His refusal
was not out of disobedience or pride but out of jealousy.
He wants to have all the love of the beloved for himself
and does not want to share the love of his beloved with
anybody else.
Therefore, Ghazali, though a true Muslim, is not a follower
of institutionalised religion. That is why his Satan does not
literally correspond with the Koranic image. He, as a result
of his inheritance of a rich Sufi tradition, interprets the
Koran in a new way and presents a different image of Satan.
Satan as a lover and sincere
worshipper
The tragic situation of Satan inspired Ghazali to express his
sympathy with him whose predicament, in a cer tain sense,
foreshadowed the difficulties humans would have to
undergo in this world. It was Ghazali who elaborated a new
transformative theology of Satan. Of course, as previously
observed, this is not entirely his own; he owes a debt to
earlier masters, and especially to al-Hallaj. The latter, after
all, had been bold enough to declare:
There was no monotheist like Satan among the inhabitants of
the heavens. When the essence revealed itself to him in stunning
glory, he renounced even a glance at it and worshipped
God in ascetic isolation. . . God said to him, ‘Bow!’ he replied,
‘To no other!’ He said to him, ‘Even if My curse be upon you?’
He cried out, ‘To no other!’. (Awn 1993:124; Hallaj 1913:43–44;
Ormsby 2008:36)
For Ghazali, Satan is a tragic lover of God. Ghazali defends
him by saying, ‘The poor guy didn’t know that the claws
of Providence draw blood when they scratch and that
Page 4 of 6 Original Research
hp://www.hts.org.za Open Access
the arrows of Predestination kill quickly when they fly’
(Ibn al-Jawzi 1413:vol. 9:p. 261; Ritter 2003:557). This
unexpected transformation of Satan may not be unconnected
with the renewal and gradual elaboration of the doctrine of
the love of God that spread among Muslim mystics and was
to become one of the defining characteristics of Sufis in later
centuries. Some Sufi Muslims held to a view of Satan which
emphasises his love for God as the motivation for his
decision not to bow to Adam (see Hallaj 1384:52–53; Nuri
Öztürk 1382:331–332; Zarrinkoob 1393:141). Sufi teachers
such as Hallaj present the story of Satan as a predestined
scenario in which Satan plays the role of a tragic and jealous
lover of Allah who, unable to perceive the Divine Image in
Adam, was compelled to disobey the divine mandate to bow
down to him (see Hallaj 1913:52–53; Nicholson 1923:31–33).
Satan, as a lover of God, was confronted with a tragic
dilemma. Either he must dishonour the ‘Beloved’ (God) by
bowing down to something lesser, or he must disobey him
and accept the banishment and condemnation. Satan was
faced with a predicament presenting a choice between
God’s will and his command. The myth of Satan in an
allusive and paradoxical way explains the demands of a
total lover for God above even the obedience to God set
forth in his commands. This love was an affliction (bala’) –
affliction in love. This affliction was not merely the trial
that the lover – here Satan – had to endure; it was the ‘jewel
of God’s treasury’. Ahmad Ghazali (2013) connects this
affliction to a sophisticated love theory:
Love, in its true nature, is but an affliction (bala’), and intimacy
(uns) and ease are something alien to it and are provisionally
borrowed. This is because separation in love is indeed duality
while union is indeed oneness. (p. 36)
Ghazali depicts Satan not only as a sincere worshipper, but
also as a true lover. The ultimate significance of Satan is
found in an account related by Ibn al-Jawzi in which
al-Ghazali says, ‘whoever has not learned tawhid from Satan
is a dualist (zandiq)’ (Ibn al-Jawzi 1413:vol. 17: p. 239). It is
interesting to notice that the central theme of Ghazali’s
works is love, and his sympathetic understanding of Satan
is a logical outcome of his theory of love. The relationship
between God and his creatures is depicted as the relationship
between the beloved and the lover. As the lover has been
separated from his beloved, he is restlessly and constantly
searching for that state of union again. Even Satan functions
within the love of God. For him there is nothing that can
function outside the sovereignty of God’s love. Everything
is in love with God and desires him. Ghazali believes that
all of creation must necessarily have a face of beauty turned
towards the beloved, otherwise it could not exist. From this
perspective, the ugliness of Satan as he turns towards
creation is because he knows that God alone possesses true
beauty.
His refusal to bow to a human is thus a deep expression of
sincere monotheism and hence of pure love. Ghazali’s Satan
here is very different from that of the Koran. It is not a matter
of disobedience and pride but a matter of love. Satan is
depicted as a lover, and not simply an admiring but a devoted
and sincere lover.
For Ghazali, as for Hallaj before him, Satan is perfect in
testifying to unity. His refusal to bow to Adam results not from
arrogance, but from the purest and most sincere love of God.
He is, therefore, a model for those who follow the path of love.
Satan is in one sense the ultimate lover of God. He loves
God even though God curses and casts him out; indeed, he
loves God because God banishes him. To be singled out
by God in such a way is, perversely, to assume the badge –
perhaps ‘scar’ would be the better word – of a radical
distinction. To love God against God is to love God for his
own sole sake. No reward for such love may be expected.
And with the removal of reward, love is based purely upon
itself (Ormsby 2008:37).
According to his theory Satan, or Iblis, was a true lover of
God, and his disobedience was because of his love and
single-heartedness. As he says (Ghazali 2013):
Love has a (high) aspiration (himmat) so that the lover desires a
beloved who has a sublime quality. Thus he does not accept as
his beloved just any beloved who may fall in the snare of union.
(p. 75)
This is why when Satan was told (by God): ‘My curse shall be
upon you’ (Koran 1983, XXXVIII, 78), he responded: ‘I swear
by Thy Glory’ (Koran 1983, XXXVIII, 82). By this he meant
(Ghazali 2013):
I myself love this manifestation of Glory from Thee, for no one is
worthy of being needed by Thee, nor is anyone suitable for Thee,
for if anything (or anyone) were suitable for Thee, then the Glory
would not have been perfect. (p. 75)
Benet of being cursed
Being cursed of Satan in Sufi literature, especially in Ghazali’s
understanding, comes to be evaluated positively. Satan,
within his feelings, sees himself as a true lover. Having the
curse placed on him has not been completely with out benefit
for Satan. Because of it, he has acquired a long life and a
position of power over the whole world (cf. Koran 1983, XVII,
62 ‘Verily, if You allow me to live until the Final Day, I will
surely force his [Adam’s] descendants to be under my power
except for a few’). And he stands continually at God’s door.
Being cursed also ap pears to be a distinction which is
intended on God’s part and not just perceived as such by
Satan. Only outwardly does it have the character of an
unmasking to conceal the real intimacy. Satan himself wants
this distinction, the curse. He wants to possess something
special which distinguishes him from all the other angels and
creatures.
That which would be an evil for everyone else is a precious
gift for Satan. Satan behaves like the authentic lover who
Page 5 of 6 Original Research
hp://www.hts.org.za Open Access
gladly endures whatever the beloved does to him, indeed
experiences it as something that makes him happy because
in such a case the beloved focuses his will on him (Ritter
2003:563–565).
As a real lover, he goes further than this and considers his
being cursed by God as a felicitous distinction because, in
contrast to all the other angels, he has become the object
of an expression of God’s will aimed especially at him
(Ritter 2003:556).
Ghazali stresses rather emphatically the viewpoint that the
beloved’s cruelty because it entails active attention given to
the lover, must signify happiness and joy for the latter.
Indeed, the beloved, when he punishes the lover, confers
distinction on him by being attentive to him, whereas he may
be utterly indif ferent towards others. Bad treatment, after all,
amounts to estab lishing a relationship. If the archer wishes to
hit you with his arrow, he must turn his face towards you
completely. To hit you he must focus his mind on you
completely (Ritter 2003:408–409); as he says: ‘How can such
a connective bond not be enough for you? After all, in this
way he has given preference to one above all the others’.
‘Take an arrow with my name out of the quiver and draw it
on your strong bow! Are you looking for a target? Here’s
my heart! Your part is to strike hard, my part is to cry:
‘Woe!’ (Ghazali 1359:20). Finaly, Ghazali has great sympathy
for Satan and believes that he was a martyr and his
martyrdom was a martyrdom of love (Hayes 2003:163).
Conclusion
The foregoing passages and references indicate that despite
the Koran’s negative portrayal of Satan, Ahmad Ghazali
defends Satan and considers him as the paragon of lovers in
self-sacrifice. His mystical interpretation on the paradoxical
struggle of Satan centres on his apparent disobedience to
God’s second command (to bow before Adam), in order to
remain faithful to God’s first command to worship only God.
He believes that Satan refused to bow not because of his
pride, but because of his extreme fidelity to God. Satan was
only doing what he had been created to do. Ghazali attempts
to rehabilitate Satan, so he dares to say: ‘who does not learn
tawhid [monotheism] from Satan, is an infidel’. Satan’s
refusal to bow down before God’s creation, Adam, signifies
that Satan alone manifests the purest devotion to God’s
oneness and is thus the unrivalled champion of monotheism.
Ghazali’s sympathetic understanding of Satan is a logical
outcome of his theory of love. Ghazali sees love as the
essence of God and the substance from which all else is
woven. From this perspective, every existent thing is a self-
disclosure (tajalli) of the God. He depicts Satan, not only as a
sincere worshipper, but also as a true lover. Satan is in one
sense the ultimate lover of God. He loves God even though
God curses and casts him out. Having the curse placed on
him has not been completely with out benefit for Satan.
Because of it he has acquired a long life and a position of
power over the whole world. As a real lover, Satan considers
his being cursed by God as a felicitous distinction because, in
contrast to all the other angels, he has become the object of an
expression of God’s will aimed especially at him. Finally,
Ghazali’s image of Satan is both similar to and different from
that of the Koran. The difference comes back to Ghazali’s
mystical perspective and his theory of love. As a result of this
perspective, he presents a new interpretation of the Koranic
verses and a different image of Satan. In the framework of
his mystical thoughts, especially his religion of love, in a true
sense of the word Islam (submission), Satan is a Muslim
because he submits totally to God, his Beloved. Satan is only
playing the role that has been assigned to him by the
Almighty God. Satan is a lover of God and perhaps the true
lover of God because he loves him regardless of all the
suffering and pain that he has to endure. But there is still a
question, if he was a true lover, why he did not completely
succumb to God’s command and refused to prostrate before
Adam?
Acknowledgements
Compeng interests
The author declares that he has no financial or personal
relationship which may have inappropriately influenced him
in writing this article.
Author(s) contribuons
I declare that I am the sole author of this research article.
Ethical consideraon
This article followed all ethical standards for carrying out
research without direct contact with human or animal
subjects.
Funding informaon
This research received no specific grant from any funding
agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Data availability statement
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data
were created or analysed in this study.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of
the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or
position of any affiliated agency of the authors.
References
Awn, P.J., 1983, Satan’s tragedy and redempon: Iblis in Su Psychology, E. J. Brill,
Leiden.
Chick, W.C., 1983, The Su path of love: The spiritual teachings of Rumi, State
University of New York Press, New York.
El-Zein, A., 2017, Islam, Arabs, and intelligent world of the Jinn, Syracuse University
Press, New York.
Ghazzali, A., 1376sh, Majalis, (with Persian translaon) A. Mujahid, (ed.), Mu’assiseh-
ye Insharat va Chap-i Danigah-I, Tehran.
Page 6 of 6 Original Research
hp://www.hts.org.za Open Access
Ghazzali, A., 1359sh, Sawānih, N. Pourjavady (ed.), (based on Hellmut Rier ’s edion),
Intesharat-e Boniad-e Farhang, Tehran.
Ghazzali, A., 2013, Sawanih: Inspiraons from the world of pure spirits, transl. N.
Pourjavady, Kegan Paul, London.
Hallaj, Abu l-Mughith Husayn b. Mansur, 1384, Kitab at-Tawasin, ed. L. Massignon,
transl. Mahmood Behrouzifard, Eela’t, Tehran.
Hallaj, Abu l-Mughith Husayn b. Mansur, 1913, Kitab at-Tawasin, ed. L. Massignon, Paris.
Hamadani, ‘Ayn al-Qozat, 1994, Tamhidat, ‘Af ‘Usayran, ed., Kitabkhana-yi Manuchihri,
Tehran.
Hayes, C.S., 2003, An ontological study of Iblis al-Shaytan, The University of Texas,
Ausn.
Ibn al-Jawzi, Abu-l-Faraj, 1413, al-Muntazam ta’rikh al-muluk wa-l-umam, Dar
al-Kutub al-Ilmiyya, Beirut.
Ibn al-Jawzi, Abu-l-Faraj, 1986, Kitab al-qussas wa-l-mudhakkirin, ed. and transl.
Merlin S. Swartz, Dar al-Mashreq, Beirut.
Massignon, L., 1982, The passion of al-Hallaj: Mysc and martyr of Islam, transl. H.
Mason, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Mujahid, A., 1376sh, Majmu’eh-yei athar-I farsi-ye Ahmad Ghazali, Intesharat-e
Danesgah-e Tehran, Tehran.
Nicholson, R.A., 1923, The idea of personality in Susm, Cambridge University Press,
London.
Nuri Öztürk, Y., 1382sh, Shahid-e rahe haqiqat va Ishq Husayn b. Mansur Hallaj va
athar-e ‘ou, transl. T. Sobhani, Rauzaneh, Tehran.
Ormsby, E., 2008, The three faces of Satan in Islam, in Deliver Us from Evil: Essays on
the Worst of Problems, ed. by M. David Eckel and Bradley L. Herling, University of
Notre Dame Press, South Bend, pp. 28–43.
Reynolds, G.S., 2004, ‘A reecon on two Qurʾānic words (Iblīs and Jūdī), with
aenon to the theories of A. Mingana’, Journal of the American Oriental Society
124(4), 675–689.
Rier, H., 2003, ‘ The ocean of the soul: Man, the world, and God in the stories of
Farid al-Din ‘Aar’, transl. J. O’Kane, with editorial assistance of B. Radtke, Brill,
Leiden.
Rumi, J., 1926, The Mathnawi of Rumi, vol. 2, trans. R. Nicholson, Cambridge
University Press, London.
Sa, O., 2003, ‘On the “path of love” towards the divine: A journey with Muslim
myscs’, Journal of Scriptural Reasoning 3(2), 22–38.
Schimmel, A., 1975, Myscal dimensions of Islam, The University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
Schimmel, A., 1993, The triumphal sun: A study of the works of Jalaloddin Rumi, State
University of New York Press, New York.
The Holy Koran, Text, 1983, Translaon and Commentary by A. Yusuf AIL Brentwood,
Amana Corp, Beltsville, MD.
Wensinck, A.J., 1971, ‘Iblis’, The encyclopedia of Islam, new edn., vol. 3. Brill, Leiden.
Wilson, P.L., 1993, Sacred dri: Essays on the margins of Islam, City Lights Books, San
Francisco, CA.
Zarrinkoub, A., 1393sh, Jostojouye dar Tasawwof-e Iran, Amirkabir, Tehran.
