Freud and al-Ghazali: Two Ways of Understanding the Soul
Both Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis, and Abu Hamid al-Ghazali, the great Muslim theologian and philosopher, tried to explain what goes on inside the human self. Even though they lived in totally different worlds — Freud in 20th-century Europe and al-Ghazali in 11th-century Persia — both saw that people are made up of different inner forces that can work together or come into conflict. Freud had the benefits of an improved understanding of biology and neurobiology perhaps (Darwinian selection surely influenced him). Nonetheless, al-Ghazali’s system reveals a very deep, deep understanding of human nature as well as the intelligence to articulate this centuries before Freud.
AI generated image of a young Freud learning from al Ghazali
Lets first review the models that each proposed:
Freud’s Model: The Id, Ego, and Superego
Freud believed that the human mind has three parts that are always in tension:
The id is the source of our basic instincts. It wants food, comfort, pleasure, and sexual satisfaction. It doesn’t think about right or wrong — it just wants what it wants immediately.
The ego develops as we grow up. It represents our sense of self and uses reason to deal with the world. The ego tries to satisfy the id’s desires in realistic or acceptable ways. The ego is also a type of self-censor.
The superego is our conscience. It develops from our parents’ and society’s rules, telling us what is right or wrong. When we break those rules, we feel guilt or shame. Hence, this is where our morality maps to.
For Freud, the mind is like a battlefield between desire (id), reason (ego), and morality (superego). Mental health means keeping them in balance.
al-Ghazali’s Model: The Three Faculties of the Soul
Several centuries earlier, al-Ghazali described the human soul as having three main parts:
The concupiscent faculty (al-quwwa al-shahwiyya) is the source of our appetites — hunger, lust, and the desire for comfort.
The irascible faculty (al-quwwa al-ghaḍabiyya) gives us anger but also courage and strength. It helps us defend ourselves and stand up for what is right.
The rational faculty (al-ʿaql or al-nafs al-ʿaqliyya) is our higher, intellectual side. It allows us to recognize truth, control our impulses, and follow God’s guidance.
When the rational soul rules over the other two, a person achieves harmony and spiritual peace. When the lower parts take control, the soul becomes chaotic and lost.
How do these systems align?
On first review, it is quite clear that Freud’s id maps almost perfectly to al-Ghazali concupiscent soul — both are driven by desire and pleasure.
But what about the other two parts? Things are less obvious here but there is a correspondence on closer review.
The ego and irascible soul have a lot in common. Freud’s ego is not only rational; it’s also assertive and protective. It helps us face challenges and defend ourselves — much like the irascible faculty, which, when properly trained, becomes courage (shajāʿa) in al-Ghazali’s view. Admittedly this is not a perfect mapping, but can be viewed in the lens of human agency at large. This is in contrast to matching the “rational soul” to the ego (which is also the rational self). Since both features have the element of the “rational”, some writers have favored those two as corresponding, but I believe that the ego and irascible soul have more in common, and this also allows for the third pairing (below).
The superego and rational soul fit together well. The superego acts as an internal lawgiver. It’s the part of us that feels guilt when we do wrong and pride when we do right. The rational soul does the same, but instead of learning its laws from parents or society, it learns them from divine truth and reason. In both cases, it’s the moral compass of the self and is subject to development.
So, both systems describe an inner hierarchy:
The lowest part seeks pleasure.
The middle part asserts and manages.
The highest part judges and guides.
For Freud, this hierarchy helps explain how our mind maintains balance. For al-Ghazali, it shows how the soul can rise toward spiritual perfection.
Conclusion
Freud and al-Ghazali, though worlds apart, both saw that human beings are pulled between desire, self-control, and morality. The tension between the inner self is described by Freud’s id–ego–superego and al-Ghazalis concupiscent–irascible–rational faculties. Both systems seek to explain the inner drama in different languages — one modern and secular, the other classical and spiritual.
By connecting Freud’s superego to al-Ghazali’s rational soul, we can see how both thinkers understood the highest part of human nature: the part that judges, guides, and aspires to what is right. In Freud, this higher law comes from within society; in al-Ghazali, it comes from within the soul — as a reflection of the divine order itself.
In both systems, however, the human being stands as a creature endowed with morality, but struggling between impulse and understanding, and always reaching toward harmony within the self.
