In his "Incoherence of the Philosophers", al-Ghazālī attacks Avicenna's theories about the eternity of the universe and insists on the possibility of miracles.
I honestly think it's stupid to think al ghazali was the reason the Muslims declined. Infact al ghazzali had a major impact in Islamic jurisprudence and Sufism but Islamic scholars dismissed him as weak in hadith, the point is Muslims were defintley influenced by ghazali in many aspects but he was no pope nor was he given the reverence of early Muslims known as the salaf. Meaning Islamic scholars (asharites) could and did disagree with al ghazali on many things including theology. I think the fact that for the last 2 centuries of caliphate the economy was terrible and science prospers in rich empires this is a historical fact. Let's not forget the sacking of Baghdad and destruction of Persia by Mongol invaders and the loss of Spain were huge blows to Islam. Lastly and the most obvious proof that al ghazali didn't really affect science in Islam is the fact that science flourished many centuries after al ghazali, most of the islamic works in astronomy were produced after all ghazalis death( ibnl shatir, Ali al qushji etc.) Major discoveries in medical sciences occurred centuries after all ghazali( ibnal nafis, ibn tufail for example). In fact apart from political instability and threat from northern spain , philosophy was thriving I'm north Africa and Spain during ibn rushd's time
PEOPLE WHO SAY THAT HAVE NEVER REAL AL-GHAZALIS WORK ! lol - As I imagine your like me, I was a bit nervous to dig in - But i am now I am 6 works deep and now on my 7th of Ghazalis books/works- the man was a genius and sooooo GREAT at playing the philosophers at their very own game in proving Islam, Allah, etc. without using scripture Quantum Physicists actually look up to Ghazali and say he was right in many areas based on science and math alone - he did not HAULT the Islamic world from moving forward - no ONE MAN can do that
Absolutely agree. In fact, Al Ghazali was actually really familiar with mathematics, he was really good at it. One more thing, after the spanish banished the muslims from Iberian peninsula they didnt destroy most of the palaces and libraries giving them actual treasure to learn what the muslims had left them behind unlike the mongols.
@@iamleoooo good at maths ? I don't get your point . Methodology of physicists and mathematicians are different. How imam ghazali radhi allah anhu reachs to the conclusions from maths . He reached to the conclusions and refuted the philosophers on the basis of logic . Right ? . Please explain what you meant
Al-Gazali was indeed together with others such as Imam Ahmed Ibn Hambal and the other 3 schools of thought were the cause of the decline of the Muslims despite the fact that they were very smart and learned people for which they used their INTELECT but others were not allowed to use that same intellect and they had to believe blindly. Imam bin Hanbal preferred a weak hadith than his own reasoning Al Gazali made his own laws such as Hallal to conquer countries from the pagans without threat simply because they do not believe, you can burn a house where music was played with the owner in it Even if someone simply did not come to the mosque, you can burn down his house, and you must throw gays off a high building! In my opinion they were not believers Salamon alaykom!
Omar why would you have disdain for someone who lived almost a thousand years before you were ever born. Al ghazzali was a sincere man who in his quest for truth sincerely believed his opponents were wrong and that he was defending the truth, regardless of your views on religion I would recommend reading his biography it's quite interesting.
@@lorax121323 ''they allow for there to be debate and reasoning between people with different belief systems'' and thats what AL-Ghazzali did in his book تهافت الفلاسفة
@@lorax121323 Al=Ghazzali was not against the Philosophy . he was trying to establish a new way of thinking about Philosophy rather than just copying the Greek experience That can lead to a stop the development of the way philosophy is used / I really see a big gape between what AlGhazzali want to Address to and How The West Thinkers understanding him
@@lorax121323 almost the same philosophical approach with Arthur Schopenhauer if you'd wanna check out. He offers a way other than reason to reach beyond the limit of Kant's phenomenal world.
The fact that thinkers and philissofers are debating and discussing each others by writing books to prove the correctness of their theory or the righteousness of their ways , points to the intellectual level of the Muslims in this period and it does not matter what the essence of the difference between the thoughts is
Can somebody tell me what that song is at the start and end? Edit: the song is called Rast Kar-I Muhtesem, I still need to know who sings this. Thanks.
Are you sure he was speaking of Plato or Referring to Plotinus ? Allot people mistake the two and Plotinus was more excepted in the muslim world as well .
Al ghazali was not against the philosophy but he was against those who consider that every thing ( problem) can solve by philosophy ( wisdom) Al ghazali opposed and said that the final solution and reason will be Quran, hadith and all revealed books.... philosophical thoughts should followed the Quran and all revealed books not against them...
Ibn rushd The Incoherence of the Incoherence ...great book from a golden age muslim universal scholar ...to understand what went wrong since the 13th century
@@Larrypint I know and all muslim learners know about the book of ibn rushd ... his point of view even was different from al ghazali but he was not enemy of ghazali... both were great Islamic scholars thier ijtihadi thoughts show the beauty of Islam ... as the people say opposition is the beauty of democracy...
@@sportsgrouphighway6108 yes but that pluralism totally left the Islamic theology, now the orthodoxy is just talking about quran,sunna,sira and that's it.
@@Larrypint Quran, suna and sharia should not to be accordance to philosophy but with the help of philosophy Quran and suna should be understand ... so rather fully orthodoxy is the death of research but some time we can say Islam means to surrender to follow to obey to accept to pay to offer to love...... in these words no place for philosophy...
@@sportsgrouphighway6108 Philosophy also has the task to question ideologies and to find logical flaws. And every human being has the right to think critical. That was part of Islam in the golden age. It isn't anymore in orthodoxie, but a lot of Muslim people think privately much more critical about fiqh,hadd punishments and premedival morals, they just look rarely for the roots of the problems. That's not reasonable and has destructive consequences for a soviety.
Hey contredicted the quran...Al-Gazali was indeed together with others such as Imam Ahmed Ibn Hambal and the other 3 schools of thought were the cause of the decline of the Muslims despite the fact that they were very smart and learned people for which they used their INTELECT but others were allowed to use that same intellect didn't use it and they had to believe blindly. Imam bin Hanbal preferred a weak hadith than his own reasoning Al Gazali made his own laws such as Hallal to conquer countries from the pagans without threat simply because they do not believe, you can burn a house where music was played with the owner in it Even if someone simply did not come to the mosque, you can burn down his house, and you must throw gays off a high building!
I am a native speaker ,so I use this word in my daily conversation. When you have a bad feeling or worried about a situation you use this word to express your eternal feeling of fear or worries.
Al Ghazali did not attack philosophy in an absolute way. Nothing can be attacked in an absolute way : Quran 94:6 With difficulty is surely ease. He instead gave a value to philosophy on the scale of self realization on the path of Allah. He demonstrated that value could not be compared to the one of Sufism on that scale. His credibility is unquestioned as he was a reputable professor mastering philosophy before he quited his University position to disappear in the desert to discover sufism. Allah in His generosity gave him therefore the two eyes that enabled him to see things through different lights. At the end of the process, on light is brighter than the other one...
al ghazali attacked the greek philosophers based on the fact that they where pagans....his disvalue of the rationality and the preference for the revelation have killed the islamic culture and trasform that disgusting thing that is islam in something even worst....
@@GGkus i don't care if you judge it populist, i think is true....also to convince someone you should say something more than " go study" you should better go study something...
@@1984magu If I am not mistaken, Al Ghazali wrote Incoherence of the Philosophers before his decision to overcome his ego and seek exile and soul search (period during which he penned his greatest contribution - The Revival of the Religious Sciences). My reading of the latter so far indicates that he does not undervalue rationality. Quite the contrary, he often uses rationality as a conduit to illustrate his views and refute competing ones. Happy reading. And don't forget, we are all ignorant in this world (!) Having an open mind is a precondition to deriving the benefits of the knowledge we gain. Peace and love
@@yahyamahayni well well ... You are not mistaken, BUT his incoherence of the philosofers STILL influenced the future of islam, what he makes After Is COMPLETELY IRRILEVANT !!! there Is a reason for the inferiority of your culture, deal with It ;)
@Valeek Rafeeh you just said he was a philosopher. That's what I wanted to prove. Man go and listen to Shaykh Hamza Yusuf on imam Ghazali and just take a second perhaps to read or like I did listen to the alchemy of happiness then comeback. Peace (Not trying to fight here okay?)
@Valeek Rafeeh I never said that you are against Ghazali. I dont know who you are. And I'd like if you dont guess who I am either. I simply wanted to make the point that Ghazali was a philosopher. That's it. That was the original comment. And maybe I'm reading it wrong but you do seem angry agitated and slightly hateful in your assumptions of me. Ghazali ought to teach us better. I guess you agree with ibn rushd then
@Valeek Rafeeh because I too made a presumption. That the man in the video was claiming that Ghazali killed philosophy in islamic thought. To that I said unfortunately he didnt.
@Valeek Rafeeh wow. Wowow. That is hilarious in all honesty. Well atleast we had a good laugh. And try your best to not be so quick to judge bro. And remind me if you get a chance
@@EMHDan No it's not. Allah is not the name of a 'god' It's just Arabic for God, so the translation " No God but God" is indeed correct. Even arab Christians and jews use "Allah" to refer to God.
@@maazahmedpoke lmao you are so wrong and ignorance.. please stop spreading the ignorance if you are not sure about your information, allah is a name of god.. إله = god ....... الله = allah " a name of god" hope you got the differences
People come up with stupid ideas all the time. Most sink without trace. Occasionally they're useful to one or another group jockeying for political power, who promote them. Ghazali's anti-philosophy wasn't a cause of islamic decline - it was a symptom, and an excuse of those who benefited from it.
oyoter9ox Ghazali did express support for a scientific methodology based on demonstration and mathematics,because the person assumed he was against it in some manner this seems apologetic, Al ghazali was simply emphasizing the spiritual realities he wasnt focusing on science he was addressing problems since people in his time became entirely materialistic or attached to the material causes it became necessary to emphasis the spiritual causes
No, though it's a common misconception, along with the idea that he "destroyed Islamic science." We can see that this is notion of false just with all the great philosophy and Science that took place for centuries after al-Ghazali.(Ottoman empire had its own observatories way before Europe did). The idea that Al-Ghazali led some charge against rationality, philosophy, science, and mathematics is widely bandied about, even by otherwise intelligent people, but is basically nonsense. Al-Ghazali approved of the benefits and truth of mathematics and science. Same with logic from philosophy. Al-Ghazali's problem was with dogmatic adherance to Greek philosophy, particularly Aristotelianism, and specifically as applied to theology. He saw people basing their understanding of God and other metaphysical realities on Aristotle rather than Islamic texts, even to the extent of taking Aristotle over clear and contradicting Islamic texts. Most significantly, on three points: (1) The supposed eternity of the world (2) God's knowledge of particulars (3) Bodily resurrection. The only caution Ghazali had with respect to math and science is that math and science are such effective means of finding truth within their areas, that some believers will unquestioningly follow the mathematicians and scientists even in areas outside math and science, particularly religion. So that, for example, a believer would take a scientist's opinions on science, just because he is good at science. Which is actually a pretty astute observation that is just as fresh now as then. Neil Degrasse-Tyson (as much as I like him generally) on Cosmos, and the people who take him too seriously on non-science topics is like a textbook example of what Ghazali was warning about.
Your statement is a parrot say accusing algazali in declining the Islam, it is baseless and lack of proves . Just because he had a religious background ? . The flourishing of Muslims in philosophy and science start from Islamic system of thinknig . Al gazali was a great thinker in his time that you cannot imagine.
I honestly think it's stupid to think al ghazali was the reason the Muslims declined. Infact al ghazzali had a major impact in Islamic jurisprudence and Sufism but Islamic scholars dismissed him as weak in hadith, the point is Muslims were defintley influenced by ghazali in many aspects but he was no pope nor was he given the reverence of early Muslims known as the salaf. Meaning Islamic scholars (asharites) could and did disagree with al ghazali on many things including theology. I think the fact that for the last 2 centuries of caliphate the economy was terrible and science prospers in rich empires this is a historical fact. Let's not forget the sacking of Baghdad and destruction of Persia by Mongol invaders and the loss of Spain were huge blows to Islam. Lastly and the most obvious proof that al ghazali didn't really affect science in Islam is the fact that science flourished many centuries after al ghazali, most of the islamic works in astronomy were produced after all ghazalis death( ibnl shatir, Ali al qushji etc.) Major discoveries in medical sciences occurred centuries after all ghazali( ibnal nafis, ibn tufail for example). In fact apart from political instability and threat from northern spain , philosophy was thriving I'm north Africa and Spain during ibn rushd's time
The sacking of Baghdad and destruction of Persia by the Mongols, plus the Christian conquest of Andalus certainly weakened the intellectual and scientific strength of the Muslim world. No more House of Wisdom, no more great libraries in Andalus, no more Khalifal patronage for science, engineering and mathematics. However, the spectacular defeat and expulsion of the Mongols by the Mamluks, the first such reverse they had experienced, had the effect of not only astonishing the rest of the world, but consolidating and strengthening the political and military power of the (now fake, even by earlier lights) central Khalifate. I'm not touting the bursting of the Mamluks out of Egypt and onto the world stage, by kicking the arses of the feared Mongols so effectively, as any sort of great leap forward. It wasn't! In fact, Islam might have prospered better, and been more diverse under Mongol rule. They tolerated all religions and never sacked any place or slaughtered people who surrendered to them. Yes, I know that was theologically impossible for the Abbasid, or any other, Khalifate, so it's simply reverie on my part. To continue the reverie, however, there would probably have been no Ottoman empire (with its even thinner pretence of a "Khalifate" than the Mamluks' edition) if the Mongols and their rag-tag crusader remnant allies had triumphed at Ain Jalut in 1260. But they didn't. Despite the military ingenuity of the Mamluks, the Mongols might have won in 1260 if it were not for the death of Batu Khan, a succession dispute and incipient civil war back home, where many of their leading archons returned to secure their various competing interests. So they didn't win and were humiliated instead. Ho hum! However, all that was around 150 years AFTER al-Ghazali's death.
Who else thought that was a cassette tape?
Exactly!
I honestly think it's stupid to think al ghazali was the reason the Muslims declined. Infact al ghazzali had a major impact in Islamic jurisprudence and Sufism but Islamic scholars dismissed him as weak in hadith, the point is Muslims were defintley influenced by ghazali in many aspects but he was no pope nor was he given the reverence of early Muslims known as the salaf. Meaning Islamic scholars (asharites) could and did disagree with al ghazali on many things including theology. I think the fact that for the last 2 centuries of caliphate the economy was terrible and science prospers in rich empires this is a historical fact. Let's not forget the sacking of Baghdad and destruction of Persia by Mongol invaders and the loss of Spain were huge blows to Islam. Lastly and the most obvious proof that al ghazali didn't really affect science in Islam is the fact that science flourished many centuries after al ghazali, most of the islamic works in astronomy were produced after all ghazalis death( ibnl shatir, Ali al qushji etc.) Major discoveries in medical sciences occurred centuries after all ghazali( ibnal nafis, ibn tufail for example). In fact apart from political instability and threat from northern spain , philosophy was thriving I'm north Africa and Spain during ibn rushd's time
PEOPLE WHO SAY THAT HAVE NEVER REAL AL-GHAZALIS WORK ! lol - As I imagine your like me, I was a bit nervous to dig in - But i am now I am 6 works deep and now on my 7th of Ghazalis books/works- the man was a genius and sooooo GREAT at playing the philosophers at their very own game in proving Islam, Allah, etc. without using scripture
Quantum Physicists actually look up to Ghazali and say he was right in many areas based on science and math alone - he did not HAULT the Islamic world from moving forward - no ONE MAN can do that
Absolutely agree. In fact, Al Ghazali was actually really familiar with mathematics, he was really good at it.
One more thing, after the spanish banished the muslims from Iberian peninsula they didnt destroy most of the palaces and libraries giving them actual treasure to learn what the muslims had left them behind unlike the mongols.
Al ghazali contributed to the decline, be wasn't the only reason for the decline.
@@iamleoooo good at maths ? I don't get your point . Methodology of physicists and mathematicians are different. How imam ghazali radhi allah anhu reachs to the conclusions from maths . He reached to the conclusions and refuted the philosophers on the basis of logic . Right ? . Please explain what you meant
Al-Gazali was indeed together with others such as Imam Ahmed Ibn Hambal and the other 3 schools of thought were the cause of the decline of the Muslims despite the fact that they were very smart and learned people for which they used their INTELECT but others were not allowed to use that same intellect and they had to believe blindly. Imam bin Hanbal preferred a weak hadith than his own reasoning Al Gazali made his own laws such as Hallal to conquer countries from the pagans without threat simply because they do not believe, you can burn a house where music was played with the owner in it Even if someone simply did not come to the mosque, you can burn down his house, and you must throw gays off a high building! In my opinion they were not believers
Salamon alaykom!
Thank you for posting!!
Thanks for posting.
Omar why would you have disdain for someone who lived almost a thousand years before you were ever born. Al ghazzali was a sincere man who in his quest for truth sincerely believed his opponents were wrong and that he was defending the truth, regardless of your views on religion I would recommend reading his biography it's quite interesting.
Any specific book u recommend ??
@@lorax121323 ''they allow for there to be debate and reasoning between people with different belief systems'' and thats what AL-Ghazzali did in his book تهافت الفلاسفة
@@lorax121323 Al=Ghazzali was not against the Philosophy . he was trying to establish a new way of thinking about Philosophy rather than just copying the Greek experience That can lead to a stop the development of the way philosophy is used
/
I really see a big gape between what AlGhazzali want to Address to and How The West Thinkers understanding him
@@lorax121323 almost the same philosophical approach with Arthur Schopenhauer if you'd wanna check out. He offers a way other than reason to reach beyond the limit of Kant's phenomenal world.
It will never end.
Allah u alim!
can any body please tell the name or the source of the oriental music played at the end??
The fact that thinkers and philissofers are debating and discussing each others by writing books to prove the correctness of their theory or the righteousness of their ways , points to the intellectual level of the Muslims in this period and it does not matter what the essence of the difference between the thoughts is
Can somebody tell me what that song is at the start and end? Edit: the song is called Rast Kar-I Muhtesem, I still need to know who sings this. Thanks.
music.apple.com/us/artist/ensemble-maraghi/398305973 I finally found it!!!!!!!!..:)
Some direct quotes and arguments with sources would be better then summaries
Are you sure he was speaking of Plato or Referring to Plotinus ? Allot people mistake the two and Plotinus was more excepted in the muslim world as well .
Roger Hanson +yes you are very right
I think Algazali far from you 1 million sun year of thoughts and intelligence
Al ghazali was not against the philosophy but he was against those who consider that every thing ( problem) can solve by philosophy ( wisdom) Al ghazali opposed and said that the final solution and reason will be Quran, hadith and all revealed books.... philosophical thoughts should followed the Quran and all revealed books not against them...
Ibn rushd The Incoherence of the Incoherence ...great book from a golden age muslim universal scholar ...to understand what went wrong since the 13th century
@@Larrypint I know and all muslim learners know about the book of ibn rushd ... his point of view even was different from al ghazali but he was not enemy of ghazali... both were great Islamic scholars thier ijtihadi thoughts show the beauty of Islam ... as the people say opposition is the beauty of democracy...
@@sportsgrouphighway6108 yes but that pluralism totally left the Islamic theology, now the orthodoxy is just talking about quran,sunna,sira and that's it.
@@Larrypint Quran, suna and sharia should not to be accordance to philosophy but with the help of philosophy Quran and suna should be understand ... so rather fully orthodoxy is the death of research but some time we can say Islam means to surrender to follow to obey to accept to pay to offer to love...... in these words no place for philosophy...
@@sportsgrouphighway6108 Philosophy also has the task to question ideologies and to find logical flaws. And every human being has the right to think critical. That was part of Islam in the golden age. It isn't anymore in orthodoxie, but a lot of Muslim people think privately much more critical about fiqh,hadd punishments and premedival morals, they just look rarely for the roots of the problems. That's not reasonable and has destructive consequences for a soviety.
He was against Philosophers who contradicted Quran.
Wrong, read The Incoherence of the Incoherence.
@@Larrypint nah ibn rashed has failed to respond algahazli
yes sure why not ,this is his opinion and his own believes . I think his Al-Gazali's ideas were written in his books by sciences and logical proves
Hey contredicted the quran...Al-Gazali was indeed together with others such as Imam Ahmed Ibn Hambal and the other 3 schools of thought were the cause of the decline of the Muslims despite the fact that they were very smart and learned people for which they used their INTELECT but others were allowed to use that same intellect didn't use it and they had to believe blindly. Imam bin Hanbal preferred a weak hadith than his own reasoning Al Gazali made his own laws such as Hallal to conquer countries from the pagans without threat simply because they do not believe, you can burn a house where music was played with the owner in it Even if someone simply did not come to the mosque, you can burn down his house, and you must throw gays off a high building!
Wahm doesn't mean estimation it means fear!
what are talking about ..Wahm Means illusion and in some contexts means estimation
Wahm (وهم) has several meanings, for ex: delusion, fiction, nonentity, fear, imagination, apprehension, but it doesn't mean ESTIMATION!!!
i was wrong and you were right, Wahm doesn't mean estimation but i don't think it means fear either
I am a native speaker ,so I use this word in my daily conversation. When you have a bad feeling or worried about a situation you use this word to express your eternal feeling of fear or worries.
give me sentence in Arabic using the word ''Wahm'' as Fear so i can understand better
Al Ghazali did not attack philosophy in an absolute way. Nothing can be attacked in an absolute way : Quran 94:6 With difficulty is surely ease. He instead gave a value to philosophy on the scale of self realization on the path of Allah. He demonstrated that value could not be compared to the one of Sufism on that scale. His credibility is unquestioned as he was a reputable professor mastering philosophy before he quited his University position to disappear in the desert to discover sufism. Allah in His generosity gave him therefore the two eyes that enabled him to see things through different lights. At the end of the process, on light is brighter than the other one...
al ghazali attacked the greek philosophers based on the fact that they where pagans....his disvalue of the rationality and the preference for the revelation have killed the islamic culture and trasform that disgusting thing that is islam in something even worst....
@@1984magu this is such a populist point of view. please read some modern Western philosophy.
@@GGkus i don't care if you judge it populist, i think is true....also to convince someone you should say something more than " go study" you should better go study something...
@@1984magu If I am not mistaken, Al Ghazali wrote Incoherence of the Philosophers before his decision to overcome his ego and seek exile and soul search (period during which he penned his greatest contribution - The Revival of the Religious Sciences). My reading of the latter so far indicates that he does not undervalue rationality. Quite the contrary, he often uses rationality as a conduit to illustrate his views and refute competing ones. Happy reading. And don't forget, we are all ignorant in this world (!) Having an open mind is a precondition to deriving the benefits of the knowledge we gain. Peace and love
@@yahyamahayni well well ... You are not mistaken, BUT his incoherence of the philosofers STILL influenced the future of islam, what he makes After Is COMPLETELY IRRILEVANT !!! there Is a reason for the inferiority of your culture, deal with It ;)
Unfortunately he was a philosopher. Read or hear an audio book on TH-cam alchemy of happiness
@Valeek Rafeeh that is hilarious on the highest levels. If I master mathematics am I not a mathematician
@Valeek Rafeeh you just said he was a philosopher. That's what I wanted to prove. Man go and listen to Shaykh Hamza Yusuf on imam Ghazali and just take a second perhaps to read or like I did listen to the alchemy of happiness then comeback.
Peace
(Not trying to fight here okay?)
@Valeek Rafeeh I never said that you are against Ghazali. I dont know who you are. And I'd like if you dont guess who I am either. I simply wanted to make the point that Ghazali was a philosopher. That's it. That was the original comment. And maybe I'm reading it wrong but you do seem angry agitated and slightly hateful in your assumptions of me. Ghazali ought to teach us better. I guess you agree with ibn rushd then
@Valeek Rafeeh because I too made a presumption. That the man in the video was claiming that Ghazali killed philosophy in islamic thought. To that I said unfortunately he didnt.
@Valeek Rafeeh wow. Wowow. That is hilarious in all honesty. Well atleast we had a good laugh.
And try your best to not be so quick to judge bro. And remind me if you get a chance
Is Al Ghazali related to Al Pacino?
I dont get it?
Peace!
All thee words! A string of sophisms. Wittgenstein must turn in his grave.
nice to her common sense in action.
How it’s possible to refute philosophy while Muslim Shahada is already philosophical term. No God but God
'No god but allah '
is the correct translation
@@EMHDan No it's not. Allah is not the name of a 'god' It's just Arabic for God, so the translation " No God but God" is indeed correct. Even arab Christians and jews use "Allah" to refer to God.
@@maazahmedpoke lmao you are so wrong and ignorance.. please stop spreading the ignorance if you are not sure about your information, allah is a name of god.. إله = god ....... الله = allah " a name of god" hope you got the differences
" لا إله الا الله " = No God but Allah
No god but the God!
I say.
Salaam brothers!
Ghazali not AL ghazali
you are wrong and he is right ''AL Ghazali''
People come up with stupid ideas all the time. Most sink without trace. Occasionally they're useful to one or another group jockeying for political power, who promote them. Ghazali's anti-philosophy wasn't a cause of islamic decline - it was a symptom, and an excuse of those who benefited from it.
Stefan Travis his ideas now are supported by quantum theory!
@Mogambo , the Spiteful his ideas on causality
As someone who comes from an Islamic background (I'm an atheist) I always had a strong disdain for Gazali, lol.
Omar Omar lol. Al.Ghazali and Quantum theory 👌
Just like that!!
Pretty much why Islam will never have a reformation the way Christianity did. Rejecting the philosophers doomed the religion to stagnation.
Asshole, Islam is the reformation.
@@sam7748 couldn't have said it better 👏
@The Rod lol aren't you the guy from that other thread
@The Rod lol, Ghazali is one of the greatest Shaykhs ever in Islam. One of a kind man. Have a good one, till we meet each other again 😁😉
He was against the some metaphysical views of the philosophers like the idea that the world has no beginning , other than that it was fine.
He was responsible for the decline of science and mathematics in Muslim world.
How? Because those were not his fields? Your suggestion is a ridiculous caricature and manifestly not the case..
oyoter9ox
Ghazali did express support for a scientific methodology based on demonstration and mathematics,because the person assumed he was against it in some manner this seems apologetic, Al ghazali was simply emphasizing the spiritual realities he wasnt focusing on science he was addressing problems since people in his time became entirely materialistic or attached to the material causes it became necessary to emphasis the spiritual causes
No, though it's a common misconception, along with the idea that he "destroyed Islamic science." We can see that this is notion of false just with all the great philosophy and Science that took place for centuries after al-Ghazali.(Ottoman empire had its own observatories way before Europe did).
The idea that Al-Ghazali led some charge against rationality, philosophy, science, and mathematics is widely bandied about, even by otherwise intelligent people, but is basically nonsense. Al-Ghazali approved of the benefits and truth of mathematics and science. Same with logic from philosophy.
Al-Ghazali's problem was with dogmatic adherance to Greek philosophy, particularly Aristotelianism, and specifically as applied to theology. He saw people basing their understanding of God and other metaphysical realities on Aristotle rather than Islamic texts, even to the extent of taking Aristotle over clear and contradicting Islamic texts. Most significantly, on three points: (1) The supposed eternity of the world (2) God's knowledge of particulars (3) Bodily resurrection.
The only caution Ghazali had with respect to math and science is that math and science are such effective means of finding truth within their areas, that some believers will unquestioningly follow the mathematicians and scientists even in areas outside math and science, particularly religion. So that, for example, a believer would take a scientist's opinions on science, just because he is good at science.
Which is actually a pretty astute observation that is just as fresh now as then. Neil Degrasse-Tyson (as much as I like him generally) on Cosmos, and the people who take him too seriously on non-science topics is like a textbook example of what Ghazali was warning about.
Your statement is a parrot say accusing algazali in declining the Islam, it is baseless and lack of proves . Just because he had a religious background ? . The flourishing of Muslims in philosophy and science start from Islamic system of thinknig . Al gazali was a great thinker in his time that you cannot imagine.
@@amerbishara5166 truth
I honestly think it's stupid to think al ghazali was the reason the Muslims declined. Infact al ghazzali had a major impact in Islamic jurisprudence and Sufism but Islamic scholars dismissed him as weak in hadith, the point is Muslims were defintley influenced by ghazali in many aspects but he was no pope nor was he given the reverence of early Muslims known as the salaf. Meaning Islamic scholars (asharites) could and did disagree with al ghazali on many things including theology. I think the fact that for the last 2 centuries of caliphate the economy was terrible and science prospers in rich empires this is a historical fact. Let's not forget the sacking of Baghdad and destruction of Persia by Mongol invaders and the loss of Spain were huge blows to Islam. Lastly and the most obvious proof that al ghazali didn't really affect science in Islam is the fact that science flourished many centuries after al ghazali, most of the islamic works in astronomy were produced after all ghazalis death( ibnl shatir, Ali al qushji etc.) Major discoveries in medical sciences occurred centuries after all ghazali( ibnal nafis, ibn tufail for example). In fact apart from political instability and threat from northern spain , philosophy was thriving I'm north Africa and Spain during ibn rushd's time
The sacking of Baghdad and destruction of Persia by the Mongols, plus the Christian conquest of Andalus certainly weakened the intellectual and scientific strength of the Muslim world. No more House of Wisdom, no more great libraries in Andalus, no more Khalifal patronage for science, engineering and mathematics.
However, the spectacular defeat and expulsion of the Mongols by the Mamluks, the first such reverse they had experienced, had the effect of not only astonishing the rest of the world, but consolidating and strengthening the political and military power of the (now fake, even by earlier lights) central Khalifate. I'm not touting the bursting of the Mamluks out of Egypt and onto the world stage, by kicking the arses of the feared Mongols so effectively, as any sort of great leap forward. It wasn't! In fact, Islam might have prospered better, and been more diverse under Mongol rule. They tolerated all religions and never sacked any place or slaughtered people who surrendered to them. Yes, I know that was theologically impossible for the Abbasid, or any other, Khalifate, so it's simply reverie on my part.
To continue the reverie, however, there would probably have been no Ottoman empire (with its even thinner pretence of a "Khalifate" than the Mamluks' edition) if the Mongols and their rag-tag crusader remnant allies had triumphed at Ain Jalut in 1260. But they didn't. Despite the military ingenuity of the Mamluks, the Mongols might have won in 1260 if it were not for the death of Batu Khan, a succession dispute and incipient civil war back home, where many of their leading archons returned to secure their various competing interests. So they didn't win and were humiliated instead. Ho hum!
However, all that was around 150 years AFTER al-Ghazali's death.
@@martinjames6113 and remember the Christians burned most of the libraries so are the mongol 🤦🏾♂️