Philosophy is a mere word that combines the words for love and wisdom together in a single word in its own language, philo-sophy love-wisdom الحكمة الحبيب. Philosophy was what the ancient "Greeks" called even the religion of the Jews, a "Barbarian philosophy" that many Hellenes embraced. The Septuagint was translated into Greek but Homer was not into Hebrew or Aramaic.
But I have more testimony from Diodorus who writes (though he doesn't accept it) that the city states later conquered by Alexander of Macedon was originally an Egyptian colony. Let us look at the quote and I will make my point clear : Osiris also took an interest in hunting elephants, and everywhere left behind him inscribed pillars telling of his campaign. And he visited all the other nations of Asia as well and crossed into Europe at the Hellespont. 2 In Thrace he slew Lycurgus, the king of the barbarians, who opposed his undertaking, and Maron, who was now old, he left there to supervise the culture of the plants which he introduced into that land and caused him to found a city to bear his name, which he called Maroneia. 3 Macedon his son, moreover, he left as king of Macedonia, which was named after him, while to Triptolemus he assigned the care of agriculture in Attica. Attica is a famous city state that was later a part of Greece. Legendary or not the books of history state it was founded by an Egyptian and I have much more evidence to support what I want to say, which is important. Please, educated men and women, do not call ancient places by their very modern names. The entire region we call Greece today was annexed by Alexander and ruled by Macedonia's kings until the Romans conquered them and never gained status as an independent nation for over 2000 years. There is no such thing as "Greek philosophy" because the philosophers weren't Greek they were "Hellenes" which was the cult of Isis and Osiris was called in the Macedonian period, it has an "secret" etymology, which is the moon, Luna, or HeLuna, because Isis was a moon goddess and Osiris a sun god, depending on who you read but the so called "Greek" historians say he was the sun, that his name was "many eyed one" although this seems unlikely I don't doubt the sun-moon cult believed this as it is well attested to in ancient history. So even "Hellenism" is not Greek and not even Macedonian it was the religion of the Egyptians, Macedonians, even in India, Babylon, Assyria, and the fact that every so called "Greek" or Athenian owes his learning to the Egyptians and Asians, the entire culture was just copying the religion we would (Epiphanius did) attribute to Nimrod the enemy of Ibrahim (as) and the religion of the "Greek philosophers" would have been the same if they were called "Hellenes" which is, I believe the case with the philosophers after Alexander of Macedon, and it had nothing to do with Greece. What actually appears to have been the case was the other cultures ridiculed their perverted myths so they came up with the idea of "allegory" (Homilies of Clement) to suggest that they meant something else than what the author intended. After this you have a long period of philosophers who all disagreed with each other over meaningless speculation and their writings are not useful and never really have been, despite the fact that they weren't Greek they don't really deserve the respect of someone who loves wisdom but people who love pointless metaphysical drivel love it. This is not a personal comment directed at the lecturer who has little choice but to use the only term people are conditioned to effect but I just think that it shows character to reject such unscholarly notions about the alleged accomplishments of the "Greeks" which are few compared to the Macedonians, Romans, Muslims, they really did not contribute to the world anything but ridiculous myths, sophistry and rhetoric (lying arts) and are the words of men who believed all women should be held in common (Plato). Even the Ptolemy name is Egyptian originally and not Macedonian or Greek. It appears that the Macedonians who used this name were not doing so out of "love (for) Greece" but love of the Egyptian cult of Osiris who had a son named "Triptolemus" who had a brother who was appointed King of a country that would bare his name for millennia, Macedon. There was no country named Greece at this time and the desire to make all "Hellenes" into "Greeks" like the actually Macedonian kings who succeeded Alexander in their individual territories, is a very European desire. Pythagoras was Phoenician. Lived in Italy. The successors of Alexander certainly did not love the territory they conquered so much that they adopted their (borrowed from the same source) culture and modern Greeks actually believe that Macedonia was a part of the non existent ancient Greece. What a ridiculous world, they must have to avoid all know historians from ancient times including Plutarch. Also there was no "Greco-Persian" war because the "Greeks" fought for the Persians and Alexander actually had relatively few soldiers from "Greece." Macedonians conquered the Persian Empire and the "Greeks" were not responsible for the victory at all. Al-Ghazali also expressed the poor quality of translation of Aristotle and probable tampering of his writings that don't survive in the Koine or any Greek language but had to be translated back into Greek, like almost all so called "Greek" philosophical texts, from Syriac, Arabic, Latin back to Greek to the point that we should treat it with less respect than the Christian Bible as far as integrity goes. Buy invoking the words Greek philosophers and giving them credit for what they didn't do and actually more than likely made a mess out of what they were told by Egyptians, Chaldeans, and others who hardly gave them anything useful, just myths and fake interpretation, which is what they gave us by interpreting mythology as "esoteric science" and thinking they were learning anything, which they can be excused for, wisdom was hard to come by in the perverted culture of Hellenism, the cult of the "gods" but especially Isis and Osiris. They would later claim that Osiris/Dionysus was a native of one of their states, which is explained by Diodorus Siculus in the very first book, on the Egyptians, as a belief caused by the desire to make the "god" on of their nation, so I would definitely believe the Egyptians founded Macedonia and Attica coming from the Egyptians who had no reason to lie, Egypt was the land of Isis and Osiris, they are a very ancient culture, and that the Macedonians worshipped Osiris and Ammon is pretty good evidence that they were "Hellenized" just not by "Greeks" who were apparently Hellenized by the same people, brothers according to the legend, and Plato states that prior to Cadmus of Phoenicia they could not read and that their original religion was simple star worship, they had no gods, and Solon was reproached for the overall lack of wisdom of (whatever Plato called who we call) "Greeks" calling them "like children." The world needs to get over the myth of an ancient Greece, it didn't exist until the 1800's and their is no evidence that they added anything knew to the world at any point, they didn't invent philosophy or even write good philosophy, they had no idea what was going on with the world, all they knew were myths and useless arts like sophistry and rhetori, those are the most important contributions of the "Greeks" the art of lying but hiding it in fancy words and how to explain what is not true, is true. The only thing al-Ghazali was not against was actual science, as far as life and God were concerned, the philosophers knew nothing and agreed about just as much. Today they are the Freemasons and their various wannabe Egyptian cult shoot offs, they are the enemies of Islam today and always will be. To praise pagan natural philosophy, whether you call it Greek philosophy or just philosophy, is to praise polytheism and ignorance like existed before Islam and to contradict the opinions expressed by al-Ghazali who may not have called philosophy itself incoherent but he called it's authors and their followers incoherent. Which is basically saying that "Greek philosophy is incoherent" but Muslims should not fear the desire for wisdom which can only reliably be learned from Islam and according to the Sunna of the Prophet ﷺ and the scholars, etc., of Islam.
سلام عليكم.. Definitely Islam Filtering Knowledge.... And Thats our Sources of dealing with Knowledge in General. So our Seeking of Allah's Pleasure is Number one concern.. إن شاء الله..
سلام عليكم.. جزاك الله خيرا.. One of the Name of Our Messenger Saw.. Mustafa.. Two meanings.. One: The Choosen One.. And the other The one Saff.. Filtering Ilm Knowledge.. الحمد الله..
18 1 Now Osiris was accompanied on his campaign, as the Egyptian account goes, by his two sons Anubis and Macedon, who were distinguished for their valour. Both of them carried the most notable accoutrements of war, taken from certain animals whose character was not unlike the boldness of the men, Anubis wearing a dog's skin and Macedon the fore-parts of a wolf; and it is for this reason that these animals are held in honour among the Egyptians. 2 He also took Pan along on his campaign, who is held in special honour by the Egyptians; for the inhabitants of the land have not only set up statues of him at every temple but have also named a city after him in the Thebaid, called by the natives Chemmo, which when translated means City of Pan.36 p59 In his company were also men who were experienced in agriculture, such as Maron in the cultivation of the vine, and Triptolemus in the sowing of grain and in every step in the harvesting of it. 3 And when all his preparations had been completed Osiris made a vow to the gods that he would let his hair grow until his return to Egypt and then made his way through Ethiopia; and this is the reason why this custom with regard to their hair was observed among the Egyptians until recent times, and why those who journeyed abroad let their hair grow until their return home. I post this in response to term "the Greeks" as a caution to Muslims lest they come to believe that "Greeks" were a nation of people who anything can be attributed to, this is a modern invention of scholars who crafted the Image of Greece as a fountain of wisdom and the cradle of western civilization, and this is against the recorded history of the world's testimony. What I wish is to point out from this excerpt of Diodorus Siculus is that "Macedon" was Egyptian and the son of Osiris according to the Egyptians. This is why Alexander claimed to be son of Ammon-Ra, an Egyptian deity, and why Macedonians worshipped Osiris who was also called "Dionysus" because allegedly his body is buried in "Nyssa Arabia." The obelisk, the object stoned at Haj, is the symbol of Osiris/Dionysus, which is fascinating by itself. This is according to Plutarch, Siculus says it could also be India.
Al-Ghazali did not introduce Greek philosophy into Islam or make it acceptable he separated science from pseudo science (round earth) but never borrowed from the philosophers he wrote an entire book against the philosophers we are familiar with, and a 40 book encyclopedia of Muslim religious science that depends on the Sunna and Quran. To literally prove that Islam was superior to this fake wisdom, which earned him the title "A proof of Islam" and was a death blow to the Aristotle loving Mutazila and falsafa, and relegated Aristotle to sects like the Ismaili Shia and other pseudo-Muslim sects. I am a little uneasy at the alluding to of borrowing from or filtering anything that wasn't, Sunna. This is misleading. He absolutely and categorically rejected the philosophy of the pagans and Aristotelian types and the only thing which he did not reject from them was scientifically verifiable information, like, for example, that the world was round which has nothing to do with philosophy but was viewed as a scientific fact, and these occasions were extremely rare as the philosophers he had in mind were far from scientific. You could safely call him an anti-Hellenist whose Ihya Ulum ad-Din was actually written to prove the superiority of Islam over any philosophy but he had the Aristotelian Mutazila in mind specifically. His view in the "Incoherence of the philosophers" was that if anything could be proven true scientifically it is not the place of religion to reject it. He did not feel that way about falsafa. No video or lecture about al-Ghazali should so misrepresent the "Proof of Islam" as having borrowed a thing from the falsafa but this is what is stated in the beginning! Please correct me if I am wrong. He did not have anything besides Islam to "bring together" with Islam, his works aren't dependent upon philosophy but it's superior theology. There is nothing syncretic in any work of al-Ghazali that I am aware of, although I don't doubt the occasional Orientalist go-to claim to rob any non European authors of original thought, "clearly Neo-Platonic" exists in the footnotes of English translations because I have seen this. I don't remember al-Ghazali ever mentioning Plotinus, Porphyry or writing anything that is owed to this fantasy school of philosophy that has about 2 famous adherents who were unknown to Muslims, Plotinus was thought to be Aristotle and Porphyry really just codified the work of Plotinus and wrote polemics. This is something that some non Muslim student wrote about in a dissertation that I read recently, that the term "Sufism" and "Sufi" was overused and used wrong and that the scholars of Europe have been trying to claim that Sufism ante dates Islam by claiming that it has "Zoroastrian, neo Platonic, Christian" influence because they can't reconcile their sophisticated writings with their racist image of the "Oriental" as it were or whatever term they want to use, the fact remains that European scholars are so insecure about true history and the rather not superiority of Europe throughout history until recently that they will invent hypothetical pre-historic languages based on false claims of similarities between Greek and Sanskrit using historical sources that actually make it perfectly clear that the conditions for loan words to develop between Sanskrit in India and the Greek language which makes the need for the theory (that only exists because of said exaggerated claims of similarities) rather unnecessary and the fact that it is taught us just baffling to the mind. In reality the similarities between Greek and Sanskrit are few and easily explained by the usual way, loan words that occur when 2 cultures interact for a period of time, but this is not even necessary because the similarities are so few. How many does it take to justify teaching such a nonsensical theory like this PIE language? I would say hundreds before I start to consider considering the hypothesis, but based on the non existence of evidence for PIE I will never believe it existed and seriously question the intelligence of anyone who does. I have debated linguists who actually believed that no interaction took place between the 2 cultures, when I supplied evidence of hundreds of years of contact and the amount of knowledge that Greek authors had about India and it's religions he declared this "irrelevant" because it was "too late to effect" the totally hypothetical PIE language, but what really happened is it refuted the need for the hypothesis and he actually claimed that he he knew "for a fact" that PIE existed but when pressed for information about how this was even possible he stopped responding. I have asked them to present their 10 best examples of similar words, have never been taken up on the offer because I stated that I have seen the charts, they aren't similar and that this is the foundation of the hypothesis itself but not even true, which they must have been aware of and tried to distract me by mentioning that there are other languages involved in the theory. I had to stoo him there because if the foundation of the theory is an exaggeration at best and this can be demonstrated then the theory itself is kaput as it is based on an exaggeration and by a British employee in India, who may have known a lot of languages but did not have the same amount of wisdom as he did knowledge and he was followed by Nazis, it was even known as the "Indo-Aryan" hypothesis for a time in Europe and not just Germany. The truth might be that they were nervous about the superiority of Sanskrit and sought a way, vis sophistry and rhetoric, to roundabout claim responsibility for the language that they had nothing to do with. According to Diodorus both Arabia and India were famously impossible to conquer, so they have to be ignoring this if they believe that Indians aren't aboriginal to India and call them invaders in their own land. Sounds familiar... Dajjal has 1 eye, so did the father of Alexander because he saw Ammon-Ra "knowing" the mother of Alexander, so was blinded for it by Ra which is Aramaic and Hebrew for evil, the eye of Ra is the evil eye, the eye of the dajjal, and the Prophet ﷺ said he knew what family dajjal was from... If all you want to say is that he was not against philosophy, there was a much better way to do it. Say that he was a lover of wisdom. It means the same thing but is heard differently.
Philosophy is a mere word that combines the words for love and wisdom together in a single word in its own language, philo-sophy love-wisdom الحكمة الحبيب.
Philosophy was what the ancient "Greeks" called even the religion of the Jews, a "Barbarian philosophy" that many Hellenes embraced. The Septuagint was translated into Greek but Homer was not into Hebrew or Aramaic.
But I have more testimony from Diodorus who writes (though he doesn't accept it) that the city states later conquered by Alexander of Macedon was originally an Egyptian colony. Let us look at the quote and I will make my point clear :
Osiris also took an interest in hunting elephants, and everywhere left behind him inscribed pillars telling of his campaign. And he visited all the other nations of Asia as well and crossed into Europe at the Hellespont. 2 In Thrace he slew Lycurgus, the king of the barbarians, who opposed his undertaking, and Maron, who was now old, he left there to supervise the culture of the plants which he introduced into that land and caused him to found a city to bear his name, which he called Maroneia. 3 Macedon his son, moreover, he left as king of Macedonia, which was named after him, while to Triptolemus he assigned the care of agriculture in Attica.
Attica is a famous city state that was later a part of Greece. Legendary or not the books of history state it was founded by an Egyptian and I have much more evidence to support what I want to say, which is important.
Please, educated men and women, do not call ancient places by their very modern names. The entire region we call Greece today was annexed by Alexander and ruled by Macedonia's kings until the Romans conquered them and never gained status as an independent nation for over 2000 years. There is no such thing as "Greek philosophy" because the philosophers weren't Greek they were "Hellenes" which was the cult of Isis and Osiris was called in the Macedonian period, it has an "secret" etymology, which is the moon, Luna, or HeLuna, because Isis was a moon goddess and Osiris a sun god, depending on who you read but the so called "Greek" historians say he was the sun, that his name was "many eyed one" although this seems unlikely I don't doubt the sun-moon cult believed this as it is well attested to in ancient history.
So even "Hellenism" is not Greek and not even Macedonian it was the religion of the Egyptians, Macedonians, even in India, Babylon, Assyria, and the fact that every so called "Greek" or Athenian owes his learning to the Egyptians and Asians, the entire culture was just copying the religion we would (Epiphanius did) attribute to Nimrod the enemy of Ibrahim (as) and the religion of the "Greek philosophers" would have been the same if they were called "Hellenes" which is, I believe the case with the philosophers after Alexander of Macedon, and it had nothing to do with Greece.
What actually appears to have been the case was the other cultures ridiculed their perverted myths so they came up with the idea of "allegory" (Homilies of Clement) to suggest that they meant something else than what the author intended. After this you have a long period of philosophers who all disagreed with each other over meaningless speculation and their writings are not useful and never really have been, despite the fact that they weren't Greek they don't really deserve the respect of someone who loves wisdom but people who love pointless metaphysical drivel love it.
This is not a personal comment directed at the lecturer who has little choice but to use the only term people are conditioned to effect but I just think that it shows character to reject such unscholarly notions about the alleged accomplishments of the "Greeks" which are few compared to the Macedonians, Romans, Muslims, they really did not contribute to the world anything but ridiculous myths, sophistry and rhetoric (lying arts) and are the words of men who believed all women should be held in common (Plato).
Even the Ptolemy name is Egyptian originally and not Macedonian or Greek. It appears that the Macedonians who used this name were not doing so out of "love (for) Greece" but love of the Egyptian cult of Osiris who had a son named "Triptolemus" who had a brother who was appointed King of a country that would bare his name for millennia, Macedon.
There was no country named Greece at this time and the desire to make all "Hellenes" into "Greeks" like the actually Macedonian kings who succeeded Alexander in their individual territories, is a very European desire. Pythagoras was Phoenician. Lived in Italy. The successors of Alexander certainly did not love the territory they conquered so much that they adopted their (borrowed from the same source) culture and modern Greeks actually believe that Macedonia was a part of the non existent ancient Greece. What a ridiculous world, they must have to avoid all know historians from ancient times including Plutarch. Also there was no "Greco-Persian" war because the "Greeks" fought for the Persians and Alexander actually had relatively few soldiers from "Greece." Macedonians conquered the Persian Empire and the "Greeks" were not responsible for the victory at all.
Al-Ghazali also expressed the poor quality of translation of Aristotle and probable tampering of his writings that don't survive in the Koine or any Greek language but had to be translated back into Greek, like almost all so called "Greek" philosophical texts, from Syriac, Arabic, Latin back to Greek to the point that we should treat it with less respect than the Christian Bible as far as integrity goes. Buy invoking the words Greek philosophers and giving them credit for what they didn't do and actually more than likely made a mess out of what they were told by Egyptians, Chaldeans, and others who hardly gave them anything useful, just myths and fake interpretation, which is what they gave us by interpreting mythology as "esoteric science" and thinking they were learning anything, which they can be excused for, wisdom was hard to come by in the perverted culture of Hellenism, the cult of the "gods" but especially Isis and Osiris.
They would later claim that Osiris/Dionysus was a native of one of their states, which is explained by Diodorus Siculus in the very first book, on the Egyptians, as a belief caused by the desire to make the "god" on of their nation, so I would definitely believe the Egyptians founded Macedonia and Attica coming from the Egyptians who had no reason to lie, Egypt was the land of Isis and Osiris, they are a very ancient culture, and that the Macedonians worshipped Osiris and Ammon is pretty good evidence that they were "Hellenized" just not by "Greeks" who were apparently Hellenized by the same people, brothers according to the legend, and Plato states that prior to Cadmus of Phoenicia they could not read and that their original religion was simple star worship, they had no gods, and Solon was reproached for the overall lack of wisdom of (whatever Plato called who we call) "Greeks" calling them "like children."
The world needs to get over the myth of an ancient Greece, it didn't exist until the 1800's and their is no evidence that they added anything knew to the world at any point, they didn't invent philosophy or even write good philosophy, they had no idea what was going on with the world, all they knew were myths and useless arts like sophistry and rhetori, those are the most important contributions of the "Greeks" the art of lying but hiding it in fancy words and how to explain what is not true, is true.
The only thing al-Ghazali was not against was actual science, as far as life and God were concerned, the philosophers knew nothing and agreed about just as much.
Today they are the Freemasons and their various wannabe Egyptian cult shoot offs, they are the enemies of Islam today and always will be. To praise pagan natural philosophy, whether you call it Greek philosophy or just philosophy, is to praise polytheism and ignorance like existed before Islam and to contradict the opinions expressed by al-Ghazali who may not have called philosophy itself incoherent but he called it's authors and their followers incoherent.
Which is basically saying that "Greek philosophy is incoherent" but Muslims should not fear the desire for wisdom which can only reliably be learned from Islam and according to the Sunna of the Prophet ﷺ and the scholars, etc., of Islam.
سلام عليكم..
Definitely Islam Filtering Knowledge....
And Thats our Sources of dealing with Knowledge in General.
So our Seeking of Allah's Pleasure is Number one concern..
إن شاء الله..
سلام عليكم..
جزاك الله خيرا..
One of the Name of Our Messenger Saw..
Mustafa..
Two meanings..
One: The Choosen One..
And the other The one Saff.. Filtering Ilm Knowledge..
الحمد الله..
الحمد لله
18 1 Now Osiris was accompanied on his campaign, as the Egyptian account goes, by his two sons Anubis and Macedon, who were distinguished for their valour. Both of them carried the most notable accoutrements of war, taken from certain animals whose character was not unlike the boldness of the men, Anubis wearing a dog's skin and Macedon the fore-parts of a wolf; and it is for this reason that these animals are held in honour among the Egyptians. 2 He also took Pan along on his campaign, who is held in special honour by the Egyptians; for the inhabitants of the land have not only set up statues of him at every temple but have also named a city after him in the Thebaid, called by the natives Chemmo, which when translated means City of Pan.36 p59 In his company were also men who were experienced in agriculture, such as Maron in the cultivation of the vine, and Triptolemus in the sowing of grain and in every step in the harvesting of it. 3 And when all his preparations had been completed Osiris made a vow to the gods that he would let his hair grow until his return to Egypt and then made his way through Ethiopia; and this is the reason why this custom with regard to their hair was observed among the Egyptians until recent times, and why those who journeyed abroad let their hair grow until their return home.
I post this in response to term "the Greeks" as a caution to Muslims lest they come to believe that "Greeks" were a nation of people who anything can be attributed to, this is a modern invention of scholars who crafted the Image of Greece as a fountain of wisdom and the cradle of western civilization, and this is against the recorded history of the world's testimony.
What I wish is to point out from this excerpt of Diodorus Siculus is that "Macedon" was Egyptian and the son of Osiris according to the Egyptians.
This is why Alexander claimed to be son of Ammon-Ra, an Egyptian deity, and why Macedonians worshipped Osiris who was also called "Dionysus" because allegedly his body is buried in "Nyssa Arabia." The obelisk, the object stoned at Haj, is the symbol of Osiris/Dionysus, which is fascinating by itself. This is according to Plutarch, Siculus says it could also be India.
Al-Ghazali did not introduce Greek philosophy into Islam or make it acceptable he separated science from pseudo science (round earth) but never borrowed from the philosophers he wrote an entire book against the philosophers we are familiar with, and a 40 book encyclopedia of Muslim religious science that depends on the Sunna and Quran. To literally prove that Islam was superior to this fake wisdom, which earned him the title "A proof of Islam" and was a death blow to the Aristotle loving Mutazila and falsafa, and relegated Aristotle to sects like the Ismaili Shia and other pseudo-Muslim sects.
I am a little uneasy at the alluding to of borrowing from or filtering anything that wasn't, Sunna. This is misleading. He absolutely and categorically rejected the philosophy of the pagans and Aristotelian types and the only thing which he did not reject from them was scientifically verifiable information, like, for example, that the world was round which has nothing to do with philosophy but was viewed as a scientific fact, and these occasions were extremely rare as the philosophers he had in mind were far from scientific.
You could safely call him an anti-Hellenist whose Ihya Ulum ad-Din was actually written to prove the superiority of Islam over any philosophy but he had the Aristotelian Mutazila in mind specifically.
His view in the "Incoherence of the philosophers" was that if anything could be proven true scientifically it is not the place of religion to reject it.
He did not feel that way about falsafa.
No video or lecture about al-Ghazali should so misrepresent the "Proof of Islam" as having borrowed a thing from the falsafa but this is what is stated in the beginning!
Please correct me if I am wrong.
He did not have anything besides Islam to "bring together" with Islam, his works aren't dependent upon philosophy but it's superior theology. There is nothing syncretic in any work of al-Ghazali that I am aware of, although I don't doubt the occasional Orientalist go-to claim to rob any non European authors of original thought, "clearly Neo-Platonic" exists in the footnotes of English translations because I have seen this. I don't remember al-Ghazali ever mentioning Plotinus, Porphyry or writing anything that is owed to this fantasy school of philosophy that has about 2 famous adherents who were unknown to Muslims, Plotinus was thought to be Aristotle and Porphyry really just codified the work of Plotinus and wrote polemics.
This is something that some non Muslim student wrote about in a dissertation that I read recently, that the term "Sufism" and "Sufi" was overused and used wrong and that the scholars of Europe have been trying to claim that Sufism ante dates Islam by claiming that it has "Zoroastrian, neo Platonic, Christian" influence because they can't reconcile their sophisticated writings with their racist image of the "Oriental" as it were or whatever term they want to use, the fact remains that European scholars are so insecure about true history and the rather not superiority of Europe throughout history until recently that they will invent hypothetical pre-historic languages based on false claims of similarities between Greek and Sanskrit using historical sources that actually make it perfectly clear that the conditions for loan words to develop between Sanskrit in India and the Greek language which makes the need for the theory (that only exists because of said exaggerated claims of similarities) rather unnecessary and the fact that it is taught us just baffling to the mind. In reality the similarities between Greek and Sanskrit are few and easily explained by the usual way, loan words that occur when 2 cultures interact for a period of time, but this is not even necessary because the similarities are so few. How many does it take to justify teaching such a nonsensical theory like this PIE language? I would say hundreds before I start to consider considering the hypothesis, but based on the non existence of evidence for PIE I will never believe it existed and seriously question the intelligence of anyone who does. I have debated linguists who actually believed that no interaction took place between the 2 cultures, when I supplied evidence of hundreds of years of contact and the amount of knowledge that Greek authors had about India and it's religions he declared this "irrelevant" because it was "too late to effect" the totally hypothetical PIE language, but what really happened is it refuted the need for the hypothesis and he actually claimed that he he knew "for a fact" that PIE existed but when pressed for information about how this was even possible he stopped responding.
I have asked them to present their 10 best examples of similar words, have never been taken up on the offer because I stated that I have seen the charts, they aren't similar and that this is the foundation of the hypothesis itself but not even true, which they must have been aware of and tried to distract me by mentioning that there are other languages involved in the theory. I had to stoo him there because if the foundation of the theory is an exaggeration at best and this can be demonstrated then the theory itself is kaput as it is based on an exaggeration and by a British employee in India, who may have known a lot of languages but did not have the same amount of wisdom as he did knowledge and he was followed by Nazis, it was even known as the "Indo-Aryan" hypothesis for a time in Europe and not just Germany.
The truth might be that they were nervous about the superiority of Sanskrit and sought a way, vis sophistry and rhetoric, to roundabout claim responsibility for the language that they had nothing to do with.
According to Diodorus both Arabia and India were famously impossible to conquer, so they have to be ignoring this if they believe that Indians aren't aboriginal to India and call them invaders in their own land.
Sounds familiar...
Dajjal has 1 eye, so did the father of Alexander because he saw Ammon-Ra "knowing" the mother of Alexander, so was blinded for it by Ra which is Aramaic and Hebrew for evil, the eye of Ra is the evil eye, the eye of the dajjal, and the Prophet ﷺ said he knew what family dajjal was from...
If all you want to say is that he was not against philosophy, there was a much better way to do it. Say that he was a lover of wisdom. It means the same thing but is heard differently.