I have managed to get a hold of a pdf scan of this book which I talked about a while ago - a book which has been to have changed the course of Muslim thinking, development, so not to be taken lightly I suppose.
Now I have observed that there is a class of men who believe in their superiority to others because of their greater intelligence and insight. They have abandoned all the religious duties Islam imposes on its followers. They laugh at the positive commandments of religion which enjoin the performance of acts of devotion, and the abstinence from forbidden things. They defy the injunctions of the Sacred Law. Not only do they overstep the limits prescribed by it, but they have renounced the Faith altogether, by having indulged in diverse speculations wherein they followed the example of those people who "turn men aside from the path of God, and seek to render it crooked; and who do not believe in the life to come." The heresy of these has its basis only in an uncritical acceptance - like that of the Jews and Christians - of whatever one hears from others or sees all around. They could not avoid it; for they were born into an un-Islamic atmosphere, and their ancestors had pursued no better ways. In the second place, such heresy results from theoretical inquiries which are the outcomes of stumbling - sceptically, misguidedly and stupidly - upon fanciful notions. (A similar case is that of the disputants who discussed the questions concerning faith and belief raised by the people of wilful innovations.)
The heretics in our times have heard the awe-inspiring names of Socrates, Hippocrates, Plato, Aristotle, etc. They have been deceived by the exaggerations made by the followers of these philosophers - exaggerations to the effect that the ancient masters possessed extraordinary intellectual powers: that the principles they uncovered are unquestionable: that the mathematical, logical, physical and metaphysical sciences developed by them are the most profound: that their excellent intelligence justifies their bold attempts to discover Hidden Things by deductive methods; and that with all the subtlety of their intelligence and the originality of their accomplishments they repudiated the authority of religious laws: denied the validity of the positive contents of historical religions, and believed that all such things are only sanctimonious lies and trivialities...
Ok, I have very little idea of what its on about (especially the first paragraph), but I will continue.
If I get through this, I also want to read its "refutation" by Ibn Rushd (Titled something like "Incoherence of incoherence").
Comments
Ah, so this is buy Imam Ghazali. He seems to be saying that Islam is against rational thinking, which inevitably leads to kufr. But Islam IS rational, it's got nothing to hide and encourages thinking and seeking knowledge.
“Before death takes away what you are given, give away whatever there is to give.”
Mawlana Jalal ud Din Rumi
The book is only challenging some philosophical arguments - and is using logic to refute them.
The first of 20 questions it is challenging is whether the world is temporal or eternal. The philosophical argument being that if the world was temporal, why was it not created before it was? Why was there a need to create the world? What changed? does that mean that some external change made God change his mind?
Its a pretty elaborate argument that goes over my head and I am reading its refutation atm - which also goes over my head.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
I reckon that we should put the two guys in a room so they can fight it out!
What? They're dead? Never mind.
“Before death takes away what you are given, give away whatever there is to give.”
Mawlana Jalal ud Din Rumi
But then I could not in a poncy voice say "I have read AL Ghazali's 'Incoherence of the philosophers'", adding in a sneery manner "and to be honest, it was not that good" could I?
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Since al-Ghazali was refuting a group of thinkers who don't hold sway in today's society, wouldn't it be better to divert your energy and attention to reading something more immediately relevant, such as 'Remembrance of Death and the Afterlife' or his book on du'aa, which my friend told me is absolutely gob-smackingly good?
Don't just do something! Stand there.
That website has a few translations. This is the one I wanted to read first. I may or may not read it all and I may or may not move onto others.
I also may or may not gain anything from any of them.
But aristotle, plato and all those other fancy names still mean something, no? Maybe they used the same arguments as Dawkins? (I doubt it though as the first question on the eternity of the 'verse seems to some from an angle where the questioner believes in a deity - or I may be misunderstanding).
Its more a historical interest. Why was the book so powerful? Did it cause peace of thought within the Muslim lands, or did it cause Islamic science to decay?
I find the latter to be a more interesting line of questioning than what was actually refuted.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.