Talk:Al-Ghazali/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Minor edit's

• Ghazali bitterly denounced Aristotle, Socrates and other Greek writers as

i removed the word bitterly, its assuming his nature, while it is the essence of the Sufi path to loose all forms of anger and base emotions. his ihyah Ulum al din is dedicated to this issue of overcoming such emotions. it also isn't sourced that he was "bitter".

• Ghazali famously claimed that when fire and cotton are placed in contact, the cotton is burned directly by God rather than by the fire

This isn't sourced that he stated it this specific way rather this is the asertion of the person interpreting his words and assuming he understood what ghazali meant. I have also addressed this issue above and who ever wrote this did not have Al ghazali's grasp on the issue.

i have added the following words

• the cotton is burned directly by God Who simultaneously willed the fire to burn, a claim which he defended using logic. He argued that because God is usually seen as rational, rather than arbitrary, his behaviour in normally causing events in the same instance they are witnessed

The explanation in the brackets itself explains the same thing.Iβи Kᾱτhiɍ (talk) 07:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• However, 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, this is why his most famous work is entitled the "revival of religious sciences" he wasn't claiming to bring anything new like much of this article claims he was reviving what previous generations already knew and understood but never systematized it the way al ghazali did.Iβи Kᾱτhiɍ (talk) 07:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• Ghazali was responsible for formulating the Ash'ari school of atomism. He argued that atoms are the only perpetual, material things in existence, and all else in the world is “accidental” meaning something that lasts for only an instant. Nothing accidental can be the cause of anything else, except perception, as it exists for a moment.

I dont think accidental is the right word here as it has other meanings in common usage of the word [Occurring unexpectedly, unintentionally, or by chance...which isnt what he meant as it negates the existance of God]. i think ephemerial [ existing only briefly] is a better word in this case.Iβи Kᾱτhiɍ (talk) 21:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the Ash'ari school of atomism, but I do know something about its Greco-Roman antecedents. I doubt that the edit is an improvement, though the existing text was also almost certainly flawed. "Accidental" is likely to be the philosophically correct term, and "ephemeral" probably changes the subject entirely and misses the point (agreeing with the "briefely" [sic] which was probably the least correct part of the existing text). My assumption in saying this (and again, I don't really know but am working with some probably useful analogies) is that the atomists said, "Only the atoms and the void are eternal and truly have their own existence. Everything else that we say "is," for example, a butterfly or a brick, is but a temporary configuration of atoms. The butterfly is not essentially a "butterfly" but only accidentally one, its "butterfly-ness" being merely the accidental (now you should recognize even the ordinary sense of the word) characteristics of something with entirely other principles of being (namely those of the atoms)." Or some such.

In general, I have seen that some of your edits are improvements, but we have to be careful. If something doesn't make sense to you, flag it, but don't replace it unless you're working from a reliable understanding. It won't do to change things just because we have a hunch that a new text would be more correct, even when it is obvious that there is some problem before us. This is tricky, but I'll restore the word accidental with a link to accident (philosophy) and try not to commit to any new claim to which I have no title. Wareh (talk) 22:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• "Only the atoms and the void are eternal and truly have their own existence.

In Islam Only god is eternal according to all theological schools, Ashari, maturidi etc so he could not have been saying this at all.

• He argued that atoms are the only perpetual, material things in existence, and all else in the world is “accidental” and lasting for only an instant.

I think this section should be sourced for clarification or removed the issue from the imam's perspective is not as technical as it seems and is common sense by today's understanding of science. Consider yourself from the moment you are born until you are fully grown, you start of as a cell which multiplies then grows and changes forms multiple times until it takes on human shape then you are born and you grow into an adult. Your perception during this time is changing and You are lasting only briefly while the atoms and materials you are made from continue. their is a rule in chemistry similar to this, matter can not be created or destroyed it merely changes state and this essentially is what he was saying, when you die your atoms go back into the earth but are not destroyed. He was relating this back to human perception [which was the point not the Atomism], your form isn't lasting but the matter is lasting, in the context of creation he wasn't saying matter is eternal as it goes against an Ashari fundamental belief that Only God is eternal and all else is created.

This issue is starting to be more confused when the term "accidental" is used and is linked to a page crediting Aristotle with the theory while Imam al Ghazali's The Incoherence of the Philosophers was directed at Aristotle and Plato.

would this be better?

• He argued that atoms are the only perpetual [continual], material things in existence, and all else in the world is “accidental” [having temporary attributes or form] which lasts for only an instant in comparison with the universe. [or you can use the word creation instead of universe which is a term ghazali would have used]

"lasting for only an instant" by itself may give the impression of something popping in and out of existence momentarily for a split second.Iβи Kᾱτhiɍ (talk) 07:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Your suggested replacement - "He argued that atoms are the only perpetual [continual], material things in existence, and all else in the world is “accidental” [having temporary attributes or form] which lasts for only an instant in comparison with the universe." - is acceptable to me. However, accident (philosophy) should still be linked. Ghazali's polemic with Plato and Aristotle is beside the point (anyway, Aristotle violently rejected the materialism of atomism, precisely because its conception of what is accident was unacceptable to him); the point is that the philosophical concept of "accident" applies here (as your proposed new text seems to accept) and was still current for Ghazali. (Perhaps it is desirable for accident (philosophy) to trace variations and employments of the concept in a wider scope; but it still remains the place to treat the philosophical concept of an accident.)

I think we found a compromise, so I will pass over other reservations. In any case, I did want to mention that it looked like the previous text was cited and based on Gardet's article "djuz," so that it was not liable to simple removal, unless we consulted Gardet to show it didn't provide the support. If we want to depart more seriously from something like your proposed compromise, I think we'd need new reliable sources to back us up.

Thanks for your suggested replacement: it seems to satisfy everyone. Wareh (talk) 14:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

i have made the necessary changes to the article. Iβn Kᾱτhir ^τᾱℓк 06:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• The theologian Adud al-Din al-Iji (1281–1355), under the influence of Al-Ghazali's Ash'ari doctrine of occasionalism, which maintained that all physical effects were caused directly by God's will rather than by natural causes,

This needs to be changed in light of the other passages i have reworded above. Its self contradictory in that it places "all physical effects" caused by God which would include all reactions changes of state on All levels of creation [meaning it doesnt matter how deep you go in terms of observing these reactions] at heads with "natural causes" as if it where a separate entity from God in al ghazali's understanding [see his book the 99 attributes of God [or here] for his understanding of the creator]. Natural causes and Causes by God are the same thing, he is saying God is behind the "natural causes" not separate from it which is why he says simultaneously not before or after. he is mixing theology with observable science and doesn't claim you can observe God physically or empirically measure him in any way but rather he is the ultimate cause behind the naturally observable causes. His works as understood by other scientist caused them to focus on the observable rather than purely philosophy and move away from speculation which should be an indication of what he was saying, as the remainder of the paragraph states.

I think it should be removed as it has been sufficiently covered elsewhere in the page.

• The theologian Adud al-Din al-Iji (1281–1355), under the influence of Al-Ghazali's Ash'ari doctrine of occasionalism,

If you want to understand what he meant by God is the cause you have to understand his sufi path and what he said regarding it as well as combine that with his theological understanding of God as he stated in his book on God, in no way was he claiming God is physical and the physical agent behind the reactions in the universe.

Iβи Kᾱτhiɍ (talk) 20:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

---

The lead into into the cosmology section is inadequately worded and does not accurately reflect the source.

Issues.

• medieval philosophers and theologians developed the concept of the universe having a finite past with a beginning (temporal finitism).

This isn't accurate, they developed arguments in defense of their faiths who proposed the concept of a created universe as stated by the source.

I think this is more accurate,

• medieval philosophers and theologians developed apposing arguments for the universe having a finite past with a beginning (temporal finitism).

• The Christian philosopher, John Philoponus, presented the first such argument against the ancient Greek notion of an infinite past. His logic was adopted by many, most notably; Muslim philosopher....

Inaccurately attributes the argument in its current form to John Philoponus while the source says

• Whitrow's necessarily abbreviated history of the argument against infinite temporal regression correctly traces its roots to John Philoponus (d. 580?); but it omits what is undoubtedly the most significant phase of the argument's history, namely, its formulation and development by the medieval Arabic and Jewish philosophers.1

further, "traces its roots" and His logic was adopted by many are two different things in the context of this statement at large. No direct relationship is established that these specific scholars directly took this argument from his works [what ever traces its roots may mean] at best it's assumed that he was the first to propose a simple form of it but that does not establish much more since each holy book had statements for a created universe [the torah and the bible predate him and presenting an argument against something does not mean its notion was originated by him] in them and the Quote says the argument was developed by Medieval Arabic and Jewish scholars.

i would suggest,

• These arguments roots can be traced back to the Christian philosopher, John Philoponus but the most significant aspect of such arguments history was there development and formulation by Medieval Arabic and Jewish philosophers, most notably; Muslim philosopher, Al-Kindi (Alkindus); the Jewish philosopher, Saadia Gaon (Saadia ben Joseph); and finally Ghazali.They proposed two sorts of logical arguments....

I think it was summed up in a hasty manner negating specific phases in history such as their motivations to defend their respective books and not simply rely on his specific argument for its sake alone and the fact more than one argument was present whose "roots" where traced back they didn't simply copy and paste what he said word for word nor did they all say the exact same thing. Iβи Kᾱτhiɍ (talk) 04:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

This line isnt sourced and highly inaccurate.

• Whether the actual outcome of "freezing Islamic thinking in time" was the goal of Ghazali is highly debatable

"Islamic thinking" is an all encompassing term covering far to many areas of knowledge, in this phrasing it is not accurate and no one ever claimed "Islamic Thinking" froze, the only thing that was stopped formally [not even philosophy was stopped in a formal manner by concensus the way this was] in islam was Ijtihad or independant legal reasoning [from the methedologies of the legal schools of thought] since it was deemed that no one alive was qualafied to do it with the same integrity as the people who had come beffore and all the topics had been discussed and rulled upon. This is prior to the industrial age which changed more than any one could percieve at the time.Iβи Kᾱτhiɍ (talk) 21:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

This sentence doesn't belong in a biography, i don't know what purpose it serves in informing us about him and seems to be advocating a position so i think it should be removed unless someone can explain its purpose in this page.

• But only taking Ghazali's final conclusions, while lacking a comparable education (and a reflection process) in the area, and as a result being unable to trace Ghazali in his thought process, only exacerbates the probability of the misuse of Ghazali's conclusions.

Iβи Kᾱτhiɍ (talk) 07:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought the word classification was more accurate than types in this line.

• He stated that there are two types of diseases: physical and spiritual

Iβn Kᾱτhir ^τᾱℓк 03:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

This line is highly problematic,

• Ghazali played a very major role in integrating Sufism with Islamic law (Sharia). He combined the concepts of Sufism very well with the Shariah laws. He was also the first to present a formal description of Sufism in his works.

I understand why this is worded this way but it is still inaccurate. To integrate something means to join or bring them together becouse they where once separate, and to combine with shariah law also has the same connotations. If the reality was they where separate prior to al ghazali then effectively what you are saying is that he introduced something new into Islam and Shariah law. But the history of Sufism in Islam itself is a testimony against this fact and traces its lineage and teaching right back to the prophets companions and him in an unbroken chain of teachers known as a silsila [see also 1, 2.]

Al ghazali systematized and elucidated the sufi path and its teachings identifying clearly what was part of orthodox islam so what wasn't could be rejected. This is why he is called the Reviver of the religion by his contemporaries and those who came after him.

• In the Munqidh, the spiritual autobiography composed approximately between 501/1107 and 503/1109, he reveals an almost messianic feeling of being aware that "God Most High has promised to revive His religion at the beginning of each century" (al-Ghazali (1967a): 75). Al-Ghazali had the conviction that he was the person designated to carry out this task for his epoch, and pursued his reforming aim by composing a great work, whose title is significantly The Revivification of the Sciences of Religion (Ihya’ ‘ulum al-din), and an exhaustive abridgement of the major work, that is the Book of the Forty Principles of Religion (Kitab al-arba‘in fi isul al-din), as well as its Persian summary Kimiya-yi sa‘adat ("The Alchemy of Happiness"). Source.

His major work the ihya is also not a work of islamic law and has never been considered that, i would suggest,

• Ghazali played a very major role in systematizing Sufism and elucidating its place within Islam and Islamic law (Sharia). He combined the concepts of Sufism very well with the Shariah laws. He was also the first to present a formal description of Sufism in his works.

im still looking for a better word than combined in the second part of the sentence but i think the first part explains enough to minimize any confusion in the second. Iβn Kᾱτhir ^τᾱℓк 03:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

This is not accurate,

• This traditional view, however, has been disputed by recent scholarship, which has shown that scientific and philosophical activity continued to flourish in the Islamic world long after him.

It goes back to the assumption that ghazali challenged science. also Logic and philosophy are not the same thing at least islamically speaking. What Ghazali challenged was kalam or speculative philosophy which wasnt grounded in either the Quran or sunnah and was pure conjecture in comparison to revelation, It did stop this kind of philosophy from becoming popular no one is claiming that people stopped outright which i think is the distinction between the assertion in that sentence and the quotes it claims support it [at least in its current wording]. If you click on Golden age that era is mostly associated with science and technology not philosophy although i am not saying it didn't have role just not the primary one. Its also contradictory to say he attempted to stop philosophy and then claim the fact that "successful integration of logic into the Islamic seminary Madrasah curriculum." by al ghazali is the proof against him.

The paragraph is also no longer coherent see for example this

• as well as a long process of reflection, he had criticized the philosophical method.

which leads into this

• This traditional view, however, has been disputed by recent scholarship,

no one is challenging the fact he criticized the philosophical method.

and with out access to the original sources its difficult to know what they said and how to best integrate that into the page. The best immediate solution would be to take out the lead sentence and leave the quotes in. Iβn Kᾱτhir ^τᾱℓк 04:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

This needs minor clarification, to emphasis whos work is similar to whos.

• Scholars have noted the similarities between Descartes' Discourse on Method and Ghazali's work[4] and the writer George Henry Lewes went even further by claiming that "had any translation of it [The Revival of Religious Sciences] in the days of Descartes existed, every one have cried out against the plagiarism."[36]

added dates and the words later and earlier. Iβn Kᾱτhir ^τᾱℓк 06:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)