Academic literature on the topic 'Tahāfut al-falāsifah'

This article discusses al-Gazālī’s critiques in his Tahāfut al-Falāsifah against the Muslim. It answers two main questions: First, what is the purpose of al-Gazālī in writing Tahāfut al-Falāsifah? Second, is it true that this work represent the conflict between philosophy and dogma, between revelation and the ratio, or between orthodoxy and hetherodoxy? Content analysis and historical method are used to elucidate the criticism of al-Gazālī against the Muslim philosophers in Tahāfut al-Falāsifah. This study shows that instead of questioning the validity of logic on philosophical reasoning and methodology, al-Gazālī wrote Tahāfut al-Falāsifah in order to contest epistemological philosophical superiority claims advanced by Muslim philosophers. The critism of al-Gazālī cannot be seen as a reaction, or let alone rejection, of orthodoxy or dogma against the philosophy. Rather, his critical thought should be viewed as his attempt as a Muslim scholar to accept and adapt Greek philosophical tradition into the framework of Islamic thought. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.20414/ujis.v20i1.805

The decline of Islamic science is seen as impacts of al-Gazālī’s criticism to philosophy and controversy surrounding the thought of al-Gazālī and Ibn Rushd. During the Golden Age in the medieval period, Muslim scholars and philosophers had been the world references for science and technology development. They lost this legacy because they embraced orthodoxy rather than rationality. Al-Gazālī had written a book called Tahāfut al-Falāsifah (The Collapse or Inconsistence of the Philosophers) which criticised Islamic philosophers especially Ibn Sīnā and Al-Fārābī. Later after the death of al-Gazālī, Ibn Rushd wrote book tahāfut al-tahāfut which commented on al-Gazālī’s book Tahāfut al-falāsifah. It was arguing over Muslims should advance in science and technology in this modern era as it was evident during the Golden Age Islamic Era (the 7th up to the 13th centuries) whereby Muslims were the world references in science and technology development. However, after the period Muslims abandoned rationality and have remained so up to the present. This situation caused Islamic thoughts to move from rationality to orthodoxy. Al-Gazālī has been considered as the cause of the decline in Islamic Thought as he critiqued Islamic philosophers especially Ibn Sīnā and al-Fārābī in his book Tahāfut al-Falāsifah. Later Ibn Rushd wrote book Tahāfut al-Tahāfut which commented on al-Gazālī’s book Tahāfut al-Falāsifah. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.20414/ujis.v20i1.804

This thesis compares the concepts presented in the Seventeenth Discussion of al-Ghazali's Tahafut al-Falasifa with concepts currently being discussed in the field of quantum physics. Written as an attack on the neo-Platonic and Aristotelian thinking which challenged the orthodox theology of Medieval Islam, Tahafut al-Falasifa (Incoherence of the Philosophers) questions the understanding of physical reality forwarded by the philosophers of al-Ghazali's times. The Seventeenth Discussion ('On causality and miracles') in particular, with its aim of proving the possibility of miracles, questions the acceptance of notions such as necessary causality and the validity of scientific observation in the natural world.
Although several scholars have examined al-Ghazali's argument in the Seventeenth Discussion in terms of causality, observation and the nature of human conceptions of physical reality, and many others have noted the implicit potential connections between quantum theory and concepts of religiosity, only one, Karen Harding, has attempted a synthesis of the ideas put forth within these two seemingly diverse subjects. This thesis, then, carries forward from the ideas of Harding and attempts an original comparative analysis of the two. (Abstract shortened by UMI.)

The Philosophers such as ibn-Sina had maintained that time and space were co-eternal with Allah, emanating by necessity from His Attributes, and not being the results of a deliberate act of creation. This must be the case, for otherwise nothing would have been present to induce Him to create the world after a period of non-existence. Al-Ghazali's refutation of this is that Allah had decreed in pre-eternity that the world would materialize at a future, predetermined date, selecting an instance for its birth from a myriad like-instances by exercising His Free Will and manifesting therewith a cause with a delayed effect. The Philosophers' explanation of local phenomena as resulting from the perpetual motion of the spheres is flawed, since perpetual celestial motions would result in perpetual, not transient phenomena. Time, the measure of motion, does not extend beyond the physical realm. Time, and hence motion, is finite.
Religious Studies and Arabic
M.A. (Ancient Languages & Cultures)