Talk:Al-Ghazali/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Criticism

Neil deGrasse Tyson claims that Al-Ghazali is one of the people responsible for the decline of science and civilisation in arabic/persian/muslim culture. I see in this article that he denounces Aristotle. But I couldn't really find a good explanation about his role in the decline of civilisation that has been lasting till today. Just look at the number of muslim nobel prize winners. --80.56.36.253 13:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Look at the number of people living in China who've won Nobel prizes in science. Ditto India. Each of these populations are around 1.4 billion. And the Chinese and Indians have had their day in the sun when it comes to math and science innovation. In fact the zero and our base ten numbering system comes from India, not the Arabs as Tyson falsely claims.63.235.186.34 (talk) 17:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

• Neil deGrasse's claims are quite easily and comprehensively debunked here: [1] and here: [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.37.133.119 (talk) 16:55, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• Such prominent Muslim scientists as there are nowadays mostly work in Western institutions in Western countries. Prominent scientist Steven Weinberg freely grants the existence of the Arabian Golden Age, and the presence of brilliant Muslims among his colleagues. But, he says, in forty years he has never seen a scientific paper worth reading from a Muslim country.

The Sanity Inspector 02:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• But I couldn't really find a good explanation about his role in the decline of civilisation that has been lasting till today. Look at the "Legacy" section in the wiki article on al-Ghazali' The Incoherence of the Philosophers to see one hypothesis.

The Sanity Inspector 13:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I think what Neil deGrasse Tyson has stated is completely incorrect. Have you ever read in any of Ghazali's works where he has declined the science and civilisation? I am sure, you have not. Here's the online edition of his book Book of Knowledge in his work Ihya'ul Uludmuddin (The Revival of Religious Sciences): LINK

Ghazali has dedicated a complete book on Sciences and Knowledge, and he has never declined science or civilisation.

In his book Kimyaye Sa'aadat (Alchemy of Happiness), he writes, using a strong language, about the scholars and some Sufis of that period who used to prohibit people from learning modern sciences: ...and those who call themselves as Shaikh or Peer, and tell people not to learn knowledge because it will become a veil between them and their lord, are fully in ignorance. They have not yet found the truth. Any modern science that the society needs is an obligation upon an individual to learn. (I hope there wasn't any mistake in translation).

I suggest to go directly to the original source instead of listening from a person reporting.Ariana310 13:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I just came across this speech of Neil deGrasse Tyson in which he said that Imam Ghazali wrote: "Mathematics is the work of Devil". In such a scholarly seminar or conference, he does not even cite a single sentence of Ghazali, which would justify what he says. It seems that he is completely unfamiliar with the works of Ghazali. Here are some books of Ghazali in which he directly talks about Mathematics; its status in Philosophy and in Islam: al-Munqidh min ad-dalal, Miyar al-Ilm fi fan al-mantiq (Criterion of Knowledge in the Art of Logic) and in the Preface of Incoherence of Philosophers. -Ariana310 07:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

He cites the line about wool turning black in the fire because Allah wills it rather than a chemical change. Al-Ghazali did help launch Sufism into the mainstream and result in the downfall of Baghdad as the intellectual capital of the world. There's a reason why most of the science from that time gets traced back to that period in time and ever since the Muslim world has stopped producing any good scientific literature or study. He may not have been directly responsible but he did a lot to help orthodox Islam to take charge in the area. Tyson never argued with was the downfall of society or civilization... just that it was the downfall of independent thought and scientific inquiry in the area. He doesn't appear to be wrong. It isn't a criticism if al-Ghazali more of Sufism itself, but does warrant a note in the article as others have prior to and since made the claim and it's largely accurate. Tat 03:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you should see the sentence from the way Al-Ghazali wanted to express, not to make our own interpretations. The sentence is more philosophical than a scientific reasoning. Saying "wool turning black in the fire because Allah wills it rather than a chemical change", he tries to demonstrate that each action in this world is done by Allah's will and that Allah has let the actions to take place. He believes in a superior being i.e. Allah, thus in that logic, it is completely logical to say that all actions are done by the superior being. Your criticism can be targeted on the principal belief of Al-Ghazali, i.e. Does the superior being which is Allah have all the actions, activities, chemical and physical changes under his own will or not? Then in this case, I think Al-Ghazali has defended very well, more than any other person, his believes and orthodox Islamic believes. Now, if we suppose you do not agree with this point (the thesis which I wrote in a form of question), you should criticize this main and principle thesis (the existence of such a superior being, or the attributes of that superior being), not to state that Al-Ghazali has denounced the sciences. Ariana 18:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

sufism, for the large majority at that time, meant the abandon of all life pursuits for the sake of contemplation and woship, wearing rags and self-imposed poverty. it was of very negligible influence as long as the practice had been minor and limited. Al Ghazali's book Ihia olum eddine إحياء علوم الدين fanned sufism on a large scale. that's a well-known fact. The results were devastating. it's noteworthy to compare regions where the book had great influence to those where it had but little influence, like El Andalus; Islamic Spain. El Makkari المقري in his famous oeuvre نفح الطيب Nafhu et Tib pointed out that sufis were considered very idle people and discouraged. Sciences in El Andalus remained thriving even when Granada, the last kingdom, fell to the reconquesta while the other parts of the Islamic world plunged into darkness, scientifically speaking. El Ghazali unintentionally did what he woud have condemned were he to live to see the consequences of his own writings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayih (talk • contribs) 13:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC) --Sayih 18:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way El Ghazali does not represent the so-called Orthodox Islam. His views concerning the spiritual domain are rather mild , tolerant and loose. Though his views attracted the multitude, well-versed scholars - who had always represented the mainstream - condemned them as nonconformist. His books were decreed to be burned in many cities/states. However, The process of decline was irreversible and sufism gained the mainstream for the first time in history.. this lasted until the 19th century when scholars gained back the main stream and sufism shrank to the corner.. it's generally looked at as heresy today. ps. I should note that well-versed scholars العلماء /olama/ are very mild in their views, they stick to texts ie Qur'an and the true hadiths of sunna without rigid of far fetched interpretations. They are generally regarded as the guardians of the true understanding of Islam and they often speak against extremism on both ends and favor an active role in life. --Sayih 15:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Al Ghazali criticized metaphysics, not mathematics or physics. Also he had weak influence due to the fact that they were Sunni not Sufi.--BelalSaid (talk) 02:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

This entire discussion seems to ignore site policies and guidelines. Our opinions as editors mean nothing; the bottom line is: what do the sources reflect? Neil Degrasse Tyson criticized Ghazali, claiming he said math is the devil. Is Tyson a notable person whose opinion has an audience? Yes, absolutely. Is Youtube a reliable source? Not really, especially for such negative content. If a reliable source can be found reporting what he said, then it needs to be in the article; represented as Tyson's own view and not as objective fact, of course. On the other hand, it's not the job of editors to insert rebuttals to Tyson's comments on the article or this talk page; a Wikipedia article is measured by its sources, and part of WP:NPOV is that we represent the facts, what happened and who said what, not whether or not we agree with said sources. MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Tyson may have a sizeable following, he is not an authority on the subject. His opinion about Al-Ghazali holds as much weight as a random person from the streets. His field is astrophysics, not history or theology. Tyson's views ought to be ignored in lieu of actual academics from the field. DutchManfromtheEast (talk) 14:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

"other parts of the Islamic world plunged into darkness, scientifically speaking" historically, the rest of the Islamic world didn't fell to darkness scientifically.The regions only fell into dark ages only after the Mongol Sack of Baghdad GrandSultanMaeltheGreat (talk) 06:46, 20 August 2018 (UTC)