Talk:The Incoherence of the Philosophers

[Untitled]

The Incoherence of the Philosophers was not directed against the Mutzlities whose by the 11th century, when the book was written, was already in recession. The book is mainly directed against Islamic neoplatonism. --Vonaurum 21:18, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

can i ask why 'the incoherence of the incoherence' by Ibn Rushd redirects to this page, they arent the same text, 'the incoherence of the incoherence was a reply to the incoherence of the philosophers and should have its own page.

When was this book written?

Need a date in here someplace. 66.32.141.79 04:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It is interesting to compare the impact of Saint Augustin to Western Europe to that of Al Ghazali in Islam. It is ironic that the Islamic philosophers rescued the damaged done in the West by St. Augustin thoughts, through Maimonides/Saint Thomas/Scholasticism/Reform/Enlightment while Islam still dwells in the 12th century disputations. Jmcribeiro (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

That is pure orientalist crap Jmcribeiro. Not only has the "shutting gates of ijihtad" myth been debunked by today's scholarship, you forgot to have read the end of the page :

"Far from stifling philosophy in the Muslim world, the tahafut has piqued Muslim interest in philosophy: jurists are no longer afraid to study the works of Avicenna and al-Farabi as is evident in the works of Averroes and Fakhr al-Din al-Razi."

As well as this link http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/al-ghazali/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.205.162 (talk) 05:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The incoherence of the legacy section!

Contributors, including me, can't seem to agree whether this book stifled or stimulated Islamic thought in the Middle Ages. I believe the former, and have offered citations and examples. Over the past several months, these have been radically altered or removed. I don't wish to get into an edit war over this, so I would like interested contributors to come up with a way to illustrate the enduring ambivalence over this book's influence. The Sanity Inspector (talk) 21:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

 It's hard to find the citations you've been using for this in among the page's history. Could you repeat them here to make them easier for people to look at? Many thanks. —Syncategoremata (talk) 21:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Continued discussion in the Muslim World

Some claims are done in this section of the article without any sources. Methinkest this is just some unfounded POV-counterspin added by some non-objective individual and feel most like removing it right away. I might just do that.... Fedor (talk) 09:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Why this is part of Avicenna series?

I still don't get that this book is series of Avicenna works. As Prof. Marmura said Al-Ghazali only refutes Greek's metaphysical element of muslim philosophers; even Al-Ghazali wrote Miyar al-Ilm fi Fan al-Mantiq (Criterion of Knowledge in the Art of Logic) that follows exposition of Avicenna's Logic as an appendix to the Tahāfut. Lokamaya (talk) 12:03, 11 May 2019 (UTC)