Talk:Al-Ghazali/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Wasn't he Abbasid ?

Al-Ghazali wrote most of his works in Arabic, Arabs have lived in Tus after the Arab conquest of Persia ca 650 CE, his name is Arabic too. he could have been of Arabic origin as much as of Persian origin. we are only sure that he was Muslim and lived in the Abbasid Caliphate therefor he should be described as Abbasid and Muslim in the same way as describing Caesar as roman. describing any person who lived after 650 CE as merely Persian would be misleading as Persia was no more after that date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.252.103.34 (talk) 03:22, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS & WP:OR. --HistoryofIran (talk) 03:34, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

according Leen Spruit in his book (Species intelligibilis 1. Classical roots and medieval discussions) page 89 he describes Al-Ghazali as "arabic theologian and philosopher".

I suggest describing him as " influential Abbasid Muslim philosophers, theologians, jurists ..." or " influential 11th century Muslim philosophers, theologians, jurists ...", and removing any reference to ethnicity as it is debated and irrelevant to the subject matter. otherwise i might suggest adding Arabic as a possibility for his origin.

>>Al-Ghazali wrote most of his works in Arabic

He also wrote four books in Persian (one of them being Kimya-ye Sa'adat); since when did medieval Arabs ever write in foreign languages? His name being Arabic is meaningless, otherwise Ottoman Caliphs would be Arabs too. He "could have been Arabic origin" is a pointless statement, the fact that he wrote books and most of his casual letters and poems in Persian indicates that was his native language, read the actual wiki article. Also, he didn't live in the Abbasid Caliphate as it didn't exist on the map during Ghazali's time, the entire land was ruled by Seljuk Empire. So he was born, raised and studied in Seljuk Persia, how does that make him Abbassid?

Also "Leen Spruit" is a literal nobody, especially when compare to UNESCO which states he was of Persian origin [1]. There are also two more books in the lead that also state he was Persian. --Qahramani44 (talk) 16:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I am afraid your inferences are not logical:

• he wrote some letters and poems in Persian therefore his ethnicity was Persian!, in alghazali's time many were multilingual.
• in regards to the Seljuks, i would refer you to the wiki page on them. although the Seljuks were De facto independent they were De Jure part of the Abbasid empire until the mongol Siege of Baghdad (1258). in fact they helped restore Baghdad to the Abbasids in 1055. when arguing to use Abbasid to describe Alghazali in the same sense when describing Caesar as roman and not Italian.
• finally, the document you site on the UNESCO website is an essay by Nabil Nofal presented at UNESCO and only represent the author's thoughts. 148.252.103.34 (talk) 23:18, 28 November 2019 (UTC)sam

Yes, writing personal letters and poetry in Persian is in fact indicative of a Persian ethnicity, the same way someone like Yūsuf Balasaguni or Mahmud Kashgari[2] is identified as Turkic because they wrote entire books and poems in Turkish. The language of scholarly works is not the same as the language of personal and cultural works. Ghazali being Persian is as overwhelmingly likely as Ibn al-Haytham being Arab (given that Haytham was born in Basra and wrote in Arabic), perhaps even more so. Can you even name a single Arab during the medieval period who wrote in Persian or Turkish?

As for Seljuks, it was the other way around; the Abbasids were their vassals, their "caliphate" during the Buyid and Seljuk eras was a ceremonial religious title, they ruled Baghdad only, read the Abbasid Caliphate article. Ghazali was born, raised, and studied in Seljuk-ruled Khorasan. As for Caesar, that's a false equivalence as "Roman" was a civic title, a citizenship instead of an ethnicity. There was no such concept of "citizen" in the Islamic world. A better comparison to this would be calling Ptolemy a Greek, even though he lived under the Roman Empire.

As for the essay by Nabil, thats still a better source than you've provided for calling Ghazali an Arab, especially since the lead of this article also contains two more sources also stating Ghazali was of Persian origin. --Qahramani44 (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

•Again Persian language =/= Persian ethnicity, Alkhayyam wrote poetry in Arabic, can I claim he was Arab?

•The wiki on Claudius Ptolemy describes him as greek because he wrote his work in greek, it also mentions the possibility of him being upper Egyptian.

•Do you suggest that an essay in a conference on education is a better source than a published book on medieval philosophy (the subject matter)!

•True, the Seljuks were only De jure part of the Abbasid Empire, that is not my point.

•What would define Persian ethnicity? Or Arab for that matter?

•Historically Persia and Persian are more associated with the ancient Empire (Cyrus the great, etc.), at least in the classical history view.

•My suggestion was to remove any reference to ethnicity because it could not be definitely determined (and of no value) and describing him and other medieval scholars either geographically by country/empire/province or chronologically by century or simply as Muslim. If not, including other sources is only logical.

148.252.103.34 (talk) 00:02, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Just NO. We don't call any medieval scholar like that. The rest of your comments are just personal opinion and unsourced claim. Plus Arabic =/= Arab. You better take a look at articles of other medieval scholars. --Wario-Man (talk) 21:12, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

again persian language =/= of persian ethnicity. 148.252.103.34 (talk) 23:18, 28 November 2019 (UTC)sam

IP, i would suggest you to read WP:OR. As other users said above, your arguments about Al-Ghazali's books in Arabic and his name being "Arabic" are meaningless.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:00, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Read my suggestion.148.252.103.34 (talk) 23:20, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

References

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jenjak7, Rar27345, Astros2018WorldSeriesChamps.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Section "The Decisive Criterion for Distinguishing Islam from Clandestine Unbelief "

Hello,

that's not what I read in that book where al-Ghazali says that most falasifa, even if they call themselves muslims, are infidels.

Record (talk) 22:19, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Isn't this the same Imam who...

Isn't this the same Imam who was referred to by Neil DeGrasse Tyson in his YouTube video, "The Islamic Golden Age: Naming Rights"? FFI, see URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDAT98eEN5Q (In particular, see 5:00 and/or 6:40 into the recording.) If yes, then his role in the downfall of Islamic/Arabic scientific studies and investigation need to be addressed in the article. LP-mn (talk) 17:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes it is the same. ♆ CUSH ♆ 07:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

NDT heavily slandered Ghazali with his baloney about Ghazali saying that mathematics was "of the devil", a statement for which NDT gives no evidence at all. For a brief explanation of Ghazali's actual views, see [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acnjryu56758 (talk • contribs) 13:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

From your source:

"A thousand years ago, Imam al-Ghazali wrote in his autobiography Deliverance from Error: “A clumsy and stupid person must be kept away from the seashore, not the proficient swimmer; and a child must be prevented from handling a snake, not the skilled snake-charmer.”

This was his advice in regards to the science of philosophy, particularly the Greek philosophy of Plato and Aristotle which many Muslims took pride in studying. He was warning them of the dangers that could result from this study. But he didn’t stop there. He even warned people about studying mathematics and other sciences. Why?"

This is advocating placing restrictions and censorship on the distribution of philosophy, natural science, and even mathematics for fear that it will make people religiously skeptical. This is an inherently close minded and backwards view, the introduction of which had a lot to do with the subsequent reorganization of Islam into a mystery religion with an elite, full time Ulema class who had ultimate religious authority, and the subsequent massive suppression of and reduction of the once bountiful scientific output from the Islamic world. Cited here: https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/chaney/files/paper.pdf

The fact that he may provide some limited concessions to the necessity of granting some people access to this forbidden knowledge, only after a thorough indoctrination by the extant religious authorities and approval by them that your indoctrination is complete enough, can hardly assuage people from realizing that his viewpoint is extremely close minded and tending towards restrictivist. Yes he does not totally forbid study of the natural sciences and philosophy, but yes he did directly contribute to the formalization of a system in the Islamic world in which their study was heavily discouraged, allowed only in a way that is secondary to religion, and inherently controlled by and locked behind the gate keeping authority of the backwards, ignorant ulema.

Should it be any coincidence that it was almost precisely at this moment when progress in Islamic society ground to a halt and a once vibrant society was reduced to backwardness and ignorance? Furthermore the formation of the Ulema itself was unislamic, they are a clergy, and Islam forbids clergy. The formation of the full time Ulema effectively converted Islam into a mystery religion like Christianity and Judaism, where there is a certain professional class that is considered to have special knowledge and special authority to interpret things above all others. Islam was not supposed to be like that, and it was not like that before the Islamic revival. Al-Ghazali and his cohorts essentially created a new religion in the Islamic revival, a close minded one that gave them and their parasitic class power and authority and control, and forbid anyone from reading anything they didn't want them to see. It is obvious how in such a context constructive scientific progress is nearly impossible, if you have to go to a school to become a priest to have access to any scientific knowledge, and even then your study of scientific knowledge is strictly limited to ways that is peripheral of religion, such as the calculation of Qiba, then it is obvious no real scientific advancement is going to be able to take place.

The science books that Al-Ghazali talks about are not the dangerous knowledge and ideas, it is his own ignorant venom spewing from his own ignorant mouth that is the danger.2601:140:8900:61D0:C860:FF5C:7447:54ED (talk) 10:11, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Very well said. 24.96.121.19 (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Picture

Hi can someone add his tile back on and remove this random picture of what could be anyone. https://www.google.com/search?q=al+ghazali+name&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwidy4bOt8H-AhV5nycCHbW0A-sQ2-cCegQIABAA&oq=al+ghazali+name&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQAzIGCAAQCBAeMgcIABAYEIAEMgcIABAYEIAEOgQIABAeUKoFWLcIYIoLaABwAHgAgAGHAYgBnwSSAQMyLjOYAQCgAQGqAQtnd3Mtd2l6LWltZ8ABAQ&sclient=img&ei=feRFZN2YNfm-nsEPtemO2A4#imgrc=51gi-QO1FOjT_M

It looked much better like this and more accurate. We do not know what Ghazali looked like Galaxy21ultra (talk) 02:09, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the image, because it has no merit, but the tile is gone per MOS:CALLIGRAPHY. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Iskander! Is there anyway to reupload the tile back on to wiki then attatch it to the page? I would do so but I am new to this platform and have no clue despite trying Galaxy21ultra (talk) 16:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Quantum mechanics?

This section should be removed. Al-Ghazali did not work--could not have worked--on quantum mechanics and his works did not inform those who did work on it. At least no source is provided to suggest that it did. All we have is a quote from an article that constructs a (very strained) ex-post analogy between one of Al-Ghazali's ideas and the Copenhagen interpretation. VecLuci (talk) 09:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree. That's not serious. Record (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Agree, and the relation between occasionalism and Copenhagen interpretation is far fetched. Neither does even entail the other. The section is rather a reflection of an attempt of asserting scientific foreknowledge within the Quran or Islam. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry but this is extremely farfetched and should be added back. You are removing an actual academic paper simply because your opinion does not confer to their argument. Please add this section back, or I will my self and report you for page vandalism 2A0C:5BC0:40:3E3C:10F9:B679:BDF6:F64E (talk) 17:24, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Go ahead VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 20:40, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Greatest

The quote below should be edited. See proposed efits below. "It was during this period where many of his great works were written. He believed that the Islamic spiritual tradition had become moribund and that the spiritual sciences taught by the first generation of Muslims had been forgotten. This belief led him to write his magnum opus entitled Iḥyā’ ‘ulūm ad-dīn ("The Revival of the Religious Sciences")" 1. It was during this time where many of his great non-scientic/religious works were a ritte." 4. It should end with: "modern day scientist are critical of this transition phase, as it led to the downfall of math and science in Arab and Muslim world." (Citation uzomad. (2012, March 19). Neil DeGrasse Tyson - The Islamic Golden Age: Naming Rights [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDAT98eEN5Q) The reason for this requested edit is to highlight both the positive and negative consequences of Sri Eggg (talk) 22:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

grammar

sentence doesn't make sense with plurals/singulars:

He is known as one of the most prominent and influential jurisconsult, legal theoretician, mufti, philosopher, theologian, logician and mystic in Islamic history.

you cant be "one of the most prominent [...] philosopher" etc. 2A00:23C8:2506:CA01:AD0F:60BB:2DC9:21CD (talk) 14:22, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree, and since this is a simple grammar construction issue, I have made the change. —C.Fred (talk) 14:25, 27 December 2023 (UTC)