Ghazali, "Tahafat al-Falasfa" and Takfir of philosophers
The study of Ghazali's book "Tahafat-ul-Falasfa"
was completed. The conclusions I had drawn from reading it in 2006, and the
impressions that were on my mind, this time I have rejected most of them
myself. The book contains high level logical discussions. Ghazali sums up the
conclusions of the philosophers Ibn Sina and al-Farabi that "logic must be
strong." And then Ghazali agrees with Ibn Sina and al-Farabi and writes
that "this is correct." Ghazali goes on to say that it is incumbent
upon us to "follow in their footsteps word for word, and to debate with
them in this book in their language, that is, in the logic which is their
interpretation." Philosopher, pages 96-97).
Therefore, it should be noted that Ghazali did not
contradict the interpretations of Ibn Sina and Farabi by applying any
"religious or inspired" formula, but used logic for this. Religion,
which is itself a collection of contradictions, is incapable of talking about
philosophy and logic, because it has to be philosophical and logical. In the
history of philosophy, the rejection of a philosophy using philosophical and logical
arguments is a general attitude, not surprising. Ghazali's failure, however, is
that he was able to expose some of the contradictions but could not dissolve
them, as Fakhta used the canteen method to analyze the contradictions in Kant's
philosophy.
I will write on this subject in some detail, but for the
time being I have to briefly discuss the fatwa which Ghazali issued on the last
page of Tahafat al-Falasafah and applied it to the three conclusions of Ibn
Sina and Farabi. Is.
1. Ibn Sina and Farabi accepted the conclusion of
Aristotle's philosophy that the universe is ancient, it has no beginning in
time.
2: Ibn Sina also quoted Aristotle's conclusion that God
knows only the Universal, he is free from the knowledge of the Particular.
3: Ibn Sina and al-Farabi also concluded that souls cannot
occur in these bodies after death, but that the survival of the soul is
impossible.
Ghazali says that "this belief of the philosophers is
blatant blasphemy" (Tahafat, p. 539). Ghazali has called these three
conclusions of Ibn Sina and Farabi 'takfiri' and 'apostasy' and has made it
obligatory to kill anyone who expresses or propagates these views. That is,
this fatwa of Ghazali was against Ibn Sina and Farabi. According to this fatwa,
both are obligatory to be killed. Ghazali's reason is that it threatens to
mislead ordinary Muslims.
It should be noted that Ghazali has discussed a total of
twenty points in Tahafat al-Falasfa. Ghazali's words about them are as follows:
"Except for the three that we have quoted from the philosophers, all of
them have been said by some sect of Muslims." (Tahafat, 539) ۔
Regarding the three points we have mentioned above,
Ghazali's objection to philosophers is that they could not prove their
non-existence. But keep in mind that Ghazali himself could not prove his
'existence'. The only point is that these points give rise to the idea that the
prophets are liars. So these results are not correct. Ghazali's words are:
"These three issues are in no way compatible with Islam. His followers
consider the Prophets to be liars." (Tahafat, p. 538).