Transcription
Friends, this is cotton, and this is a match. If I light this cotton with this match, it will catch fire. Here you go. But there was a prominent Muslim philosopher who believed that this fire is not from the match. This fire comes from God's will. The name of this philosopher was Al-Ghazali. Al-Ghazali was a very great Islamic scholar who was born in the 11th century. At that time, there were some people in the Muslim world who were researching Greek philosophy, especially the work of Aristotle. This was an era when the philosophy of most Greek philosophers was part of debates. In Ghazali's time, Baghdad was the intellectual capital of the world. It had libraries, observatories, and hospitals. Greek philosophy was being translated into Arabic. Muslim scholars were reading great philosophers like Aristotle and Plato. They were challenging them and, in many places, writing their own philosophies in response. Friends, in today's era, Muslims are very far from knowledge, science, and technology. But friends, this was an era when there was a great thirst for knowledge among Muslims. Anyone who gave them useful knowledge was honored, patronized, and rewarded. Cities like Baghdad, Damascus, Cordoba, and Cairo were centers of knowledge where people came from all over the world to learn. The names of the Muslim scholars of this era still shine like stars in history. I have spoken about them in detail many times before. Please watch these videos in my archive on YouTube. Rulers like Caliph Harun al-Rashid and al-Mamun made knowledge a part of state policy. In this era, there were scholars like Al-Farabi, Ibn Sina, Al-Razi, Al-Biruni, and dozens of others who were part of this intellectual ecosystem. These people were constantly generating new ideas. The ideas of Greek thinkers like Aristotle and Plato were both criticized and adopted. This was the era when Muslim mathematicians invented algebra. When a Muslim doctor wrote such books on medicine that they were read in European medical schools for 500 years. The name of this book is Al-Qanun fi al-Tibb, meaning The Canon of Medicine. And it was written by the great Ibn Sina. Friends, look at this book I have. It's a wonderful book. Books That Changed History. On page 56 of this book, the Canon of Medicine is mentioned. It's such a magnificent book. Such a large book. It states, "Considered a landmark in the history of medicine. Al-Qanun fi al-Tibb, or The Canon of Medicine, was written in 1025 by Persian polymath Ibn Sina." You might recall I mentioned in my last video that religion [clears throat] and philosophy can never go together. There can be no agreement between them. But the Muslim philosophers of that time believed that philosophy and religion could go together. In today's era, the condition of Muslims is such that if I start talking about philosophy, about intellect, about logic and reason? People start asking me, "Sir, are you an atheist? Are you an agnostic? Do you not believe in Allah?" This is the state of intellect! The philosophers of that era believed that this world is eternal. The existence of Allah can be proven by pure reason. And the soul is something that knows itself without a body. That is, even if the soul does not have a body, it recognizes itself. These ideas were quite bold, revolutionary, and dangerous for many religious scholars. The reason for this is, if this world is eternal, has always existed, then what is the meaning of creation? If Allah only knows universals, then what is the point of my prayer? And if everything can be understood through philosophy, then what is the need for revelation? Al-Ghazali tried to answer all these questions in his own way. Abu Hamid Muhammad ibn Muhammad al-Tusi al-Ghazali is one of those personalities in Islamic intellectual history for whom calling him just a scholar is not enough. He was simultaneously a faqih (jurist), mutakallim (theologian), a deep critic of philosophy, and later a Sufi mystic. His importance is also extraordinary because he was born during the Islamic Golden Age, when knowledge was at its peak. But he was also the first to criticize that knowledge. His education took place in the best madrasas of that era, where he studied fiqh, theology, logic, and philosophy. His teacher, Imam al-Haramayn al-Juwayni, was the greatest theologian of his time, which indicates that Al-Ghazali did not just receive basic religious education but also received the highest level of intellectual training. As a result, Al-Ghazali was familiar with all the knowledge of his time. So, whether it was philosophy or kalam, logic or law. A significant turning point in his life came when he was appointed to the position of professor at the Nizamiyya Madrasa in Baghdad. This was not just a teaching position but the most prestigious intellectual position of that time. His fame, respect, and influence were at their peak. But during this very period, a deep intellectual and spiritual crisis arose within him, a crisis that changed his thinking forever. He wrote a book titled Tahafut al-Falasifa, whose English translation is The Incoherence of Philosophers. Incoherence means illogical, inconsistent, or unclear. It is clear from the title that the contradictions and weaknesses in the thinking of philosophers are presented. This is, friends, that book, The Incoherence of Philosophers. In this book, Al-Ghazali challenged those philosophies that, in his opinion, were either devoid of logical consistency or were creating confusion between intellect and religion. At that time, Ibn Sina (Avicenna) had a great influence in the Muslim world. Ibn Sina had tried to explain the philosophies of Aristotle and Plato in the Arabic language. Many people thought that Greek philosophy and Islam could be combined. But Ghazali found this dangerous. He felt that all these philosophers considered Greek philosophy to be superior and were judging Islam accordingly. That is, first accept Aristotle as the final authority, and then interpret the Quran and Hadith according to him. Ghazali reversed this thinking. He said that the real authority is the Quran and revelation, not philosophy. Philosophy can be a tool, but it cannot be a judge. In Tahafut al-Falasifa, Al-Ghazali took up 20 doctrines of the philosophers. These were issues on which, in his opinion, the philosophers were either wrong, their arguments were weak, or they contradicted the basic teachings of Islam. But interestingly, among these 20 doctrines, three were such that Al-Ghazali called them the most dangerous. He said that anyone who believes in or has faith in these three is expelled from Islam, meaning they become a disbeliever. The first point was that philosophers said that this world is eternal, meaning it has always existed. It has no starting point. This idea actually comes from Aristotle. Al-Ghazali said that this goes against the basic concepts of Islam. Because Islam says that Allah created the world. If the world has always existed, then what is the meaning of creation? Then in what sense is Allah the Creator? According to Al-Ghazali, this idea weakened Allah's power and His will. Because the concept in Islam is that Allah creates everything. When He wills, "Be, and it is." The second point related to Allah's knowledge. Philosophers believed that Allah knows universal things. He does not know particulars in the same way we know them. That is, Allah knows the concept of man, but He does not know every small action of every individual human being in a particular form. In Al-Ghazali's view, this idea was completely against Islam. The Quran repeatedly states that Allah knows everything, even the secrets of the hearts. He is aware of whatever is in the heavens and the earth. Therefore, in Ghazali's view, anyone who says that Allah does not know particulars is actually attacking the philosophical concept of God. The third point related to resurrection. Philosophers said that the soul remains alive after death, but the body is not resurrected. The soul recognizes itself even without the body. They understood bodily resurrection symbolically or metaphorically. Al-Ghazali said that this is also against the clear teachings of Islam. The Quran repeatedly states that humans will be resurrected. They will be judged. Paradise and Hell are real. If bodily resurrection is denied, then the concept of the Hereafter becomes weak. You see, friends, the real problem was that according to Ghazali, philosophers considered their faculty of reasoning to be the final authority. They said that if something does not stand up to the argument of intellect, then religious texts should be reinterpreted. Al-Ghazali said that this method is wrong. Reason is important, logic is important. But it also has a limit. It is not possible to prove everything with human logic. Sometimes human intellect is a prisoner of its assumptions. That is why Al-Ghazali denies the arguments of the philosophers. You see, friends, I told you that as soon as I talk about philosophy, reason, rationality, using intellect? People start asking me, "Sir, what is your belief?" Books like this, friends, Tahafut al-Falasifa, had a great impact on the mindset of Muslims. After Tahafut al-Falasifa, studying philosophy was considered a risky endeavor. Before, people thought that Islam and philosophy could go together. Reason and revelation could be reconciled. But after Ghazali's book, people started looking at philosophy with suspicion. Some people believed that Al-Ghazali saved the Muslim creed. While others believed that Ghazali's thinking weakened rational thought among Muslims. This debate continues to this day. Interestingly, in response to Ghazali's book Tahafut al-Falasifa, the great Ibn Rushd wrote another remarkable book, Tahafut al-Tahafut, meaning The Incoherence of Incoherence. In this book, Ibn Rushd gave a powerful response to Ghazali. I have already made a detailed video on this. Please watch that video in my archive. In Europe, Ibn Rushd's thinking greatly inspired philosophy and science. But in the Muslim world, Ghazali's thinking prevailed, and gradually logic, philosophy, and science took a backseat, and Muslims adopted religious orthodoxy. But friends, the story is not over yet. The thought of Ghazali that caused the greatest damage to the Muslim mindset was related to cause and effect, i.e., causality. Ghazali was an occasionalist. But to understand this, it is necessary to explain cause and effect first, and this is the most important discussion of our video. See, Book Buddy, causality simply means that one thing in the world causes another. In daily life, we believe that if you put your hand in fire, the fire will burn your hand. If I drop something from my hand, it will fall down. If it rains, plants grow in the ground. If I start moving my feet forward and backward on the ground, I will start walking. These are all examples of cause and effect. You see, friends, the entire edifice of science stands on this cause and effect. There is a cause behind everything in this world. Scientists make inventions and discoveries and advance the world by understanding this cause-and-effect relationship. When I lit this cotton with a match, the cause was the match. And the effect was the burning of the cotton. If I light it 10 times, 100 times, 1000 times, a crore times, the match will still burn the cotton. But Ghazali did not agree with this. Ghazali said that you are assuming too much. You think that this match set the cotton on fire. Whereas, in reality, you have never observed causality. You have only seen that this cotton was near the fire, and then it burned. You saw only two events, one after the other. First, contact with fire, then the cotton burning. But to say that the first thing caused the second thing is an addition you have made yourself. But friends, we criticize Ghazali, especially I do a lot. But it is also true that understanding his philosophical argument is important here. Whenever I make a video, like today I am making a video about Ghazali. I am not talking about Book Buddy right now. Right now, Ghazali is sitting in front of you, who has to advocate his case thoroughly. Therefore, I will try my level best. Ghazali is trying to explain to us with this cotton example that observation gives us sequence, but not necessity. We see that things happen together. But we cannot prove that there is a causal connection between them. This is largely similar to David Hume's theory of cause and effect. I have also made a video on Hume's thinking. So let's not discuss it here. Ghazali draws a very big theological conclusion from this. He says that this fire did not ignite from the match. Allah ignited this cotton. His thinking was that when a person is sick and takes medicine for treatment, the medicine does not cure them. Allah cures them. When a knife cuts something, it is not the knife that cuts. It is Allah who cuts. When you eat food and feel satiety, meaning you feel that your stomach is full, it is actually the angels who make you feel that your stomach is full. It has nothing to do with the food. If Allah wills, something will happen. If Allah does not will, it will not happen. This thinking, friends, is called occasionalism. It means that the things of the world do not possess real power in themselves. Every effect is a direct action of Allah. Fire, water, air, medicine, gravity are not real causes but merely occasions through which Allah manifests His work. In Ghazali's view, this idea protects Tawhid (monotheism). Because if we say that fire itself burns, medicine itself cures, gravity itself makes things fall, then you are giving power to individuals. You are making people independent. He wanted all power to remain with Allah. The world, in his view, was not a machine that Allah created and left behind. The world, in his view, was a puppet show where every movement, every moment, is orchestrated by Allah Himself. With this thinking, he also explained miracles. When Prophet Ibrahim (peace be upon him) was thrown into the fire, he was not burned. According to Ghazali, Allah did not create burning at that time. The fire was there, but its effect did not occur. That is, a miracle is not the breaking of natural law. It is Allah's habit, which He can change whenever He wills. But friends, the real problem starts here. If there are no real causes in the world. If Allah can change things every moment according to His habit, then what is the existence of science? I told you that the foundation of science is cause and effect. If the principle of causality does not exist, then science does not exist either. Science operates on the assumption that the world is stable, predictable, and its laws can be investigated. A scientist studies fire because they understand that heat, combustion, and energy are real principles. A doctor studies medicine because they understand that there are biological causes and effects in the body. A physicist studies gravity because they understand that there are real relationships between matter and force. But according to Ghazali's philosophy, these are not real causes. They are just Allah's habits. This thinking is an atomic bomb on the foundation of science. Ghazali's thinking buried the pursuit of rationality, logic, and science among Muslims forever. Whenever any phenomenon occurs, we look towards divine will instead of understanding the physics behind it. Whenever any event occurs, whether good or bad, instead of understanding natural causes, we attribute everything to Allah. As they say, "What can a human do, it's all Allah's doing." This thinking is very wrong, friends. It may be a religiously satisfying answer, but it is absolutely not a scientifically productive answer. Science progresses when we ask how something happened? Why did it happen? Under what circumstances did it happen? Under what rules did it happen? And will this rule work the same way tomorrow? Ghazali believed that intellect has some limitations. In his view, reason is useful in mathematics, logic, and practical life. But when it tries to understand problems like Allah, the soul, the Hereafter, and metaphysics alone, confusion and contradiction arise. According to Ghazali, the mistake of the philosophers was that they considered human reason to be the final authority, the final judge. If any religious matter did not fit their logic, they would present clear words of the Quran as metaphors. They said that divine realities cannot be reached by reason alone. Reliable knowledge in this field comes from revelation. The work of intellect is to help understand revelation, not to rule over it. That is, reason is useful, but it is not the ultimate authority. In Ghazali's view, studying philosophy is a dangerous endeavor, especially for faith. Because when a person brings everything to the court of intellect, intellectual arrogance develops in them. They doubt everything. They doubt religion, they doubt revelation, and they start judging religion because, in their view, reason is the final authority. Al-Ghazali also shaped the hierarchy of knowledge. In his view, the most important subjects were those directly related to religion: the Quran, Hadith, Fiqh, Kalam, and Sufism. Compared to these, philosophy, natural science, and foreign sciences were secondary. He considered logic useful to some extent, but he was not ready to give central place to metaphysical philosophy and natural investigation. This hierarchy, friends, had a profound influence on madrasa culture. When the Quran, Hadith, Fiqh, and Kalam were placed at the top of the curriculum, and rational and natural sciences were ignored. This was, friends, Ghazali's thinking and his philosophy. All other things are acceptable. But friends, Ghazali's denial of cause and effect is his biggest mistake. It is his biggest disaster, which is still impacting Muslims. I am not saying that this one book by Ghazali changed everything. But somewhere, Muslims have indeed adopted Ghazali's thinking. That is why we attribute everything to "Inshallah" (God willing) and to Allah, denying our own responsibility. A very big example of this is that in the 125-year history of the Nobel Prize, only five Muslim scientists have received the Nobel Prize in sciences. Only Dr. Abdus Salam from Pakistan has received it in physics, who, according to Pakistan's constitution, is still considered a non-Muslim. There are two billion Muslims in the world, but Muslims are the furthest behind in science and technology, physics, mathematics, biology, and STEM subjects. Because if Allah is to do everything, and Allah is the owner of cause and effect, then what is the need for humans to study physics, chemistry, and these sciences? Friends, this is a thinking with which I strongly disagree. I promise, Book Buddies, that as long as Muslims continue to think like this, the next thousand years will pass in the same way, and nothing will change. If Muslims are to change anything, it will be their way of thinking. We need to adopt rationality of thought. Logic and science are the future of humanity. And the sooner we understand this, the better it will be for us. If you liked the video, please press the like button. Next time, goodbye.