Talk:Al-Ghazali/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Sources that he's Persian?

What are the sources that state he's Persian? Please provide some in the article, in accordance to WP:V. MB 14:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The article doesnt say "he's Persian" (or Arab or Turk).--Zereshk 00:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Yet he's included in a list of Persian scientists, funny, don't you think? MB 15:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

He has many Persian writings the most important one being Kimiya As-Sa'adat. He was also from Tus, which did not have any Arab colonies unlike Merv. So he was Persian since Arabs did not write in Persian. --Ali doostzadeh 18:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, "scientists" in those days would also include philosophers. Modern science did not exist at the time.--Zereshk 07:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Clear copyvio

This article is copied verbatim from here. As an example, two paragraphs from the article:

Al-Ghazali is one of the greatest Islamic theologians and mystical thinkers. He learned various branches of traditional Islamic religious sciences in his home town of Tus, Gorgan and Nishapur in the northern part of Iran. He was also involved in Sufi practices from an early age. Being recognized by Nizam al-Mulk, the vizir of the Seljuq sultans, he was appointed head of the Nizamiyyah College at Baghdad in AH 484/1091 CE. As the intellectual head of the Islamic community, he was busy lecturing on Islamic jurisprudence at the College, and also refuting heresies and responding to questions from all segments of the community. Four years later, however, al-Ghazali fell into a serious spiritual crisis and finally left Baghdad, renouncing his career and the world. After wandering in Syria and Palestine for about two years and finishing the pilgrimage to Mecca, he returned to Tus, where he was engaged in writing, Sufi practices and teaching his disciples until his death. In the meantime he resumed teaching for a few years at the Nizamiyyah College in Nishapur.

Al-Ghazali explained in his autobiography why he renounced his brilliant career and turned to Sufism. It was, he says, due to his realization that there was no way to certain knowledge or the conviction of revelatory truth except through Sufism. (This means either that the traditional form of Islamic faith was in a very critical condition at the time, or he simply did not agree with the standard day to day grind of "ordinary" Islam.) This realization is possibly related to his criticism of Islamic philosophy. In fact, his refutation of philosophy is not a mere criticism from a certain (orthodox) theological viewpoint. First of all, his attitude towards philosophy was ambivalent; it was both an object of criticism and an object of learning (for example, logic and the natural sciences). He mastered philosophy and then criticized it in order to Islamicize it. The importance of his criticism lies in his philosophical demonstration that the philosophers' metaphysical arguments cannot stand the test of reason. However, he was also forced to admit that the certainty of revelatory truth, for which he was so desperately searching, cannot be obtained by reason. It was only later that he finally attained to that truth in fana' which in Sufism refers to the state of losing one's self and ego. Through his own religious experience, he worked to revive the faith of Islam by reconstructing the religious sciences upon the basis of Sufism, and to give a theoretical foundation to the latter under the influence of philosophy. Thus Sufism came to be generally recognized in the Islamic community. Though Islamic philosophy did not long survive al-Ghazali's criticism, he contributed greatly to the subsequent philosophization of Islamic theology and Sufism.

And from the original article:

al-Ghazali is one of the greatest Islamic Jurists, theologians and mystical thinkers. He learned various branches of traditional Islamic religious sciences in his home town of Tus, Gurgan and Nishapur in the northern part of Iran. He was also involved in Sufi practices from an early age. Being recognized by Nizam al-Mulk, the vizir of the Seljuq sultans, he was appointed head of the Nizamiyyah College at Baghdad in AH 484/AD 1091. As the intellectual head of the Islamic community, he was busy lecturing on Islamic jurisprudence at the College, and also refuting heresies and responding to questions from all segments of the community. Four years later, however, al-Ghazali fell into a serious spiritual crisis and finally left Baghdad, renouncing his career and the world After wandering in Syria and Palestine for about two years and finishing the pilgrimage to Mecca, he returned to Tus, where he was engaged in writing, Sufi practices and teaching his disciples until his death. In the meantime he resumed teaching for a few years at the Nizamiyyah College in Nishapur

Al-Ghazali explained in his autobiography why he renounced his brilliant career and turned to Sufism. It was, he says, due to his realization that there was no way to certain knowledge or the conviction of revelatory truth except through Sufism. (This means that the traditional form of Islamic faith was in a very critical condition at the time.) This realization is possibly related to his criticism of Islamic philosophy. In fact, his refutation of philosophy is not a mere criticism from a certain (orthodox) theological viewpoint. First of all, his attitude towards philosophy was ambivalent; it was both an object and criticism and an object of learning (for example, logic and the natural sciences). He mastered philosophy and then criticized it in order to Islamicize it. The importance of his criticism lies in his philosophical demonstration that the philosophers’ metaphysical arguments cannot stand the test of reason. However, he was also forced to admit that the certainty, of revelatory truth, for which he was so desperately searching, cannot be obtained by reason. It was only later that he finally attained to that truth in the ecstatic state (fana’) of the Sufi. Through his own religious experience, he worked to revive the faith of Islam by reconstructing the religious sciences upon the basis of Sufsm, and to give a theoretical foundation to the latter under the influence of philosophy. Thus Sufism came to be generally recognized in the Islamic community. Though Islamic philosophy did not long survive al-Ghazali’s criticism, he contributed greatly to the subsequent philosophization of Islamic theology and Sufism.

This should be labelled accordingly. Ori Redler 08:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Sources and Division of Knowledge

User:Lakho Shahnaz, you have been adding content to "Sources and Division of Knowledge" w/o any referencing or citing. You also have been adding that w/o taking care of the manual of style. I am removing all that stuff until you bring references to it. You have been informed of these issues at your talkpage but there was no improvement. Please have a look at WP:CITE, WP:V and WP:MOS. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed image

I removed the image, made by an unknown artist at an unknown date, clearly not made in the era of al-Ghazali and therefore unencyclopedic.S711 12:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed Imam Nawawi "criticism"

I removed that because 1. Imam Nawawi was not a critic of Imam Al Ghazali. 2. There was no source mentioned for it. This is what Imam Nawawi has said about Imam Al Ghazali "if all the books of Islam were lost, the Ihya would suffice them all", such is the depth and detail of this remarkable work." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.212.128.145 (talk) 18:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

While you are correct about it needing a source, the more appropriate action would be to add the fact tag. Nawawi was a well-known critic of Ghazali, and this criticism is also well known. I'll add the fact tag now with the criticism, shouldn't take too long to find the source. MezzoMezzo 20:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 21:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed Imam Nawawi "criticism"

To the very best of my knowledge there is no evidence of Imam Nawawi being a critic of Al-Ghazali at all, in fact he enjoyed praise from Imam Nawawi (as previously stated in section 10 of this page) and other eminent scholars, hence I removed it. However as can be noticed, the edition was undone, therefore I'm writing now to those that have the opinion that he actually was a critic, to kindly provide evidence as a reference. If that won't be possible after a reasonable time period has elapsed, then it would be very unreasonable to suggest the criticism of Imam Nawawi to stay at the article.

In brief, the proposal is that those whose opinion it is that Imam Nawawi was a critic should set a reasonable time limit to find evidence, after which if not found, that portion of the article should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hubbud Deen (talk • contribs) 21:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

That whole section is OR and it seems to do with theological polemics on the internet that is outside of the interest of wikipedia. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 04:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The criticism is known, give me some time to locate and i'll do my best; the request is quite reasonable.

As for the accusation that the material is theological polemics, this is based on the user's own POV. This is evident in the fact that the removal of the content featured an edit summary using the term "Wahabi" - which is recognized as a derogatory slur and should not be used again - despite there being no mention of wahhabism or anything of the sort in the section. Let's please put our personal opinions aside and base edits on information and sources, as the user who started this discussion asked. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not a place for polemical debate. And usually it is followers of Ibn Wahab (and it is not a slur and widely used in the literature) who criticize Sufi Muslim scholars. I mean what is the connection to the article if another person like Ibn Taymiyyah has an opinion on Ghazzali? I think some of these quotes have been cherry picked for polemical debates. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 01:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I already mentioned it once, i'll say it again. the long consensus here is that wahabi is a derogatory slur; don't throw it around. As for polemical debate, this clearly isn't the case; biographies on famous people frequently display criticism, especially people involved in philosophy and/or organized religion. It is very much relevant if the criticism is from notables within whichever realm, in this case organized religion. As for quotes being cherry picked, that's just your own opinion. You may assume whatever you want about the motives of other editors, but the bottom line is that the criticism is notable and sourced. If you personally don't like it then that is fine, the article isn't here to say who's right and who's wrong, but to remove it is censorship; Wikipedia is not censored. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Which consensus is that? It is used all over the media. Also there is no censoring as long as proper citation in English translations are given or the original Arabic is brought. And the material is most likely taken from a Wahabi (what is the correct term?) website. I do not think websites with polemical material should be introduced here. Also if Wahabi was a slur than more than 1000 mainstream google books would not use it [1]. Please show me the consensus. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 05:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't particularly care about what the media says in this context, as we're not editing the new media; we're editing on Wikipedia. It is indeed an insulting term and has been treated as such by site administrators in the past. Your request to be "shown" this consensus is misleading - there is no official page of words you can't use to my knowledge. The fact that users have been blocked in the past for directing the term at other users is proof enough.
As for your suggestion that the material is most likely brought from a website, again, that is just your opinion. That you would say it without proof would lead a casual observer to believe you have some sort of bias; you're turning sourced content on notable criticism of a prominent individual into some sort of an ideological debate when it isn't a debate at all. As editors we're not here to make judgment calls on who is correct, we simply provide the information. It is adequately sourced criticism in line with WP:V and WP:RS, and thus there is no reason to be removing it. That you're calling it cross debate when it clearly isn't makes it appear that you're removing content you simply disagree with. I want to assume that isn't the case, i'm just pointing out what it looks like. Your best course of action would be to familiarize yourself with site policy and realize that showcasing criticism is not validating it; this is standard in many articles on individuals. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not adequately sourced. Where is the publisher, date? where is the original Arabic? Who did the translation? What does theological biased polemics have to do with a biography of a person? And as per the term, please show me the admin who banned it and I will discuss it with him. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 05:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:V and WP:S, it is quite adequately sourced. You don't just make up your own criteria; we function based off of official site policy here. If you can find something based on site policy then we can discuss that, but if you're going to make demands out of nowhere then we have nothing to discuss.

You have also once again called this theological polemics - this makes you look rather intellectually dishonest considering I have explained multiple times that criticisms of individuals isn't polemics, it's notable information. Check articles on such random but still religious/philosophical figures such as Jerry Falwell, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, and Socrates - you will find sections for criticism. I have to admit the fact that you keep bringing this up is causing me to be weary of this discussion; this is completely inappropriate and makes it appear that you're trying to censor criticism of a guy you like. That is not good. You should probably alter your position or at least your approach to alleviate those fears.

Regarding the admin, you can discuss it with User:Ryan Postlethwaite if you would like. MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

No it is not adequate. Lets look at the sources. What is: "Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, part 4, p. 71 ". Where is the edition? Who is the publisher? Who is the translator? And the other critic: "Abu 'Umar ibn as-Salah, a well-known Shafi'i scholar wrote". What is the criterion for a well-known? And the citation is even worst. What is "Tabaqaat Ashaab al-Shafa’i" Where is the page, publisher, original and translator? I don't mind criticism as long as it is not undo weight. That is there are a list of scholars who have mentioned his significance. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Majmoo' al-Fataawa is the most well known collection of Ibn Taymiyyah; there is no "publisher" considering the book was written closer to Al-Ghazali's time. AS for the book of Aboo 'Umar, the page number is not on hand so if you take issue with that then there is not much I can object to in that sense. However, what you have asked of the well sourced content is not reasonable; if you cannot come up with a policy based issue with it, then I cannot in good faith allow you to remove content when it appears your primary reason is because you disagree with it. MezzoMezzo (talk) 16:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

After being advised by a number of people Ali, i'm going to leave this up to your discretion. If you feel that the criticism does not belong here then my objections are removed, after review due to getting some third party feedback on this. Best regards, MezzoMezzo (talk) 17:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually, the book is known, but it has to be published or else who has the original manuscript? It would also need the translator. So that is why I believe it was taken from a website which is devoted to polemics. We can say some scholars had a difference of opinion with Ghazzali with regards to some matters, but it should have equal weight at least with scholars who have praised this person. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 17:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Which Sufi Order?

I'm wondering which Sufi Order he was a part of? its disappointing that its not mentioned in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.37.243 (talk) 09:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

At the time of Al-Ghazali, none of the four famous tariqas existed. Although Abdul-Qadir Gelani lived during the same period as Ghazali, but his tariqa was not such famous at that time to be called as a specific tariqa. However, Ghazali was the disciple of Abu Ali Farmadhi. Ariana (talk) 12:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Ghazali a physician?

It's written in the article that Ghazali was also a physician and in his areas of interest Medicine has been added. I don't think that he was sufficiently qualified in this field and he has no works on medicines. If I am right, I think we should remove this (being a physician). Ariana (talk) 12:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Secondary sources rarely describe him as such too, I'll support the removal. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 21:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

"Islamic" is not nationality

He has been introduced as "Islamic theologian". "Islam" is not a country and "Islamic" is not a nationality, he should be introduced as a "Persian", not 'Islamic". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shayan7 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Descartes

The section on René Descartes definitely needs a citation of some sort. I appreciate that both al-Ghazali and Descartes placed doubt at the heart of their philosophy, but Descartes' focus upon the thinking subject seems to me to be (prima facie) a million miles from al-Ghazali's focus upon religious faith, which was strongly critical of speculative thought.

I'm not saying what's written is necessarily wrong (I don't know to tell you the truth) but without it being traceable to a verifiable source one cannot know, and it just looks like the author(s) are using hearsay to patch together influences where they might not exist.

I followed the footnote provided for the claim that scholars think Descartes was dishonest in not giving Ghazali credit and found that in the work cited the author writes, "I do not wish to argue that al-Qhazali influenced the thinking of Descartes (a matter for which I have no evidence)." The article by Sami M. Najm is available through Jstor, <http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/1397536.pdf> So unless the contributor to this section has some scholarly sources to support this serious charge against Descartes it should be retracted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.54.26.105 (talk) 20:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I deleted this sentence but see that it has been reverted. The attribution is false. The cited scholar explicitly states that he does not have evidence for a claim that Ghazali influenced Descartes. JPHayes (talk) 18:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)JPHayes

Najm's article is interesting and notes parallels in the thought of Ghazali and Descartes so I have reworked the passage to note this but have removed the falsely referenced claim suggesting intellectual dishonesty on the part of Descartes. Najm does not argue this and makes it clear he's not even arguing for a chain of influence from Ghazali to Descartes.JPHayes (talk) 18:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)JPHayes