The mystical experience, as described by Muslim theologian and mystic Al-Ghazali, provided an overall meaning to the truest intuitions contained in various schools of thought of his time. His work, Ihya ‘ulum al-din, made Sufism (Islamic mysticism) an acceptable part of orthodox Islam. Two particular examples of mystical experience are Augustine of Hippo’s spiritual journeys and Abu Hamid Muhammad al-Ghazali’s spiritual journeys that culminate in mystical union with God.
However, some scholars argue that al-Ghazali’s mysticism was not a real ecstatic experience but rather focused on the technical and practical aspects of his theory. Through his own religious experience, he worked to revive the faith of Islam by reconstructing religious sciences upon the basis of Sufsm and giving a theoretical understanding of experiential knowledge and imaginal cosmology.
Al-Ghazali believed that the ultimate ecstasy lies in discovering through personal experience one’s identity with God. He believed that only by looking within, into the soul, and trusting in God and revelations would one truly attain Ultimate Truth. In his writings, he interprets “science” as the knowledge of God and His Attributes and religious duties like prayer and pilgrimage.
In conclusion, al-Ghazali’s conception of experiential knowledge and imaginal cosmology is a significant contribution to the understanding of the divine and the spiritual realm.
📹 Al-Ghazali – The Bane of the Philosophers
Abu Hamid Muhammad ibn Muhammad Al-Ghazali, better known as Imam Al-Ghazali for short or Algazel in the West, was a …
What is the Islamic perspective of Al-Ghazali?
Al-Ghazali’s perspective posits true knowledge as the understanding of God, His books, prophets, creation, earth and heavens, and the Shariah revealed by His Prophet.
What was Al-Ghazali’s spiritual crisis?
In 1095, al-Ghazali experienced a spiritual crisis and abandoned his career, leaving Baghdad to go on a pilgrimage to Mecca. He disposed of his wealth and adopted an ascetic lifestyle to confront the spiritual experience and ordinary understanding of “the Word and the Traditions”. After visiting Damascus, Jerusalem, Medina, and Mecca, he returned to Tus to spend several years in uzla (seclusion), abstaining from teaching at state-sponsored institutions but continuing to publish, receive visitors, and teach in his private madrasa and Sufi lodge.
Fakhr al-Mulk, grand vizier to Ahmad Sanjar, pressed al-Ghazali to return to the Nizamiyya in Nishapur, but he reluctantly capitulated in 1106, fearing resistance and controversy. He later returned to Tus and declined an invitation to return to Baghdad in 1110. Al-Ghazali died on 19 December 1111, and he contributed significantly to the development of a systematic view of Sufism and its integration into mainstream Islam. He belonged to the Shafi’i school of Islamic jurisprudence and the Asharite school of theology.
What is the moral philosophy of Ghazali?
Morals are not concerned with the distinction between good and bad deeds; rather, they pertain to the act that evokes the human soul to give or hold, as Al-Ghazali postulates. This philosopher believes that manners reflect the soul and its inner image.
What is the conclusion of Al-Ghazali?
Abu Hamid al-Ghazali, a prominent Islamic philosopher and the foremost authority on Islamic theology and jurisprudence, believed that true happiness comes from self-knowledge, which is the knowledge that one’s heart or spirit is originally perfect but has become obscured by passions and desires. His monumental Revival of the Religious Sciences, which spans over 6000 pages and 4 volumes, was later reprised as a shorter text in Persian, labeled the Alchemy of Happiness.
Al-Ghazali’s core ideas revolve around the transformation of the self, focusing on the realization that one is primarily a spiritual being. The ultimate ecstasy, according to al-Ghazali, is not found in any physical thing but rather in discovering through personal experience one’s identity with the Ultimate Reality. He was nicknamed “The Proof of Islam” due to his sagacity and quality of life.
At the age of thirty-three, al-Ghazali faced a spiritual crisis, trying to find a rational foundation for Islam’s basic principles. He concluded that there was no rational way to refute skeptical doubt but instead discovered the mystical side of Islam through immediate experience, intuition, and imagination. Prophets of all times experienced this reality by transforming themselves away from a self-centered to a God-centered existence.
With this new insight, al-Ghazali left Baghdad and his material possessions, moving to Syria to live with Sufi monks and adopt a lifestyle based on discovering the real truth about the self and one’s relation to God. He then embarked on a pilgrimage to Mecca, believing he had been appointed to be the next great reformer of the faith, transforming Islam from mere adherence to rules to the inward mystery of a live encounter with God.
Do sufis commit shirk?
It is evident that a considerable number of Sufis are involved in acts of shirk that are in direct contradiction with the Oneness of Allah and the fundamental Islamic belief in the oneness of Allah. Such acts include seeking cures for diseases from sources other than Allah, which could potentially lead to forms of worship that are incompatible with Islam, such as paganism.
Who was Imam Al-Ghazali summary?
Al-Ghazali, a prominent Islamic jurist, theologian, and mystical thinker, was educated in the traditional Islamic religious sciences in his northern Iranian hometowns of Tus, Gurgan, and Nishapur. He was also deeply involved in Sufi practices from an early age. 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 lectured on Islamic jurisprudence, refuted heresies, and addressed community questions.
However, four years later, he experienced a spiritual crisis and left Baghdad, renouncing his career and the world. After wandering in Syria and Palestine, completing the pilgrimage to Mecca, he returned to Tus, where he continued writing, practicing Sufi practices, and teaching his disciples until his death. In the meantime, he resumed teaching at the Nizamiyyah College in Nishapur.
What was Al-Ghazali’s theory?
Al-Ghazali emphasized the interconnected nature of religion and the state, emphasizing the need for a government that serves people in both worldly and Hereafter-oriented purposes. He believed that the role of syari’a is necessary for people to reach the afterlife. Al-Ghazali’s view of religion and state is not limited to their relationship, but also to the pattern of leadership that synergizes with religious values. He believed that a stable Sultan, who maintains faith in the atmosphere, would positively impact a country’s belief.
Therefore, the presence of a state in which Muslims live is necessary. However, this view of interdependence creates debate among Islamic thinkers, with some arguing for authoritarian leadership and others embracing democratic governance. Al-Ghazali’s theocratic stance may be seen as a response to the theocratic demands of the text, but he also engages with democratic governance concepts.
What does Al-Ghazali say about miracles ‘?
Ghazali’s primary objective is to safeguard the integrity of divine omnipotence. This is a challenging endeavor when miracles are dismissed on the grounds of a causal order that is not subject to divine influence.
What is Al-Ghazali’s theory of time?
Al-Ghazali presents three points that he believes constitute heresy and disbelief in Islam. He argues that God created the world in time and will continue to exist, while only knowing universal characteristics of particulars, Platonic forms. He also argues that bodily resurrection will not occur in the hereafter, and only human souls are resurrected. He also presents the Incoherence of the Philosophers, which posits that when fire and cotton are placed in contact, the cotton is burned directly by God, a claim defended using Islamic philosophy logic.
Al-Ghazali argues that God’s behavior in causing events in the same sequence can be understood as a natural outworking of the principle of reason, which he calls the laws of nature. These laws are not laws of nature but laws by which God chooses to govern his own behavior, or his rational will.
What is the epistemology of Al-Ghazali?
Ghazalian epistemology postulates that reason and intuition are the primary sources of human knowledge. Reason is defined as the basic apprehending faculty, while intuition is understood as a natural attribute of humans.
What is Al-Ghazali’s ethical system?
Al-Ghazali’s ethical philosophy is rooted in the concept of God and is informed by a deep understanding of the soul’s nature, origin, purpose, and ultimate destiny in the afterlife. This understanding encompasses the soul’s return after death and its potential for either eternal happiness or damnation in the afterlife (Abul Quasem, 43).
📹 Science in Islam, Part 4: Al-Ghazali incoherence
BAKU – Words such as algebra, algorithm, alchemy, alcohol, coffee, and more, derive from Arabic, and reflect on Islam’s …
He wasn’t just a philosopher. He was a polymath having mastered many sciences such as logic, philosophy, rhetoric, poetry, jurisprudence, theology, etc. He is known as the ‘proof of Islam’ because he was unrivaled in his ability to defeat anyone in a debate. However, his life took a turn when he couldn’t speak for 6 months and ventured for the next 10 years of his life working on killing his ego and becoming humble. Thence, he produced the revival of the religious sciences which is arguably the best work of its kind. A exeget and a manual for those who wish to do the same. Remember, that kant and Descartes have taken much of their content from him. That’s just two of them. He is quoted more than 500 times by st. Aquinas.
Sorry for the delays! This has been our most ambitious project yet. We’ve begun rendering articles in 60fps as well as utilising 3D software for the introduction. We sincerely hope you enjoy our article on the esteemed thinker, Al-Ghazali! And please make sure to like, share and subscribe our content as we are just a team of two working out of our bedrooms to keep this website running.
i am reading the revival… and imam alghazali writes his magnum opus in a sincere manner that attracks any student of knowledge that is suffering from both types of ignorance: simple ignorance & complex ignorance. you can sense from his harsh yet elequent tone that he is confirming his argument for you.
Just found your website, god truly does work in mysterious ways. I am currently experiencing a theological/philosophical crisis as it pertains to my work as a leader. My direct superior and I have different schools of thought regarding what is good for our employees and profession. I have sought guidance from god, ancient scholars, theologians, and now the works of Al Ghazali to try and make sense of the double-think hypocrisy that defines my profession and it’s leaders. I thank god for finding your website 🙂 I will continue to reflect and hopefully make sense of this dilemma. May god keep you all!
Descartes used what he found in order to overturn assumptions of Aristotle and push philosophy forward. Al Ghazali used what he had found to boast about how smart he was and how stupid philosophy was and how it should be banned and everything should just be religion, because religious dogma was entirely equivalent apparently to all knowledge. Al Ghazali is an example precisely of how knowledge can be a dangerous thing. The dogmatist will only use knowledge to provide evidence for his dogma coherence. Once he has decided he’s done this good enough, he ends all inquiry and because after all his dogma is definitely true. Of course in reality there was far more to know than Al Ghazali had discovered. The things that he and Descartes discovered have since been overturned themselves and so on and so on. But this was all by western philosophers, because Descartes, unlike Al Ghazali, began a debate, he did not insist on being the final word of all philosophy. Al Ghazali leap frogged Islamic philosophy to 16th century standards in the 12th century, and then he used the honor gained therein to totally ossify debate. Such that there were no advances at all 800 years of Islamic philosophy after that, and eventually the Muslims found themselves taken by surprise when the west, with its free philosophical inquiry, had far surpassed them. Islam was well ahead due to the philosophers, when it was decided to end all Islamic philosophy because apparently the ulema had all knowledge so philosophy was superfluous, that’s when Islam stagnated and feel behind.
it’s clever to make a parralel of the medieval world of with our own world with the quotation of Neil de Grasse. it represent very well some intelectuals that we have in our modern day and age. university/ college offer a very specialized knowledge wich make people knowlegable in some specific field, letting them believe that they are simply vry knowleagable in all topic.
A brilliant and fascinating individual with a keen mind, which is reason enough to study his work. In spite of the latter, however, we are expected to accept “the unproven assumption” that Allah exists. Sadly, all the “proof” of Allah’s (or however one identifies the prime mover) “existence” has been handed down to us through the experience of personal revelation when someone in the very distant past tells us that he (usually a man) was visited by either Allah or his emissary to deliver a message, which later becomes scripture, and that becomes irrefutable “proof.” Where is the philosophy that does not rely on metaphysics, myth, or other worldly constructs to study the world, its societies, and the individuals that populate them? Now that, indeed, requires a great mind.
The worst part about characterizing al-Ghazali as anti-science and anti-mathematics is he even states, in no uncertain terms, at the start of Tahafut al-Falasifah that he isn’t opposed to science, logic, or math. This isn’t hidden in some obscure corner of the text, it’s literally at the start. He goes so far as to say that trying to shake someone’s faith in undeniable scientific fact is more likely to shake their faith in religion than it is in science. On the question of eclipses being caused by religious prostration and revelation rather than astronomical (scientific) causes, he states: “If you tell a man, who has studied these things (scientific theories) — so that he has sifted all the data relating to them, and is, therefore, in a position to forecast when a lunar or a solar eclipse will take place: whether it will be total or partial; and how long it will last — that these things are contrary to religion, your assertion will shake his faith in religion, not in these things.” I would have liked to hear more about al-Ghazali’s weaknesses as a philosopher. I agree with most of his refutations of Neoplatonic and Aristotelian philosophical doctrines, but he does seem to, at least occasionally, be unreasonably uncharitable in his criticisms. It seems like you got into this to some degree in your Ibn Rushd article, though I think Ibn Rushd’s rebuttals on the points brought up in that article aren’t particularly compelling in Ibn Rushd’s favor. A lot of al-Ghazali’s critiques seem overly narrow at times too.
While it is true that al Gazali was utilising rational way to address or try to reconcile faith with rationality in his earlier rly part of his life, but after his intellectual crisis and leaving his home town, etc, when he returned in fact all his writings were devoid of tools of rationality and in addition, he explicitly denounced philosophy and since philosophers used mathematics to prove their point, he specifically denounced learning and using math beyond what is needed for religious purposes. He knew solidity of mathematics and yes, he warned the believers to not giving credence to philosophy on the account of certainty of mathematics. In his Revival of Religion The Ehya- he forbids study of mathematics. He say in the same work that the believers must NOT ASK ANY QUESTIONS regarding masters of faith, the ruler must punish them by giving them lashes! He said that the believers must accept the scripture with no question. No need for rationality. He denounced and condemned philosophers such as Avecina, Farabi, and few others prior to him that had tried to use tools of rationality/philosophy to prove or most often dis – prove matters of faith to death This was done in his Incoherent of Philosophers work. Ibn Rushd tried to reverse this way of thinking in his work Incoherent of Incoherent, but his work had no traction in Islamic world whatsoever. To this day, thanks to al Gazali, philosophy is hated and despised in Islamic world. Stating it otherwise, as presented in this clip is dis-service to Muslims and the rest.
The same can be applied and said of all to all. Everyone at first learns, accepts and mimics their religion as they accept their parents words based on love, trust, esteem and reverence but this is not true faith. This is true both of philosophy, atheism, piety and other ideas. As a Christian I would of course argue that piety and basic childish reception and obedience is good and better than impiety and disorder but when criticizing other world views we have to be just and fair and understand this this applies to all. It doesn’t need to always apply to all in thr same exact measures but it does apply to Muslims and Islam. They too blindly believe and do not have real faith if they just accept by authority and do not question. One ought to go through the doubt and questioning faith journey and hopefully come full circle without impiety back to God. The reason train has several stops before it reaches its intended destination but I believe the goal of reason is faith. Doubt or simply not knowing an answer does not necessitate and should not result in impiety. I mentioned this because the article, while well done, seems to have this underlying sense of hostility and disrespect towards the West and an overweening credulity towards Islam, as it tries to present Ghazzali as some sort of giant above all others and as having done it before for example Descartes. But we camln easily point to Socrates and others even Christians as having done it before Islam and Ghazzali. I only say that to show the pettiness that mars an otherwise pleasant enjoyable and informative lesson.
هنالك بعض المغالطات أحب أن أنوه لها الغزالي لم يصب باليأس وترك التدريس كما ادعيت لكنه مشى في طريق التصوف الذي جعله يترك العالم الدنيوي ويعمل بكل طاقاته من أجل العالم الأخروي ثم قول بعض العلماء في هذا العصر أن الغزالي قد دمر علم الرياضيات فالرد عليه يكون بسؤال: انت ادعيت بأن الغزالي قال أن الرياضيات من علوم الشيطان وفي منهجنا العلمي كمسلمين قاعدة تقول :إن كنت ناقلاً فالصحة أو مدّعياً فالدليل فأين دليلك الذي يقول بأن الغزالي انتقص من قدر علم الرياضيات ؟ ثم أن ابن رشد رحمه الله عندما كتب كتابه في الرد على الغزالي (تهافت التهافت ) أتى في كثير من القضايا إلى أدلة الغزالي ونظر إلى أضعف دليل وضعه الغزالي ونقضه ثم قال لقد نقضت دعوى الغزالي ولمن لا يعرف ما المقصود بهذا الكلام فإن كتاب تهافت الفلاسفة كان يأتي لكل قضية من قضايا الفلاسفة ويضع الأدلة التي تنقضها بالترتيب من الأقوى إلى الأضعف فابن رشد لم ينقض الكتاب حرفياً بل نقض أضعف الأدلة التي وضعها الغزالي من أجل تقوية بحثه وسؤال أخير للأخ المقدم ما التلازم بين موت الغزالي واستمرار الحضارة الإسلامية بعلومها؟ وما التلازم بين ظهور ابن رشد واستمرار الحضارة الإسلامية أيضاً؟
But if life itself is good and pleasant…and if one who sees is conscious that he sees, one who hears that he hears, one who walks that he walks and similarly for all the other human activities there is a faculty that is conscious of their exercise, so that whenever we perceive, we are conscious that we perceive, and whenever we think, we are conscious that we think, and to be conscious that we are perceiving or thinking is to be conscious that we exist Nicomachean Ethics So far as these truths are concerned, I do not at all fear the arguments of the Academics when they say, What if you are mistaken? For if I am mistaken, I exist City of God But who will doubt that he lives, remembers, understands, wills, thinks, knows, and judges? For even if he doubts, he lives. If he doubts where his doubts come from, he remembers. If he doubts, he understands that he doubts. If he doubts, he wants to be certain. If he doubts, he thinks. If he doubts, he knows that he does not know. If he doubts, he judges that he ought not rashly to give assent. So whoever acquires a doubt from any source ought not to doubt any of these things whose non-existence would mean that he could not entertain doubt about anything On the Trinity
Imam al Ghazali R.A does not faced any negative psychological phase. It was just another journey towards god. Actually his father had prayed that his son be both Knowledgeable in Deen and a Friend of god/Saint (Tariqat/Wali). So in the beginning Ak ghazali gained sea of knowledge. After that he left this materialism and searched God. He was not basically a philosopher. He just Rejected the Baseless philosophies them. Imam Al ghazalis brother Ahmad Al ghazali was also a Saint (Friend of god). So please dont use “negative psychological” with such personality. And read deeper. He just wrote this Tahfat ul Philasafa in just night. He was head of nizamiya madrasa( Today nizamiya university) in which Saints like Sheikh abdul qadir jilani R.A, Shihab ud din suharwardi R.a studied.
A better argument for claim two is found in claim one: If God is independent of time (as He would not be necessarily subject to His own creation, even if He willed it to be so), then God would know things independent of time, or in other words, He knows everything that has and ever will happen in exact detail, which does not oppose the fundamental belief of human will because the knowledge of God is not the same thing as the direct action or control of God.
Yeah idiots who want to accuse religion of stopping knowledge based on this guy don’t really know anything except his book scary title in fact this guy reignited philosophy and rather than just accepting the normal two schools he questioned it and beat them and produced his own school he was one of the major outcomes of the school in bagdad his literally the guy who questioned the status quo the decline is just a natural thing every thing decline when people get complacent
The whole point of philosophy is to rationalize existence, through an internal honest perspective. For the most part, that would lead to inner peace, which is what man is pretty much searching for. Good philosophers never claimed to know the ‘truth.’ They only shared their own thoughts and conclusions,that they have reached through introspection.
why this neil guys said imam al ghazali prohibited math?, he teach astronomy in determined for sholat time, change of month, eclipse, and many other thing, and the one who burn baitul hikmah (baghdad library) is hulagu khan in 1258, and imam al ghazali have been going at 1111. in al quran, there is many thing you dont understand if you dont know math, like zakat and faro’id if you read about ali bin abi thalib you will know he is master of math. if you know abu musa jabir bin hayyan, western people call him geber, he is a polymath, like chemist, astronomy, physic, doctor, and pharamacist. he learn from ja’far son of muhammad son of ali bin husein son of ali bin abi thalib and fatimah az zahra this neil guys dont learn and said some orthodox guy destroy the knowledge
Great article again! Here is my unsolicited opinion on God creating the universe. God acted freely but not arbitrarily because He had a motive to do so: Creating the universe has an end goal which God sees as a good thing. This motive fulfills the demand for a sufficient explanation, and thus the decision is not arbitrary.
If ghazali was the bane of anything, the he was the bane of sanity. He seriously argued that there is no physical principle that causes cotton to be flammable, but that allah willed each cotton ball individually to burn each time. Religious psychosis. Averroes refuted him utterly in „the incoherence of algazels incoherence”.
Al Ghazali is historically credited with the single-handed interruption of the scientific progress that the Muslims had been making at the peak of their power. Having absorbed the knowledge transferred from the Greek and Indian civilizations they began to produce their own, becoming in the 9th and 10th centuries the most accomplished astronomers and scientists the world had ever seen. Reverting to God as the cause of everything meant the persecution of scientists who looked for truths that God “had already dictated” was Al Ghazali’s neat endeavour. No need for them. This allowed the West, from the 12th century onwards, to assimilate and own all that knowledge sending the Muslim world back to obscurantism of religious explanations. How many Nobel Prizes in Science within the Muslim World? Half of one, an American educated Muslim who shared the prize with another American academic. How many have the Jews won? A quarter of them all. Why? because the Jews are the most atheist nation in the world.
The problem for Al Ghazali, as with all theologians and metaphysic philosophers, is, of course, the utter lack of evidence for their claims. Philosophical speculations are nothing more than that. Science, on the other hand, means progress, a path away from ignorance. Which is why, dear Sir, when you are ill you don’t rely on your prayers to your god, but on the knowledge of medical practitioners.
In case some ignorant muslims are not aware: western kafir (disbelieving ) philosophers, who will be thrown in Hell unless they repent and convert to islam, are so amazed by this person, they love him, appreciate his research and so on. Isn’t it a bad sign? When did recognition coming from a disbelievers become a sign of a person being a muslim scholar?
Philosophy is cool but often it seems like people get too confident in their estimation of what the brain can do. We are informed by our everyday perception, which is fundamentally limited. You might conclude that time is constant for everyone, but it’s not, it’s actually relative. This is a radical change which would never have arrived from philosophy. Or at least, I don’t think so. The fact is we know very little about how the world actually works and we should recognize when what we’re saying is pure conjecture on potentially flawed grounds. For instance, the issue of God’s essence changing if He knows about particulars which themselves change over time. The resolution Ghazzali suggested was to let God’s knowledge change with time, as long as His essence remains unchanged. But what if that’s a fundamentally incorrect way of looking at it? What if all of time exists all laid out at once? What if instead of a constantly evolving 3d universe moving along a 4th dimension of time, the entire 4D structure is all laid out, like a movie tape, with the illusion of dynamism experienced by us simply because we’re the characters in the movie? In this case, God’s knowledge need not by dynamically changing “in time”. He could just be aware of the entire movie all at once, comprehending past, present and future in one go. Evidently, the philosophers did not think of this. Why not? Because they were just using their brains and their senses. And those are very limited and limiting things when it comes to trying to understand how the world works on a deep level, and making big claims about God or other important matters.
Then again… he DID write towards the end of his life, and essential refutation of some of his more hardline views (such as the ordering of sciences and such), in his famous treatise, Munkidh min al-Dalal (Deliverance from Error) Funnily enough, many luddite hardliners cherry pick writings of Ghazali, while conveniently ignoring the Munkidh. This is also a very cool aspect of him. Imagine, you are the head professor at one of the most prestigious academies in Baghdad, one of the richest cities in knowledge at the time. You have it all, your word is hung unto like golden thread. Then, you risk it all, and your reputation, because what you said to get there, while very thought provoking at its own right, does not suffice to you anymore. This is some next level scholarly ethic.
Its funny! The bandit gave him such great advise! And what does he do? He moves the knowledge from the books into a save space. The bandit pointed at a deeper truth. What if you forget it one day? If knowledge is the key then show me the lock…. I dont need knowledge. Everything i need to know i can witness everyday. But if my brain is full of thoughts and full of questions it simply cant meet the real problems. Why you search for a reason? Why you dont want to be here and now but search for meaning in the past or in the future? Why are you scared of death? A free mind meets problems, it does not create them.
Being a scholar of logic and mathematics for the most part of his life himself, it’s quite interesting to note how Al-Ghazali’s last work single handedly destroyed all the endeavors of the rational philosophy in the Islamic world, although that was not his intention in the first place. Given the fact that Ibn-Rushd produced the second most famous work refuting Al-Ghazali’s ideas, but that didn’t help. Due to Al-Ghazali, non-dialectical and rote-memorization heavy regressive education system plagued the entire continent, which was one of the most important factors for the demise of Islamic advancement in mathematics and philosophy. No wonder he is considered as “the harbinger of ignorance and destruction”.
If only I could debate this man; not even to disagree mind you, I suspect we are much more similar than not, as I too was scolded for wanting to know the answers to everything, but I never fell into the trap of simply following because that is not understanding. I was lucky to have many early influences mind, but the core of who I am is a seeker of knowledge, and I feel like very few people care about knowledge more than they care about being correct
I’ve always wondered how God can be simple, immutable, perfect and also free. If God is simple, God is composed of no parts. If immutable, God’s nature is and has always been the same. If both simple and immutable God’s nature cannot change, but also God’s being cannot change either, as there are no parts in it to alter. Human’s essence’s do not change, but Humans can still change because the relationship between their parts change. Neither God’s essence, nor the relation of God’s parts can change, thus God cannot change whatsoever. If God is simple, immutable and perfect, God’s nature has been invariably decided by perfection. God cannot but be perfect. God’s essence, nor his action can change. God simply is. To be free is to be capable of doing otherwise than what one actually does. There is no potentiality in God, because God cannot but be as God is. How is God capable of freedom?
Far from siding with De Grasse here, but I can’t say that these arguments are compelling in any way. Al-Ghazali preceding Descartes is meaningless since they are not talking about the same thing and because Plato made a much more compelling version of the same argument against the senses in the Phaedo: “What again shall we say of the actual acquirement of knowledge?—is the body, if invited to share in the enquiry, a hinderer or a helper? I mean to say, have sight and hearing any truth in them? Are they not, as the poets are always telling us, inaccurate witnesses? and yet, if even they are inaccurate and indistinct, what is to be said of the other senses?—for you will allow that they are the best of them? Certainly, he replied. Then when does the soul attain truth?—for in attempting to consider anything in company with the body she is obviously deceived. True. Then must not true existence be revealed to her in thought, if at all? Yes. And thought is best when the mind is gathered into herself and none of these things trouble her—neither sounds nor sights nor pain nor any pleasure,—when she takes leave of the body, and has as little as possible to do with it, when she has no bodily sense or desire, but is aspiring after true being? Certainly.”
So, the man displayed why some arguments and claims can not be correct and said “do your rationalism right or don’t do it”, and he is now a villain in “smart people’s” eyes? Seems like he was just a thorn on the side of some people and after they took over the world as the leading ideology they called him a villain.
If you do philosophy long enough you’ll realise nothing we say is incredibly profound. Its all been said before. The difference is what resonates with you at a specific time. Like how different songs make you feel differently at different times of you life. The only people that were able to stake that claim were the men who were philosophising before the written word
so Al-Ghazali teaches us to use logic to question our religion leaders because they might mindlessly/maliciously teaches something that they themselves follows only on tradition. I think logic can get you pretty far, but not all of us are blessed with good logic. Al-Ghazali also realizes this bottleneck and at his old age then wonders whether theres another way to use other than logic
All philosophers failed to understand God the almighty all knowing, whatever God has created in nature he kept scope for change with time and space. This is called evolution which is within the law of nature. He knows before the creations after the creation. He is beyond time and space. He comprehends everything.
To date Al-Ghazali remains one of the few people that genuinely has me questioning my Atheism. Did I really arrive at it through my own intelectual judgement or did I conform to some authority figure and my brain retroactively convinced me it was wholely my decision? And then is it even important if that was the case when it may be a wrong conclusion entirely?
So simply he brought forward the most basic knowledge from Quran and refuted the philosophers what’s so fascinating there. He did not come up with any original idea. The gist of all of his philosophy is that God could do anything. He did not refuted science but at the same time believed that the cause and effect relation could end anytime with the will of God. so any miracle is possible. He wanted to be sufi and could not believe it the fact that man would never be more than just a man no matter how pious or religious he might be that’s why he could not take logical ideas that philosophers presented.
Islam itself absolutely crushes all other ethical and moral theories anyway, I have taken classes on ethical theories and they are all made from subjective view points from random european or greek philosphers. Islam objectively proves itself to be the true religion by providing a falsification test in the Qur’an, along with prophecies, and its insanely beautiful poetry scheme. The falsification test states “If you can write something like this book, or find a contradiction within the book, it is not the words of god.” it has been over 1400 years since this bold statement was revealed in the Qur’an, and no man has managed to do either. There are also clear prophecies like the prophecies of the Roman Empire victory (Qur’an 30:4), which are absolutely impossible to reject as a sign that islam is the real religion. Not only does the prophecy give an EXACT time frame of when the romans defeat the Persians, but after the romans defeated them, The Muslims ended up conquering both empires singlehandedly, with the will of Allah (SWT.)
Arabic contributions to logic, math, and philosophy are not because of Islam but despite of Islam. That is my conclusion after reading the historical effects and the surahs and hadiths. The same can be said of the Torah and New Testament. Religion is frozen and difficult to alter without great effort to change scriptures to account for new scientific discoveries. But science itself depends upon new discoveries and the process of correction of previously erroneous assumptions. This is the main difference and the main reason why science, math and logic is different from dogmatic religious teachings that punish contradictory discoveries from their scriptural teachings.
Ibn Rushds works were banned due to Al Ghazali and so he had virtually no influence on Muslim thought. You only even know if him did to the west, which accepted gladly the gift that Islam rejected in is arrogance. Ibn Rush’d was the last Arab philosopher for nearly a millennium, what had once been a bright and vibrant tradition was reduced to mare repetition of dogma.
I’ve never been educated beyond high school, and I’m not Muslim, but it cannot be a good thing to admire someone who tells you to stop thinking without giving you a legitimate material reason not to. I for one reject that science cannot be used to judge whether God exists/acts/knows in one way or another. The bane of scientists (philosophy at the time just meant the equivalent of science) probably has strong arguments, but I heard none here. Science will likely be focused on reviving everyone with their souls intact which sounds just as ridiculous now as immortality sounded to him. Also I’m convinced that logic is a substance, for lack of a better word, specifically a unique a-dimensional cryptanium separable from energy, and the Creator has joined them. That’s more than enough to believe in a God and that Muhammad was His prophet, even if you aren’t a Muslim by Muslim standards. Though my arguments come without training, they come with common sense, namely that if God isn’t logical, He cannot control cause and effect because that would be a cause. If there ever was an idea that squandered so much human potential it’s been the irrational strain of Islamic thought.
the problem with |s|amic philosophers is that they can ultimately never go against their book, and if they do, then they will lose all credibility & we will probably never hear about them. it’s almost like their limitation. yes you can manipulate a book in many ways but eventually only in so many ways.
this is what has become of islam today or should i say muslims . people at that time were openly contradicting religious texts and were widely read and popular and then an islamic scholar comes and proves them worng thorugh counterargumenting etc .this is what islam is . its all about questioning but today not even one thing is said and u are kafir, u blasphemous and the person is cut down . like no debating nothing just pure violence,now muslims have become barbarians (most ) who cant take arguments and just put everyone asking questions as blasphemous .see Pakistan .
Two things, I don’t know about the Tyson quote, but what I do know is that the wikipedia article cites instead his strong held belief that everything is done by god, ie his example of cotton burning when you put fire to it being caused by god and his choice. And that belief was the one listed. And to be fair, whatever your scrutiny of his works are, others will have different ones, it could very well be that the effect of the works don’t necessarily allign with the work’s intended message.
What is the use of this knowledge if it is taken so easily?? If one think that knowledge is notes only then one is right but that would make knowledge as paper tiger only which it is not. If one thinks that knowledge is thought that are put down on paper then one can see that knowledge can’t be taken so easily. For an illiterate fool like bandits it’s easy to take the wrong meaning of the word knowledge. But why gazali got impressed i don’t know.
one thing I wonder about this guy, his claims good and all, but what makes the islam true? he is talking about the existance of god and his nature… it does not prove islam is true. why did he believed in islam? maybe just because it was his only option? like.. he will not beieve in christianity now, will he? or judaism… basically, maybe he was logical in his arguments about god. but there is nothing that narrow the answer to islam specifically.
Al Ghazali has never identified as a persian phylosopher and has never been identified as such. Al ghazali was known as a Muslim phylosopher he has an arabic name and spoke and wrote in Arabic and wen to arabic schools and there is no prove he is persian besides that he was born in a city that is part of Iran in modern days. Which doesn’r imply he is persian. Replacing this identity with a persian one is another act of distortion committed by the west in an attempt to shadow anything Islamic and Arabic.
Infinite regression is not really an issue in modern metaphysics and it is not at all as much of a problem occasionalism is ethically, particularly qua the problem of evil (not so much in the sense of evil existing in a divinely created world, but rather that God should be thw primary cause for this evil). This is as true for Ghazali as it is for Leibniz and a good deql of other other protestant ethicists.
The Prophet ﷺ told us, as well as Allah talks about His infinite knowledge. We know that nothing happens without the permission of Allah. Not even a leaf falls without His permission. And He knows exactly how many times the leaf may flip and spin before falling to the ground, where exactly it falls, and at what time on the entire earth. So how do people question Allah’s knowledge whether it is universal or particular?
AM I the only one who finds the comparison offensive? Two things the author did that destroy all credibility for his argument. First, he compares Al-Ghazali to Descartes, and purposely conflates Descartes two most important and irreconcilable positions as if they were of equal value. Descartes is revered for the first part of his argument ( i think therefore i am ), not for the second one ( god is a necessity ). The first part is ground breaking, the second part is laughable. Yes, Al-ghazali may have had doubts about the nature of perception but NONE of them were based on Pyrrhonism, and he simply wasn’t smart enough to overcome that. The only part in which his thought compared to Descartes is in pathetic need to apologize for god. Which take us to the author second and most offensive problem: The work of Descartes marks the beginning of western use of applied Pyrrhonism, the beginning of doubt which is the root of all science and progress. The work of Al-ghazali marks the beginning of the decline of Muslim thought. Descartes is the avatar of prosperity and human dignity, Al-ghazali is the reason why the Muslim world is shit, even today
If Ghazali thought Quran is divine and sent by Allah then listening or reading his saying and writings not worth for me. When there is no prove of after life and no one has seen then how we believe and take a face value as a true? Any philosophers who say religions are by God then I will pass that philosopher not worth for me to read about him.
Al Ghazali is the genius of the lazy and cynic people, he is the bane of any person who wants to think, in short he said that thinking is useless and that there’s no cause and effect in life, just God cause things as it is, this is in short the “” philosophy”” of this man, in short, don’t think,, so I admit that he is genius, and you should know him to be acquainted with the worst ever philosophy which is the philosophy of “” no causation, and no thinking and live like an animal””
As a Jew I am aware of the great contributions of science by various individuals who were Muslims. Indeed Algebra mathematics navigation and medicine flourished in Muslim countries while Europeans focused on burning my people… Caliphate of Cordova and the Moors were highly educated tolerant peoples as was Persia and Turkey….so what happened? Crusaders butchered both of us long long ago… Hopefully Islam can return to its rich past and we can all live in peace. Salom Akk Shalom…
This article was very disappointing in regurgitating the same tired lies about Imam Ghazali and same gross misunderstanding of some of the basics of Islamic beliefs and history that gets told over and over without people even checking to see if what is being said is true or not. Here are the main problems: 1) Misrepresenting Imam Ghazali: Within the first book of his Magnus Opus, Ihya ulum al-din, he clearly and unambiguously criticized Muslims for not producing enough specialists in the hard sciences. He viewed the production of sufficient scholars in every discipline as being religiously obligatory upon the entire community of Muslims. He viewed, as do all jurists, that steady neglecting of the hard sciences for cushy jobs as a religious jurist was a communal sin that all Muslims bear the sin of. Secondly, Mutazilism didn’t disappear. They may have within Sunnism, but not within Shia Islam, where just about all Shias are Mutazilites and have been for ages. Their books are still around. It’s just a simple matter of fact that he helped exposed deep and serious flaws in their theology that they still haven’t been able to provide answers to in any way that makes sense. They have had hundreds of years to come up with concrete rebuttals but haven’t produced anything convincing. 3) Diminishing the impact of huge and massive destruction of Muslim lands within a 200 year period. The sciences flourished in Muslims lands as they were mainly safe from outsiders for hundreds of years. Unfortunately, within a couple of hundred of years all the major centers of Islamic learning were overrun and/or destroyed by foreigners including the absolute destruction of Baghdad and other Persian centers of learning, the Inquisition in Spain and the Crusades through the Levant.
The view that Al ghazali was anti science and reason is quite incorrect. I’m unsure where this originates but I’ve seen the same said by people like Neil Degrassi Tyson. If you read Al ghazalis work it’s quite apparent that he’s the opposite of being anti reason and anti science. What Al ghazali was refuting was aristotilaian thought and it’s adoption by groups that super imposed it on Islam and it’s values.
Anyone who is interested in Islamic history should watch two presentations by Dr. Yasir qadhi. The first is called “1914” and the second is “The Printing Press & The fall of the Muslim ummah” they’re very informative and really contextualize the current situation in the Muslim world. Thank you Shri van for this series. Kings and general also have interesting articles. I’m not sure if the accuracy though.
Ghazali didnt claim that rationalism was incompatible. Rather with the predominance of mutazili aqeedah the general population was led into (individualistic) rationalism ie the ratio of the individual was more important than the revelation. Ghazali was also agains the tamiliyya ie the shias (including the Fatimids) who he argued were blindly following their teachers (who were led by their ratio.) Ghazali argued against the blind sectarianism, which is why he commonly used the hadeeth of the 73 sects, rather than against rationalism itself. He saw rationalism as the cause of the rigid dogmatism and sectarianism rather than the antidote. And he wasnt against science in general, he was a philosopher and a theologian. Overal all, i think ghazali defended Islam against further division.
Such a flawed and deceiving Orientalist view ignoring the impact of Mongol invasion which stuttered scientific flourishment in Islamic community, not the spread of Ash’arism. Great thinkers and scientists who came after Ghazali such as Ibn Haytham, Al Razi, etc, were Ash’aris. They are the proof the Ash’arism promoted science and philosophy after Ghazali.
This article is full of crap, Alghazali main concern was Aristotle philosophy and his followers, Alghazali has books about logic explaining Logic and Saying that he only endorsed reason and logic just to get to the people he was attacking is not a historical fact it’s an analysis, It is based on nothing actually to understand his books about this Islamic Doctrine and you should learn logic. Please put your Sources in the description
Shirvan your assumptions about Ghazzali are just a repetition of centuries old western orientalist narratives. If you would read just the first chapter of Ghazzali’s “Incoherence of Philosopher’s” you wouldn’t repeat this false narrative. Better you stick to what you are good at: Geopolitics. Here you go on the first chapter of Ghazzali’s first chapter of “Incoherence of Philosopher’s”: youtu.be/v83S3gLiCxo
Orientalists have different opinions of Ghazali. Ghazali hadn’t a problem with maths, science etc. he just criticized Ibn Sina because he was stuck up because he read works of Aristoteles etc and that they take the knowledge of them without doubting the content of if. Apart from that, Ghazali criticized Muslims who said that there’s no such thing as reason. He said that this is a dumb lifestyle.
a article about Islam the word it self trigger atheist and Christians and “ex Muslims” to just puke shit in the comments the article is very good by the way and it confirm the idea of Science is as good as the governmental backing for it which is missing in today Islamic world in Iraq there is no development for the universities in my university they still use win xp and teach a 40 years old courses
Since i was 6 years old i’ve been asking myself “what are we doing here ? what is the point of life ? why was i born in egypt of all places ?” and many other existential questions like that. When i went to highschool i choose to take philosophy class just because i’ve heard it was easy, but then i came across a chapter in the government text book about the problem of freedom and choice and the godly justice and whether we truly have a choice. later on in that chapter i came across Al-Ghazali and the “censored” text book stated that he had a problem of “doubt” and that doubt grew more and more and he couldn’t do anything but lock himself for weeks in his house with no food or outside contact Until…. He came to a conclusion. by this time i was glued to the book, eager to know the conclusion of this great mind in the problem that haunted me for years. The conclusion was: a shine of godly light descended upon his heart and guided him to remove this doubt from his mind. And that was the most bullshit answer i’ve ever heard in my life.
It’s a bird! It’s a plane!! It’s the seljuk turks AAH! said the Byzantne Empire, who was getting so small it almost doesn’t exist anymore “We need help!” They need help! So they call the Pope. “Hey Pope, can you help us get rid of the Seljuks? Maybe take back the Holy Land on the way? Come on, I know you wanna take back the Holy Land!” “Yes, I do actually want to do that. Let’s do a crusade.” CRUSADE They did many crusades. Some of which almost didn’t fail. But hey, at least the Italians got some sweet trade deals.
This is a good website. Mitch Shirvan, I have suggestion: make a review of the different sects of islam (unni, shia, sufi) and their fundamental differences. Offshoot religions too, such as druzism (which is basically an ethnic religion, since they dont accept converts). Alevism and alawism too are not very well known outside their own communities.
Wow! Amazing series, so glad to see a holistic description of how the ideas might have traveled throughout the centuries. Not sure why anyone would want to fight about the details after such an awe inspiring narrative. After all, one of the lessons here is that nothing can clip the wings of ideas entirely, but fighting can certainly stunt them to some degree.
Very striking visual simulations of life showing architecture and costume and faces in those times. If produced by Caspian Report they are impressive, if not they are well sourced examples to illustrate the social upheavals and developments of those times. It is valuable work being presented here, that may foster better understandings about where the world is at today. So much mainstream information is skewed toward ensuring divide and conquer within the Abrahamic theological triad and further outward to divide and rule over all the diverse tribes in the world. It is unfortunate the plans of globalism continue in this vein, but as the rationalisers and reasoners among those under rule by Islamic masters at the end of the 1st millennium endeavoured to better redefine cause and effect to more realistic standard, it can be deduced that questions of emergent history as being sealed and already decided upon will continue to be challenged. And it is good that this is so.
@CaspianReport with all due respect (as someone who loves your work and has seen almost all of your articles), your claim at 11:46 is not correct and undermined the prestige al-Ghazali deserves. Regarding the subject, have you read Frank Griffel’s “al-Ghazali’s philosophical theology”. There, Griffel states otherwise.
Unsubbed. Not because of your opinions (they are guesses, not analytical conclusions) but because of the terrible quality of your source data and worse the your methodology. I have stayed with this website for longer than I wanted but I gave it a chance to prove my understanding of situations wrong. It hasn’t it.
Call me ‘racist’, if you want. But the truth is that most of the scientific inventions and discoveries were made by Persians(would cover the current Iranians). If not for Persians, you would never find any truly amazing discovery from the other races that converted to Islam. Even the other scholars such as Arabs who made distinct mark for themselves were tutored by the Persians or somehow Persian influenced. And other great scholars are proportionally less when compared to the contribution made by the Persians.
Much respect for these articles. I just watch the series of four on a 55 inch television. The quality of your article, and characterizations, and graphics are very good. Also, I appreciate you did not open with “Islam invented algrebra”, but coined the word, and credit to rational Islamic thinkers who studied and developed algebra.
But one question arises. Why did the Othomans advance in science if the muslim nations were on a downward spiral after Alghazali? Have you read both books Alghazali wrote on philosophy namely The Aim of Philosophers and The incoherence of Philosophers? By the way this is not an attack comment I actually found your article intuitive.
Honestly even though the “Islamic-World,” was once a civilization that thrived in culture less so than “China and maybe even India,” but atleast equal to and often greater to the Byzantine-Empire and far more advanced than the Europe during the European Dark-Ages. But as the “Islamic-World,” of the “Middle East,” became weaker especially after Mongol invasions this period ended. Then there was Tamerlane, then the Ottomans, and the fall of the Ottoman Empire nearly-100 years ago in 1923, which left a huge power-vacume in the middle east. So I think we’ll be waiting a while before the Arabs get their act together again. And by then you guys and I’ll be dead. FUCK, I BROUGHT UP DEATH!!!!! I HATE DEATH!!! I DON’T WANNA DIE!!!!!!!!!
Islamic Empire (and it’s prowess in science and technology) started declining in the 15th century when Europeans found a away around Anatolia and the Mediterranean to trade directly with Asia (Vasco da Gama et al). Also, new found lands in the Americas enable European economies to amass more wealth that fed it’s scientific and technological industries. Notice that most prominent European scientists and thinkers predominantly appear after the 15th century. Al Ghazali has nothing to do with the decline in Science and Technology advancement in the Muslim world.
The Crusades were also a defensive response to Turkish captures, rapes, lootings, and general mayhem directed toward Christian pilgrims heading to the Holy Land. Previous Arab rulers coveted the pilgrims’ money as they made their way to J’lem and home again. It was lucrative tourism for the Arabs along the way. The Turks did away w/peaceful pilgrimages by attacking pilgrims. Thus, the Crusades came to liberate the Holy Land, not so much for conquest’s sake but for holy pilgrimage sake. Yes, the first Crusade went over the top by trying to extirpate Arabs and Jews when they got to J’lem. However, that was not the primary motive for the Crusade when it began.
Didn’t the Mongols open up the silk road again? For instance: Marko Polo traveled to China while it was being ruled by the Mongols. Also the reason why Genghis Khan invaded the Khazimid empire was because they’d slaughtered merchants he’d sent to trade there (before he’d been negotiating with the Shah to reopen the silk road trade routs).
Random observation but did you literally rip the footage of the pope from Al Jazeera? I coincidentally am at this same time perusal the Crusades from Arab Perspective by them and they have the exact same footage. Or is the footage just creative commons P.S.: not that I care, both your contents are great
the article is telling facts, except for the work of Al ghazali where he contradicts the philosophers! Incoherence is not ghazalis attitude towards science in general, but to the religious beliefs of philosophers of time who reduced God to a mere material cause. Its incoherence of philosophers, not the incoherence of science
“Meanwhile, as the Ash’ari dogma shifted the minds of Sunni Muslims, knowledge was seen through the prism of Revelation and many turned away from philosophy and the natural sciences. This change, however, was not abrupt; it would take centruies for the doctrines to sink in, but its process was accelerated by the collapse of the Silk Road and a new threat that emerged from the far east.” Wait for it… the Mongols
It must be mentioned that before the 10th century the community of scholars in the Muslin world was quite diverse and eclectic. Yes, they were in a Muslim empire and spoke Arabic, yet they were not all Muslim or Arab; it is this tolerance and free exchange of ideas that boosted the intellectual achievements of the period.
Why does Islam take credit for accomplishments of scholars living under their yoke ? Nobody says Christianity gave the World The Laws of Newton or Judaism gave the World Relativity. Why does Islam have to go on about things scholars did in their spare time when not having to attend the mosque ? Many reasons :- a) In the West the individual is recognised. Islam tends to value the conformity of the masses. b) The West is confident in its achievements and has no need to look for reflected glory. c) Christianity has been neutered in the West that is why it succeeded. The Church would be laughed at if it dared take credit for a scholarly discovery. d) The West has been in a constant flux of development since the middle-ages (unlike Islam), which was characterised by competition (economic and nationalist) ; it never regarded itself as an homogeneous unit. Islam is based on homogeneity which has paralysed its growth & development.
Al Ghazali had no right to ‘close the gates of knowledge’ – Islam has been in permanent decline in terms for Science and Development ever since, This fellow was a true great in Islamic history, although most of his early work which there’s a lot, according to even him was total conjecture and lies mixed with truth, nevertheless because of his high position and endorsement from the ruling class, he had a profound lasting impactwhich is both beautiful and destructive at the same time.
Al-Ghazali’s work should be revered by postmodern academics as it is one instance where an intellectual, heavily angered by the power of foreign (e.g. Greek/white) influence on his traditional culture, sought to decolonize science and thus return the thought of his milieu back to its source. Very proto-postcolonial theory, very proto-third worldist. B”H
If you aren’t decided on this website, go back and review his older articles. This website is barely accurate 10% of the time. It’s his methodology and data sources but also his preconceived ideas. Maybe he’s just out of UNI with but just because anyone can load a article, doesn’t mean he’s right. TV media has 1 thing going for it and that’s they’d never risk millions on an amateur and this is amateur.
If we said Al-Ghazali as Mujaddid, i would be happy to accept his idea of banning learning nature aka science in his time. Since Mujaddid is a leader that suits in one spesific generation, i think, that idea ( learning nature aka science ) maybe is no longer suit with this generation idea. Learning science nowadays willnot make you leave your faith.
muutazila may be like birds, but no Phoenix! Ghazali made his contributions and is dead. But the most important stays the Quran and this book has a tremendous capability to pass the test of time. not even the hadiths of the prophet have the same depth and dimension. moreover the word hadiths (plural) in the Quran is always associated to meanings of division perdition and interpretation. and light is best understood in sourate Anour (original light vs reflected light) which is followed by sourate Fourkan (separating filter .. for different light waves)
I admire your History.. But please check yourself with the ideas flourished in India and China during Pre-islamic era.. the arabs or later day muslims learnt things from Ancient and Early Medieval India and China.. and spread it to west and took credit !!!! Eg. arabic numerals werent arabic or islamic.. U may say its a contribution of islam but during those days the spread of islam werent peaceful at all.. those are forced conversions and brutal carnage ridden conquests with a hegemony of islam !! as in the case of India.. India during Islamic era was called as an islamic country but in reality only the invaders and later day rulers were muslims not the ruled !! they brought them scholars from middle east and translated the ancient and contemporary works into turkish and persian from sanskrit… So Its just a representation made in the name of islam for the works of Indian (followers of Dharmic faiths) !!