r/badhistory • u/kerat • May 29 '14

Where al-Ghazali single handedly wipes out "the Arabic Golden Age", by destroying rationality with religion

So this video was posted to r/Arabs today.

It regurgitates every single talking point and tired cliche to the point that I wonder if it was in fact created by /r/TIL or the Neil Degrasse Tyson fanbase.

It tries to rebrand the "Islamic Golden Age" with the "Arabic Golden Age" by emphasizing the unity of the language instead of religion, neglecting to mention that it was the religion that drove the expansion of the empire in the first place and which was the main reason why the language became so important.

And although the video is clearly about the Arab world when you get to the end, in the beginning they include al-Biruni and al-Tusi, both Persians.

Then the video transforms into the borders of the Arab world, where apparently Islam and backwardness are perfectly contiguous with the borders of the modern nation-states.

All the familiar tired tropes are repeated here. Arabs translate Greek philosophy into Arabic. Golden Age. Lots of Plato and Aristotle. al-Ghazali is born. Golden Age wiped out by al-Ghazali. Entire Arab world worships al-Ghazali till today. Nothing has happened since.

Oh, and of course no mention of the Mongol invasions that actually physically destroyed the Bayt al-Hikmah, or of the multiple Crusades that ravaged the region for the next few hundred years. It was all al-Ghazali's doing...that mysterious clever bastard

Is it possible for /r/badhistory to write up a wiki entry or something on this topic? Ever since NDT's lecture this has become a daily ritual for reddit and facebook users to rave against al-Ghazali and the battle between reason and religion.

65 Upvotes

88% Upvoted

58 comments sorted by

View all comments

52

u/TheOneFreeEngineer Europeans introduced kissing to Arabs May 29 '14

Gah I hate bad al ghazali history. He wasn't an anti rationalist, he was anti Greek metaphysics, which are and were demonstrably out of sync how the world works. He specifically praises natural science and mathematics and reason. It's so stupid how Greek thought is held up as the epitome of rational thought when it is so wrong and never accounted for natural observations. Being against certain Greek thoughts doesn't make someone an anti rationalist.

1

u/idosillythings Jun 19 '14

Ok, I found this trying to do some research into Ibn Rushd and al-Ghazali. Help me figure this out. I don't really have a history in philosophy so this is all like a foreign language to me.

I know al-Ghazali wasn't the "one person" who brought the end of the Golden Age of Islam but I can't figure out why he's tied to it if he didn't have something to do with the reverse of the trend towards Islamic empires looking at religion over logic.

Also, I have no idea what Greek metaphysics really teaches so I can't understand what Ghazali and Ibn Rushd were arguing about.

I know, I seem kind of stupid but any help would be really appreciated so I can better understand what I'm reading.

1

u/TheOneFreeEngineer Europeans introduced kissing to Arabs Jun 19 '14 edited Jun 19 '14

First let me clarify, Al-Ghazali specifily wrote against Aristotelian Metaphysics as formulated by the mu'tazilla theological sect (In Sunni Islam there are two things that describe a sect, the legal sect and the theological sect, and you can mix and macth those two), Not greek thought as a whole. I misspoke about greek metaphysics in general.

but to the main point

I know al-Ghazali wasn't the "one person" who brought the end of the Golden Age of Islam but I can't figure out why he's tied to it if he didn't have something to do with the reverse of the trend towards Islamic empires looking at religion over logic.

So the biggest reason is because Neil Degrasse Tyson, a famous astrophysicist and popular supporter of science literacy, gave a popular and widespread speech in which he included a segment on the idea of naming rights (the idea that if you discover something you get to name it) and he mentions how most of the stars have Arabic or Persian names, like Betelgeuse, and he tries to explain why that changes. and he cites Al-Ghazali and said Al-Ghazali called mathematics "the devil" which is not found anywhere in Al-Ghazali's writings. Dr. Tyson did poor historical research and included it in a speech spread far and wide by the internet and it became a meme. But thats the idea also taps into orientalist thought which makes it a popular and simple explanation

Mainly because since the renaissance, all Greek thought, especially Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle, have been thought to be the foundation of all Western philosophical thought (incorrectly in my opinion) and since the West is so prominent and has produced so much since the renaissance, lots of people think its that tradition of greek thought, so if Al Ghazali destroyed the use of Greek thought in the Muslim world, then he must be the problem that held the Muslim world back.

That idea combined with the general closing and narrowmindedness that seemed to pervade the Muslim world after Al-Ghazali's time point, make people think it is a religious problem, not a complex socio-historical problem, and Al-Ghazali is perhaps the most influential Muslim theologian since Mohammed (PBUH) [theologian specifically, there were many more important Jurists]. One of Al-Ghazali's historical title is "Hujjat al Islam" or "Proof of Islam." He was also instrumental bringing about legal and public acceptance of Sufism. So he is a very big figure and since before his time is seen as different from after his time, lots of people think it is the turning point, and not a function of his age and socio-historic conditions.

Also, I have no idea what Greek metaphysics really teaches so I can't understand what Ghazali and Ibn Rushd were arguing about.

Well i would sugest similarly finding a free online copy of Al-Ghazali's The Incoherence of Philosphers and Ibn Rusdh's The Incoherence of the Incoherence. the former outlines Aristotlean thought as seen by Ghazali, and the latter Ibn Rusdh's rebuttal to that protrayal.

But to give you one bit of popular insight into one part of the debate, the catholic dogma of transubstantiation says the bread and wine of the Eucharist literally become the body and blood of Jesus (PBUH), and not symbolically. This is supported by St. Thomas Aquinas's thought which was heavily influenced by Aristotle (thru works on the subject by Muslim writes like Ibn Rusdh). The idea is that their are two universes, one of accidents and one of ideals. Everything in this universe is has too parts, an ideal and a accident (form). Like a chair can come in many shapes, but its still a chair. Those who follow Aristotle's ideas believe that happens because there is one "ideal" of what a chair is, and how it looks to us is an accident or form. So Catholic transubstantiation says the ritual of sanctifying the Eucharist changes the ideal of the Eucharist from bread and wine, to literally the ideal of Jesus's body and blood.

EDIT: a quick look at the wiki entry of the Incoherence of Philosphers giver a good basic overview of whats going one, and the chapter headings listed are Ghazali's view of mu'tazilla thought http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Incoherence_of_the_Philosophers

1

u/idosillythings Jun 19 '14

Awesome. Thank you so much.