al ghazali the incoherence of philosophers

See, Majid Fakhri, Dirasaat fi al-Fikr al-'Arabi, (Beriut: Dar an-Nahaar li-an-Nashr, 1982), 125.Īl-Ghazali clarifies that by the “world” we mean every existent other than God and by “every existent other than God” we mean all bodies and their accidents every accident either occupies space ( mutahayyiz) or does not occupy space. Goodman, “Did Al-Ghazali Deny Causality?” Studia Islamica 47 (1978): 83 – 120.

Ilay Alon, “Al-Ghazali on Causality,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 100 (1981): 397. Courtenay, “The Critique on Natural Causality in the Mutakallimun and Nomanilism,” Harvard Theological Review 66 (1973): 86. See, Taha ‘Abd ar-Rahmaan, Fiqhu al-Falaasifah (Casablanca: Al-Markaz ath-Thaqaafi al-'Arabi, 1995), 211. Ibn Rushd, Tahafut al-Tahafut (Beirut: Dar al-Mashriq, 1987), 522. Al-Ghazali, then, endeavors to prove that science is based on expectation and assumption that draws on observation, the senses, and repetition and does not consider it as constant and absolute. Al-Ghazali also attempts to base causal necessity on “habit” by claiming that the similarity of event A as cause and event B as effect stems from observation, repetition and the sequencing of natural phenomena.

He, however, denies the necessity of that relationship, as he claims that the source of causal necessity stems from a psychological emotion rather than from being inherent in things themselves. This, however, does not mean that he denies the existence of a causal relationship between things, as he recognizes its existence. The present article aims at analyzing the terms “necessity” (Al-darura) and “habit” (al-Āda) in al-Ghazali's (1058 – 1111) theory of natural causality (Al-Sbābiah al-Tabī'īa) by answering the following question: Why does Al-Ghazali use term “habit” and negation of “necessity” with regard to natural Causality? Al-Ghazali denies causal necessity that links cause and effect since this relationship does not draw on logical rules that make it necessary.

Al ghazali the incoherence of philosophers