Question

I read the book, "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins and Steven Weinberg’s review on it, Weinberg held that after al-Ghazzali no more science good science was produced. That al-Ghazzali basically destroyed Islamic sciences is this true?

Expanding on this I know that al-Ghazzali the most influential Muslim scholar after the Islamic prophet Mohammad or at least Wikipedia tells me so. Another comment made by a interesting person Neil deGrasse Tyson said al-Ghazzali began a trend in Islam that promoted piety over the vast philosophical and scientific enquiry that was taking place in almost exclusively in the Muslim world. So combined with Steven Weinberg and Niel deGrasse Tyson to my understanding is that al-Ghazālī was responsible for the end of the scientific dominance held by the Middle East at the time. I understand that such a decline trend would require a more complex foundation but was he a major contributor to the least? Also was al-Ghazzali a pro-fundamentalist Islam? I was on the /r/atheism subreddit and a thread compared Christianity and Judaism to becoming more secular institutions, unlike Islam which has still staid radically fundamental. While I don't believe that currently Islam is radically fundamental at all the question was al-Ghazzali a fundamentalist?

Answer 1

Also asking this in the history group. You can answer both if you'd like.

Answer 2

Well to be honest, al-Ghazali ending Islamic sciences or science in general is a common myth which has been perpetatued by many non-historians and atheists. (I add atheists because many seem, at least ones from other online forums are against any history that shows Islam influencing science. Remember I said many not all, I have no grudge against them and you should not judge anyone but another's actions.)

Al-Ghazali himself was a scientist, which was why he was very influential. Al-Ghazali had only successfully criticized Islamic Neoplatonism developed on the grounds of Hellenistic philosophy, not science or logic themselves (though his plain liking to emotions and dreams combined with faith did make him some what more lax than the rigours of mainstream Islamic sciences, however this did not carry on from him).

To expand a little further al-Ghazali was a follower of the Ash'ari school of Islamic theology, as well as Ibn al-Haytham and Abū Rayhān al-Bīrūnī. Both whom are considered to be the pioneers of the scientific method. Some non-historians like to blame Ash'ari theologians and al-Ghazali together since he was a major defender of the school. So I would like to the expand with the former comment and say that Ash'ari really did indeed support science and were not anti-science, in fact rationalism was not uncommon within the school.

Now on al-Ghazali being a pro-fundamentalist Islam, I would say rather he was not pro-fundamental at least not in the matter of salafist or al-Qaeda. Basic actions of modern fundamentalist Muslims today, make it patently obvious do not look kindly on Asharites or Sufis.

In the light of modern knowledge I am sure al-Ghazali would have held different views, the man was open to apodeixis, which lead him to be influenced by Aristotelian logics and metaphysics, which can be seen in his theology. I believe why so many hold the myth of al-Ghazali to be the ender Islamic sciences due to him not being changing his views. Modern Islamic thought is now more refined than what al-Ghazali would have thought it to be, but if he was given the knowledge of today his views would surely change. Al-Gazali's was to brilliant for his time, there was no one alive, or at least no one that could challenge his views successfully enough to display that he was wrong.

Today however I believe there are more influential Muslims thanks to knowledge being more freely available. There should be and there is a debate who is the single handed person who influenced Islamic philosophy. To name a few up for the title would be Qutb-ud-Dīn Ahmad ibn 'Abdul Rahīm (Shah Waliullah), and of course al-Gazali.

We honestly should thank al-Ghazali due to his contributions in protecting the Muslim world from the intellectual challenges that were facing it. Traditional Islamic philosophy were being confronted by a rise of nihilistic philosophy and extreme Shi’ism that threatened to erase change the face of Islamic scholarship (this includes science) forever. Due to al-Ghazali's efforts and the numerous scholars he inspired, the path was paved for the resurgence of Islamic philosophy. (By the way, even Ibn Rushed who was a rationalist and refuted al-Ghazali's book of "The Incoherence of the Philosophers" was significantly influenced by him.)

\(\textbf{To make this text all short, and provide the too lazy and did not read section:}\)
al-Gazali argued, accept the mathematical, and sciences if they are true, but be wary of their philosophy as you could be agreeing to something that contradicts your very essence.

al-Gazali kept Islam together maybe not in the best way but long enough to allow revival in newer thoughts.

al-Gazali was not anti-science or anti-mathematics, however he was a person that seemed to dislike the branch of philosophy called metaphysics and how philosophers would not used the same tools as they used in the branches of science or mathematics.

Answer 3

Trying to compress to much information into a single post (it become somewhat incoherent), I recommend reading only @Algorithmic tl;dr section.

Answer 4

Thank you @Algorithmic :-)

Answer 5

@Opcode your advice has been taken into account, I have now noticed that my writing rather was a lot of ramblings. (I will try to rewrite this post and repost a fixed version.)

@LanguageEnthusiast you are welcome, if you would like, since the topic you are interested in is so vast there is a large number of books you will want to read, would you like a list of their names?

Answer 6

@Opcode is @Algorithmic right? Or am I missing something? Either one I wouldn't mind the books list I recently have gained more interest in the Eastern world.