Isn't al-Ghazali responsible for the cultural and scientific stagnation of the Muslim world?

Isn't al-Ghazali responsible for the cultural and scientific stagnation of the Muslim world?

Let's see at his views:
- doctrine that everything happens because God wills it,
- condemnation od rationalism and inquiry of nature,
- condemnation od change and innovation.

Al-Ghazali was so persuasive that most of subsequent Muslim philosophy is basically a discussion over, about or against al-Ghazali, with proponents gaining the upper hand.

Also, Ghazali lived and worked in 11th century - the temporal coincidence with the beginning of the decline of Muslim world is striking.

Sure was. Funny how occasionalism is dominant in Islam to this day yet never mentioned when discussing Islam's compatibility with western civilization.

>Isn't al-Ghazali responsible for the cultural and scientific stagnation of the Muslim world?

Ghazali, Ibn taymiyya, and more gerenally all muslims scholars who didn't belong to Persia, Baghdad or Al-Andalus.

No. Occasionalism was never a doctrine to begin with, but an exercise in refuting the views of some of his opponents on observation and causality using their own logical tools. He did not condemn rationalism or inquiry of nature either, nor did he condemn change and innovation.

What was persuasive about al-Ghazali was the way he used Greek tools of logic in understanding Islamic doctrine and theology, something which the likes of Ibn Taymiyya condemned. He had nothing to do with the cultural or intellectual decline of the Muslim world.

Wasn't Ghazali a Persian?

True.

By persian i mean more like Omar Khayyam, Suhrawardi, and Avicenna.

Why arabs loves him ?
I mean he is persian...

all noteworthy people got killed by mongols at siege of baghdad. that's where stagnation has begon. it was a literal reverse-eugenics since only garbage muslims were living outside of baghdad.

Baghdad was already heavily declined even before the Mongols arrive. It's not that Khubilai destroyed a thriving centre of civilization. More like a declined city that was a shadow of itself.

My opinion is that the decline of Islam is indeed linked to al-Ghazali and the pivotal role which he played in the establishment of Muslim orthodoxy.

It's somehow ironic that Islam looks like religion especially suited to scientific progress thanks to its decentralized structure and the concept of Ulema. This seems to encourage innovation and exchange of ideas. This is where al-Ghazali steps in with his extremely persuasive argument. Suddenly there appears an orthodox mainstream that tramples all non-conformists and condemns innovation as sin.

>Suddenly there appears an orthodox mainstream that tramples all non-conformists and condemns innovation as sin.

This has existed for a while long before al Ghazali. Again, the decline, if you could call it that, had little to do with him and more to do with the rise of populist forms of Islam cultivated by military governors who ruled with their support. The 'orthodox mainstream' were themselves clashing with these very same forces.

Were there ever any none Persian Muslim scientists?

Who or what did then?

to do with the rise of populist forms of Islam cultivated by military governors who ruled with their support.

Can you elaborate please.

You should read a person who was on the scene, Ibn Khaldu.

"Extraction of revenue without an equal investment in infrastructure. The Middle East requires a huge amount of canals and irrigation in order to be fruitful, and no one of its conquerers understood this. Mongols/Crusaders/Bedioun Arabs would slash and cut needed irrigation money and put it into defense instead of back into water supplies.

In Europe all that is needed is a thick iron plow, but in Arabia you need to mantain a huge social network to keep up canals,dams ditches and trenches.

But i dont get it. At some point with the same territory they thrived...

It also sounds liek a very very partil answer.

Because they stopped spending on water infrastructure which caused the infrastructure to break down. They were conquered by people who came from other climates and didn't understand the need for irrigation.

Over-irrigation

Arabs love Persians--why, I don't know.

Tabari, Bukhari, and an-Nasai compiled 3 of the six most important hadiths in Sunni Islam. Sistani, an old Persian guy, is literally the only thing keeping whatever semblance of stability in Iraq through sheer popularity.

Maybe they're just charismatic? Or maybe it's because they're the closest non-Arabs to actual Arabs, starting from Salman al-Farsi onwards.

You mea the Mesopotamians? The rivers dried.

Persians were one of the great classical civilizations and had a not insignificant effect on arab culture. In that sense i imagine they view them the same way we view the Greeks and Romans. Sure we arent genetically the same people, but they're worth emulating.

Islam was for a while an aristocratic urban religion. The Muslim social class was synonymous with the upper and mercantile classes, and Muslim states were built on the support of this social class. This was done through supporting things that this class liked, such as expanding bureaucracies, hosting cultured celebrities, etc. There were other forms of Islam to be sure, but these tended to be political outcasts who whipped up tribes and rebels under Shi'ism.

Starting around the 11th century, a wave of military dictators overthrew the ruling classes with slave soldiers. Some acculturated, but others developed a form of government that recognized their hold on power was tenuous which pushed them to promote popular forms and expressions of Islam, as well as promoting a Muslim warrior tradition which naturally made them Muslims par excellence when before they were mistrusted.

Over time this led to a Muslim mob, stoked to riot by mystics or popular preachers, who began targeting anything they perceived as heterodox Islam or any sort of threat to their religious society.

Interesting. It would be as if the hasidim overthrew and killed off all the bankers and merchants back in the middle ages

More like when conservatives foster reactionary thought against liberals for decades until an entire demographic forms that want leadership and social policies that will make the Caliphate great again.

This is also when you start seeing a major decline in Middle Eastern Christianity as these same mobs start targeting them for being potential 5th columns in league with either violent religious extremists or puppets of an East Asian juggernaut.

Wasn't he the one that started the school that there's no reaction of an action or something, which contradicts modern science entirely?

Yep, that's him.

>There's no natural laws. There's only God who wants something to happen or not to happen.

If they were so enlightened before Al Ghazali, why did they pray towards Mecca then?

>Arabs love Persians

who the fuck would think this is the case at any point in history, let alone back then

i've only ever known these two groups to fucking despise each other. persians think arabs are lizard-eaters with no culture outside islam, and arabs think persians are heretical hedonists who bastardize islam.

am i missing something?

I've been in Iran and at the end of the day they don't hate arabs (or anyone else) so much, they just have a big mouth and are kinda passional. It's probably the same for arabs who have bigger mouths and are even more passional.