See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.

CLASSICISTRANIERI HOME PAGE - YOUTUBE CHANNEL
Privacy Policy Cookie Policy Terms and Conditions
Talk:Al-Ghazali - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk:Al-Ghazali

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] HE WAS PERSIAN

The article must state his ethnicity.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/g/ghazali.asp Dariush4444 23:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arab vs. Persian

was he a Arab??

He was muslim! Nationalism is a modern concept introduced to the islamic world by colonial powers.

Irrelevant, more quotations might be useful

Not my speciality, but my grasp of the history shows that since the C7th, when arab forces conquered Persia, there have been important questions over ethnicity within the Islamic world. I'd accept that Islam has generally been able to reach across national and racial divides, and that most Muslims accept the idea of a broad community of Islam, but the idea that race and nationality either don't matter within the Umma, or that dividions along these lines are all due to the perfidious colonials is ahistorical.---- Charles Stewart 09:54, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Postscript: wrt to above question: he was Persian. An afterthought on what I have written: I don't mean to say that muslims have no legitimate grievances against their colonisers, rather that, while divide and rule was an explicit, destructive strategy of European colonisers, its effectiveness depended upon there being divisions to exploit. ---- Charles Stewart 10:06, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think some people?! have this tendency to make all the great Muslim minds "Persian" when one cannot really tell with certainty. This is really very disturbing. -Serkan

I think it's disturbing to see the same thing from the Arab and Turks as well.--Zereshk 00:49, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

There needs to be some sort of consensus among all editors of Muslim scientists, as there are constant revert wars between Turks, Arabs, and Persians on whichever article you look at.Yuber(talk) 01:02, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I think the only way is to acknowledge everyone and be inclusive. Thus Rumi can be identified as both Turkish and Persian. Or Ibn Rushd can be mentioned to be both Arab and Spanish. Or Zinuddin Zidan is both French and Arab. Only then can we avoid this stupid racial shit, and get to the more important stuff.--Zereshk 07:49, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Although Islam is inclusive in theory, the reality is more complex. Read for instance this essay: Blasphemy Before God: The Darkness of Racism In Muslim Culture.

This article is unsatisfactory IMHO. It appears to be confusing and contradictory. Was Ghazali an Asharite or wasn't he? I have heard him quoted as saying that "the study of science and philosophy was harmful because it would shake man's faith in God and undermine the Muslim religion." Did he shut the door on Islamic science or not? I'm no clearer on this question after having read the article. --BirgerLangkjer 11:42, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

His name, where he was born and where he died screams Persian! We're not talking about Baghdad or Basrah here, we're talking about Khorasan/Tus and Kharmathein. Alireza Hashemi 22:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

  Al Ghazali is a persian who wrote all his major works in arabic,

I don't see what's the point of quarelling about that, it's like discussing whether

J.Conrad is English or polish, his works are English literature and that's the most important.--Sayih 17:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some comments in the article

Al-Ghazali explained in his autobiography why he renounced his brilliant career and turned to Sufism. It was, he says, due to his realization that there was no way to certain knowledge or the conviction of revelatory truth except through Sufism. (This means that the traditional form of Islamic faith was in a very critical condition at the time.) This realization is possibly related to his criticism of Islamic philosophy.

The comment this means that the traditional ..." seems an original research to me.

"Through his own religious experience, he worked to revive the faith of Islam by reconstructing the religious sciences upon the basis of Sufsm, and to give a theoretical foundation to the latter under the influence of philosophy. Thus Sufism came to be generally recognized in the Islamic community."

I am not sure that Sufism was not recognised in Islamic community before Al-Ghazali.

It wasn't Islamic faith that was in a critical condition, it was Al ghazali's faith. I read a brilliant comment by a Maliki sholar of the period .. and when did the islamic sciences die to be revived by Al Ghazali. Sufism had always been tolerated in Islamic community; but it posed no problem since it wasn't wide-spread. Al Ghazali's book إحياء علوم الدين was the main factor behind its rapid spread and the sudden halt of Islamic scientific movement.

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayih (talk • contribs) 00:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources that he's Persian?

What are the sources that state he's Persian? Please provide some in the article, in accordance to WP:V. MB 14:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The article doesnt say "he's Persian" (or Arab or Turk).--Zereshk 00:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Yet he's included in a list of Persian scientists, funny, don't you think? MB 15:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

He has many Persian writings the most important one being Kimiya As-Sa'adat. He was also from Tus, which did not have any Arab colonies unlike Merv. So he was Persian since Arabs did not write in Persian. --Ali doostzadeh 18:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Also, "scientists" in those days would also include philosophers. Modern science did not exist at the time.--Zereshk 07:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alims

These "alim"s are belonging to Islam. Their Muslim identity is more important than their ethnic identity. There is no racism in Islam.

There is not MEANT to be any racism in Islam but you know as well as I that, that isn't the case with many Muslims who say they practice Islam. --JH

[edit] clear copyvio

This article is copied verbatim from here. As an example, two paragraphs from the article:

Al-Ghazali is one of the greatest Islamic theologians and mystical thinkers. He learned various branches of traditional Islamic religious sciences in his home town of Tus, Gorgan and Nishapur in the northern part of Iran. He was also involved in Sufi practices from an early age. Being recognized by Nizam al-Mulk, the vizir of the Seljuq sultans, he was appointed head of the Nizamiyyah College at Baghdad in AH 484/1091 CE. As the intellectual head of the Islamic community, he was busy lecturing on Islamic jurisprudence at the College, and also refuting heresies and responding to questions from all segments of the community. Four years later, however, al-Ghazali fell into a serious spiritual crisis and finally left Baghdad, renouncing his career and the world. After wandering in Syria and Palestine for about two years and finishing the pilgrimage to Mecca, he returned to Tus, where he was engaged in writing, Sufi practices and teaching his disciples until his death. In the meantime he resumed teaching for a few years at the Nizamiyyah College in Nishapur.
Al-Ghazali explained in his autobiography why he renounced his brilliant career and turned to Sufism. It was, he says, due to his realization that there was no way to certain knowledge or the conviction of revelatory truth except through Sufism. (This means either that the traditional form of Islamic faith was in a very critical condition at the time, or he simply did not agree with the standard day to day grind of "ordinary" Islam.) This realization is possibly related to his criticism of Islamic philosophy. In fact, his refutation of philosophy is not a mere criticism from a certain (orthodox) theological viewpoint. First of all, his attitude towards philosophy was ambivalent; it was both an object of criticism and an object of learning (for example, logic and the natural sciences). He mastered philosophy and then criticized it in order to Islamicize it. The importance of his criticism lies in his philosophical demonstration that the philosophers' metaphysical arguments cannot stand the test of reason. However, he was also forced to admit that the certainty of revelatory truth, for which he was so desperately searching, cannot be obtained by reason. It was only later that he finally attained to that truth in fana' which in Sufism refers to the state of losing one's self and ego. Through his own religious experience, he worked to revive the faith of Islam by reconstructing the religious sciences upon the basis of Sufism, and to give a theoretical foundation to the latter under the influence of philosophy. Thus Sufism came to be generally recognized in the Islamic community. Though Islamic philosophy did not long survive al-Ghazali's criticism, he contributed greatly to the subsequent philosophization of Islamic theology and Sufism.

And from the original article:

al-Ghazali is one of the greatest Islamic Jurists, theologians and mystical thinkers. He learned various branches of traditional Islamic religious sciences in his home town of Tus, Gurgan and Nishapur in the northern part of Iran. He was also involved in Sufi practices from an early age. Being 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 was busy lecturing on Islamic jurisprudence at the College, and also refuting heresies and responding to questions from all segments of the community. Four years later, however, al-Ghazali fell into a serious spiritual crisis and finally left Baghdad, renouncing his career and the world After wandering in Syria and Palestine for about two years and finishing the pilgrimage to Mecca, he returned to Tus, where he was engaged in writing, Sufi practices and teaching his disciples until his death. In the meantime he resumed teaching for a few years at the Nizamiyyah College in Nishapur
Al-Ghazali explained in his autobiography why he renounced his brilliant career and turned to Sufism. It was, he says, due to his realization that there was no way to certain knowledge or the conviction of revelatory truth except through Sufism. (This means that the traditional form of Islamic faith was in a very critical condition at the time.) This realization is possibly related to his criticism of Islamic philosophy. In fact, his refutation of philosophy is not a mere criticism from a certain (orthodox) theological viewpoint. First of all, his attitude towards philosophy was ambivalent; it was both an object and criticism and an object of learning (for example, logic and the natural sciences). He mastered philosophy and then criticized it in order to Islamicize it. The importance of his criticism lies in his philosophical demonstration that the philosophers’ metaphysical arguments cannot stand the test of reason. However, he was also forced to admit that the certainty, of revelatory truth, for which he was so desperately searching, cannot be obtained by reason. It was only later that he finally attained to that truth in the ecstatic state (fana’) of the Sufi. Through his own religious experience, he worked to revive the faith of Islam by reconstructing the religious sciences upon the basis of Sufsm, and to give a theoretical foundation to the latter under the influence of philosophy. Thus Sufism came to be generally recognized in the Islamic community. Though Islamic philosophy did not long survive al-Ghazali’s criticism, he contributed greatly to the subsequent philosophization of Islamic theology and Sufism.

This should be labelled accordingly. Ori Redler 08:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Criticism

Neil deGrasse Tyson claims that Al-Ghazali is one of the people responsible for the decline of science and civilisation in arabic/persian/muslim culture. I see in this article that he denounces Aristotle. But I couldn't really find a good explanation about his role in the decline of civilisation that has been lasting till today. Just look at the number of muslim nobel prize winners. --80.56.36.253 13:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Such prominent Muslim scientists as there are nowadays mostly work in Western institutions in Western countries. Prominent scientist Steven Weinberg freely grants the existence of the Arabian Golden Age, and the presence of brilliant Muslims among his colleagues. But, he says, in forty years he has never seen a scientific paper worth reading from a Muslim country.

The Sanity Inspector 02:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

  • But I couldn't really find a good explanation about his role in the decline of civilisation that has been lasting till today. Look at the "Legacy" section in the wiki article on al-Ghazali' The Incoherence of the Philosophers to see one hypothesis.

The Sanity Inspector 13:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I think what Neil deGrasse Tyson has stated is completely incorrect. Have you ever read in any of Ghazali's works where he has declined the science and civilisation? I am sure, you have not. Here's the online edition of his book Book of Knowledge in his work Ihya'ul Uludmuddin (The Revival of Religious Sciences): LINK
Ghazali has dedicated a complete book on Sciences and Knowledge, and he has never declined science or civilisation.
In his book Kimyaye Sa'aadat (Alchemy of Happiness), he writes, using a strong language, about the scholars and some Sufis of that period who used to prohibit people from learning modern sciences: ...and those who call themselves as Shaikh or Peer, and tell people not to learn knowledge because it will become a veil between them and their lord, are fully in ignorance. They have not yet found the truth. Any modern science that the society needs is an obligation upon an individual to learn. (I hope there wasn't any mistake in translation).
I suggest to go directly to the original source instead of listening from a person reporting.Ariana310 13:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I just came across this speech of Neil deGrasse Tyson in which he said that Imam Ghazali wrote: "Mathematics is the work of Devil". In such a scholarly seminar or conference, he does not even cite a single sentence of Ghazali, which would justify what he says. It seems that he is completely unfamiliar with the works of Ghazali. Here are some books of Ghazali in which he directly talks about Mathematics; its status in Philosophy and in Islam: al-Munqidh min ad-dalal, Miyar al-Ilm fi fan al-mantiq (Criterion of Knowledge in the Art of Logic) and in the Preface of Incoherence of Philosophers. -Ariana310 07:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

He cites the line about wool turning black in the fire because Allah wills it rather than a chemical change. Al-Ghazali did help launch Sufism into the mainstream and result in the downfall of Baghdad as the intellectual capital of the world. There's a reason why most of the science from that time gets traced back to that period in time and ever since the Muslim world has stopped producing any good scientific literature or study. He may not have been directly responsible but he did a lot to help orthodox Islam to take charge in the area. Tyson never argued with was the downfall of society or civilization... just that it was the downfall of independent thought and scientific inquiry in the area. He doesn't appear to be wrong. It isn't a criticism if al-Ghazali more of Sufism itself, but does warrant a note in the article as others have prior to and since made the claim and it's largely accurate. Tat 03:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I think you should see the sentence from the way Al-Ghazali wanted to express, not to make our own interpretations. The sentence is more philosophical than a scientific reasoning. Saying "wool turning black in the fire because Allah wills it rather than a chemical change", he tries to demonstrate that each action in this world is done by Allah's will and that Allah has let the actions to take place. He believes in a superior being i.e. Allah, thus in that logic, it is completely logical to say that all actions are done by the superior being. Your criticism can be targeted on the principal belief of Al-Ghazali, i.e. Does the superior being which is Allah have all the actions, activities, chemical and physical changes under his own will or not? Then in this case, I think Al-Ghazali has defended very well, more than any other person, his believes and orthodox Islamic believes. Now, if we suppose you do not agree with this point (the thesis which I wrote in a form of question), you should criticize this main and principle thesis (the existence of such a superior being, or the attributes of that superior being), not to state that Al-Ghazali has denounced the sciences. Ariana 18:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


sufism, for the large majority at that time, meant the abandon of all life pursuits for the sake of contemplation and woship, wearing rags and self-imposed poverty. it was of very negligible influence as long as the practice had been minor and limited. Al Ghazali's book Ihia olum eddine إحياء علوم الدين fanned sufism on a large scale. that's a well-known fact. The results were devastating. it's noteworthy to compare regions where the book had great influence to those where it had but little influence, like El Andalus; Islamic Spain. El Makkari المقري in his famous oeuvre نفح الطيب Nafhu et Tib pointed out that sufis were considered very idle people and discouraged. Sciences in El Andalus remained thriving even when Granada, the last kingdom, fell to the reconquesta while the other parts of the Islamic world plunged into darkness, scientifically speaking. El Ghazali unintentionally did what he woud have condemned were he to live to see the consequences of his own writings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayih (talk • contribs) 13:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC) --Sayih 18:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

... By the way El Ghazali does not represent the so-called Orthodox Islam. His views concerning the spiritual domain are rather mild , tolerant and loose. Though his views attracted the multitude, well-versed scholars - who had always represented the mainstream - condemned them as nonconformist. His books were decreed to be burned in many cities/states. However, The process of decline was irreversible and sufism gained the mainstream for the first time in history.. this lasted until the 19th century when scholars gained back the main stream and sufism shrank to the corner.. it's generally looked at as heresy today. ps. I should note that well-versed scholars العلماء /olama/ are very mild in their views, they stick to texts ie Qur'an and the true hadiths of sunna without rigid of far fetched interpretations. They are generally regarded as the guardians of the true understanding of Islam and they often speak against extremism on both ends and favor an active role in life. --Sayih 15:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources and Division of Knowledge

User:Lakho Shahnaz, you have been adding content to "Sources and Division of Knowledge" w/o any referencing or citing. You also have been adding that w/o taking care of the manual of style. I am removing all that stuff until you bring references to it. You have been informed of these issues at your talkpage but there was no improvement. Please have a look at WP:CITE, WP:V and WP:MOS. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 10:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Image

I removed the image, made by an unknown artist at an unknown date, clearly not made in the era of al-Ghazali and therefore unencyclopedic.S711 12:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Imam Nawawi "crticism"

I removed that because 1. Imam Nawawi was not a critic of Imam Al Ghazali. 2. There was no source mentioned for it. This is what Imam Nawawi has said about Imam Al Ghazali "if all the books of Islam were lost, the Ihya would suffice them all", such is the depth and detail of this remarkable work." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.212.128.145 (talk) 18:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

While you are correct about it needing a source, the more appropriate action would be to add the fact tag. Nawawi was a well-known critic of Ghazali, and this criticism is also well known. I'll add the fact tag now with the criticism, shouldn't take too long to find the source. MezzoMezzo 20:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Descartes

The section on Renee Descartes definitely needs a citation of some sort. I appreciate that both al-Ghazali and Descartes placed doubt at the heart of their philosophy, but Descartes' focus upon the thinking subject seems to me to be (prima facie) a million miles from al-Ghazali's focus upon religious faith, which was strongly critical of speculative thought.

I'm not saying what's written is necessarily wrong (I don't know to tell you the truth) but without it being traceable to a verifiable source one cannot know, and it just looks like the author(s) are using hearsay to patch together influences where they might not exist.

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 21:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Imam Nawawi "criticism"

To the very best of my knowledge there is no evidence of Imam Nawawi being a critic of Al-Ghazali at all, in fact he enjoyed praise from Imam Nawawi (as previously stated in section 10 of this page) and other eminent scholars, hence I removed it. However as can be noticed, the edition was undone, therefore I'm writing now to those that have the opinion that he actually was a critic, to kindly provide evidence as a reference. If that won't be possible after a reasonable time period has elapsed, then it would be very unreasonable to suggest the criticism of Imam Nawawi to stay at the article.

In brief, the proposal is that those whose opinion it is that Imam Nawawi was a critic should set a reasonable time limit to find evidence, after which if not found, that portion of the article should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hubbud Deen (talk • contribs) 21:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

That whole section is OR and it seems to do with theological polemics on the internet that is outside of the interest of wikipedia. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 04:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The criticism is known, give me some time to locate and i'll do my best; the request is quite reasonable.
As for the accusation that the material is theological polemics, this is based on the user's own POV. This is evident in the fact that the removal of the content featured an edit summary using the term "Wahabi" - which is recognized as a derogatory slur and should not be used again - despite there being no mention of wahhabism or anything of the sort in the section. Let's please put our personal opinions aside and base edits on information and sources, as the user who started this discussion asked. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
This is not a place for polemical debate. And usually it is followers of Ibn Wahab (and it is not a slur and widely used in the literature) who criticize Sufi Muslim scholars. I mean what is the connection to the article if another person like Ibn Taymiyyah has an opinion on Ghazzali? I think some of these quotes have been cherry picked for polemical debates. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 01:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I already mentioned it once, i'll say it again. the long consensus here is that wahabi is a derogatory slur; don't throw it around. As for polemical debate, this clearly isn't the case; biographies on famous people frequently display criticism, especially people involved in philosophy and/or organized religion. It is very much relevant if the criticism is from notables within whichever realm, in this case organized religion. As for quotes being cherry picked, that's just your own opinion. You may assume whatever you want about the motives of other editors, but the bottom line is that the criticism is notable and sourced. If you personally don't like it then that is fine, the article isn't here to say who's right and who's wrong, but to remove it is censorship; Wikipedia is not censored. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Which consensus is that? It is used all over the media. Also there is no censoring as long as proper citation in English translations are given or the original Arabic is brought. And the material is most likely taken from a Wahabi (what is the correct term?) website. I do not think websites with polemical material should be introduced here. Also if Wahabi was a slur than more than 1000 mainstream google books would not use it [1]. Please show me the consensus. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 05:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't particularly care about what the media says in this context, as we're not editing the new media; we're editing on Wikipedia. It is indeed an insulting term and has been treated as such by site administrators in the past. Your request to be "shown" this consensus is misleading - there is no official page of words you can't use to my knowledge. The fact that users have been blocked in the past for directing the term at other users is proof enough.
As for your suggestion that the material is most likely brought from a website, again, that is just your opinion. That you would say it without proof would lead a casual observer to believe you have some sort of bias; you're turning sourced content on notable criticism of a prominent individual into some sort of an ideological debate when it isn't a debate at all. As editors we're not here to make judgment calls on who is correct, we simply provide the information. It is adequately sourced criticism in line with WP:V and WP:RS, and thus there is no reason to be removing it. That you're calling it cross debate when it clearly isn't makes it appear that you're removing content you simply disagree with. I want to assume that isn't the case, i'm just pointing out what it looks like. Your best course of action would be to familiarize yourself with site policy and realize that showcasing criticism is not validating it; this is standard in many articles on individuals. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not adequately sourced. Where is the publisher, date? where is the original Arabic? Who did the translation? What does theological biased polemics have to do with a biography of a person? And as per the term, please show me the admin who banned it and I will discuss it with him. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 05:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Per WP:V and WP:S, it is quite adequately sourced. You don't just make up your own criteria; we function based off of official site policy here. If you can find something based on site policy then we can discuss that, but if you're going to make demands out of nowhere then we have nothing to discuss.
You have also once again called this theological polemics - this makes you look rather intellectually dishonest considering I have explained multiple times that criticisms of individuals isn't polemics, it's notable information. Check articles on such random but still religious/philosophical figures such as Jerry Falwell, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, and Socrates - you will find sections for criticism. I have to admit the fact that you keep bringing this up is causing me to be weary of this discussion; this is completely inappropriate and makes it appear that you're trying to censor criticism of a guy you like. That is not good. You should probably alter your position or at least your approach to alleviate those fears.
Regarding the admin, you can discuss it with User:Ryan Postlethwaite if you would like. MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
No it is not adequate. Lets look at the sources. What is: "Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, part 4, p. 71 ". Where is the edition? Who is the publisher? Who is the translator? And the other critic: "Abu 'Umar ibn as-Salah, a well-known Shafi'i scholar wrote". What is the criterion for a well-known? And the citation is even worst. What is "Tabaqaat Ashaab al-Shafa’i" Where is the page, publisher, original and translator? I don't mind criticism as long as it is not undo weight. That is there are a list of scholars who have mentioned his significance. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Majmoo' al-Fataawa is the most well known collection of Ibn Taymiyyah; there is no "publisher" considering the book was written closer to Al-Ghazali's time. AS for the book of Aboo 'Umar, the page number is not on hand so if you take issue with that then there is not much I can object to in that sense. However, what you have asked of the well sourced content is not reasonable; if you cannot come up with a policy based issue with it, then I cannot in good faith allow you to remove content when it appears your primary reason is because you disagree with it. MezzoMezzo (talk) 16:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
After being advised by a number of people Ali, i'm going to leave this up to your discretion. If you feel that the criticism does not belong here then my objections are removed, after review due to getting some third party feedback on this. Best regards, MezzoMezzo (talk) 17:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Actually, the book is known, but it has to be published or else who has the original manuscript? It would also need the translator. So that is why I believe it was taken from a website which is devoted to polemics. We can say some scholars had a difference of opinion with Ghazzali with regards to some matters, but it should have equal weight at least with scholars who have praised this person. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 17:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


aa - ab - af - ak - als - am - an - ang - ar - arc - as - ast - av - ay - az - ba - bar - bat_smg - bcl - be - be_x_old - bg - bh - bi - bm - bn - bo - bpy - br - bs - bug - bxr - ca - cbk_zam - cdo - ce - ceb - ch - cho - chr - chy - co - cr - crh - cs - csb - cu - cv - cy - da - de - diq - dsb - dv - dz - ee - el - eml - en - eo - es - et - eu - ext - fa - ff - fi - fiu_vro - fj - fo - fr - frp - fur - fy - ga - gan - gd - gl - glk - gn - got - gu - gv - ha - hak - haw - he - hi - hif - ho - hr - hsb - ht - hu - hy - hz - ia - id - ie - ig - ii - ik - ilo - io - is - it - iu - ja - jbo - jv - ka - kaa - kab - kg - ki - kj - kk - kl - km - kn - ko - kr - ks - ksh - ku - kv - kw - ky - la - lad - lb - lbe - lg - li - lij - lmo - ln - lo - lt - lv - map_bms - mdf - mg - mh - mi - mk - ml - mn - mo - mr - mt - mus - my - myv - mzn - na - nah - nap - nds - nds_nl - ne - new - ng - nl - nn - no - nov - nrm - nv - ny - oc - om - or - os - pa - pag - pam - pap - pdc - pi - pih - pl - pms - ps - pt - qu - quality - rm - rmy - rn - ro - roa_rup - roa_tara - ru - rw - sa - sah - sc - scn - sco - sd - se - sg - sh - si - simple - sk - sl - sm - sn - so - sr - srn - ss - st - stq - su - sv - sw - szl - ta - te - tet - tg - th - ti - tk - tl - tlh - tn - to - tpi - tr - ts - tt - tum - tw - ty - udm - ug - uk - ur - uz - ve - vec - vi - vls - vo - wa - war - wo - wuu - xal - xh - yi - yo - za - zea - zh - zh_classical - zh_min_nan - zh_yue - zu -