The Great Philosophical Debate: Al-Ghazali vs. Ibn Rushd!

What if Al-Ghazali and Ibn Rushd Met? Watch Their Simulated Discussion
In this video, we simulate an epic debate between two of the greatest minds in Islamic philosophy: Al-Ghazali and Ibn Rushd. Imagine these intellectual giants meeting face-to-face to discuss their profound and often opposing views on causality, universal principles, and the eternity of the world.
📜 Topics Covered:
Causality: Is fire burning cotton a natural process or an act of divine will?
Universal Principles: Do universal concepts exist independently, or are they merely mental constructs?
Eternity of the World: Did the universe have a beginning, or is it eternal like time?
✨ Why Watch?
Gain deep insights into the philosophical arguments that shaped medieval Islamic thought.
Understand the contrasting perspectives of Al-Ghazali and Ibn Rushd on key metaphysical questions.
Experience a creative and engaging simulation that brings historical debates to life.
🔔 Don't Forget to Subscribe!
If you enjoyed this video, make sure to subscribe to our channel for more content on philosophy, history, and intellectual debates. Hit the notification bell so you never miss an update!
👍 Like, Share, and Comment!
We love hearing from you! Drop a comment below with your thoughts on the debate. Which philosopher do you agree with more? Share this video with friends and fellow philosophy enthusiasts to spark more discussions!
#Philosophy #AlGhazali #IbnRushd #MedievalPhilosophy #IslamicPhilosophy #IntellectualDebate #SimulatedDiscussion

[@travellingservant3269]

It's not about winning or losing in the debate. It's about the endless pursuit of knowledge through questions and learning new perspectives to aid such a quest for wisdom.

[@exarquazowexa7247]

It is tho. we can't afford to have wrong beliefs.

[@ademali8199]

Facts

[@chegunmoulero2737]

قُلْنَا يَٰنَارُ كُونِى بَرْدًا وَسَلَٰمًا عَلَىٰٓ إِبْرَٰهِيمَ Surah 21 verse 69: And We said: O fire be for Abraham a welcoming coolness. This proves that fire doesn't burn because its property to burn things but because Allah the Almighty wills it to be so. And by the same token, Allah wills it to cool the Prophet Abraham instead of burning him. So, every natural law is subjugated to Allah's will.

[@PasserBy489]

Allah used the word كوني i.e. Become cold, doesnt this show that the NATURAL PROPERTY of the fire was to burn, and Allah changed it? this AAYAH proves Ibn rushd philosophy.

[@mustafaaden736]

@@PasserBy489 You seem confused, if fire has "natural property" which is out of Alla's control, it wouldn't be possible to be changed its nature again, Allah make fire that nature to burn and in that Ibrahim CS incident , Allah took it out its nature and ordered to be cool and safe. In different way that story indicates that fire is creation (makhluuq)

[@mabroukatis]

Of course Allah can break his own natural laws that he created. But denying that there are "laws" that regulate everything is like denying Allah Himself.

[@sabaffira]

I give you an example. There’s a fire in front of you. Will you put your finger in it after asking God to make it cool for you?

[@chegunmoulero2737]

@sabaffira you can enforce your will upon Allah, He does whatever he wills, He is all-knowing, all-wise

[@hamzamire7425]

I must have to agree with imam ghazali. Allah can turn the properties of fire into ice if he wills. Therefore, it’s under his will that that the natural world is the way it is.

[@ghazanhussain2070]

😂😂😂😂

[@syedsameem1145]

@@ghazanhussain2070why do you laugh, donkey eh? Just like Allah swt changed the properties of fire when prophet Ibrahim AS was thrown into fire. Remember the water will not quench our thirst if Allah did not permit it to. Alhmd

[@rayzimmerman6740]

the question is, that he not done it till now. It would therefore, safe to assume, that he has better things to do.

[@Tearsofsoil]

I have a question from all these kind of beleivers? Can God change Natural Laws of Universe?? Means can he change The Laws which govern the gravity between stars, the interaction between different kinds of forces? Can He changes the nature of solid into liquid, luquid into gas and Gas into Solid as his Will for all the matter in The World?? Means if He does so? Whole universe will die in a second? Can He destroy all things and everything in the world by changing the laws of the Universe at His Will anytime for no reason?? Please... Can anyone of you answer this

[@kharkanas6779]

The qualities that make fire to be fire are set by divine. If they lose those qualities, they are no longer fire. And those principles are set, and can't be changed. But if they're are changed, then we can't talk of fire anymore.

[@KatariaGujjar]

In a Western university, they taught us ibn Rushd, but not Ghazali. I can see now why; because ibn Rushd is more inline with secularism and atheism.

[@idreeskhan2360]

Ghazali was a true face of traditionalist mindset which played havoc with rationally in Muslim polity . He was anti democracy and eulogized king caliph Almustahzir. Furthermore Ghazali projected sectarian orientations and was all for Asharite sect. His thoughts in fact didn't find chord with progressive elements. Asar ahmadzay

[@fh8047]

Ibn Rushd or Averros lived in Cordoba, Spain, and there's simply been more exposure to him than Ghazali, who lived in far away lands of arabia and iran. People are now waking up to Rumi, ibn Arabi and many more. Unfortunately, a lot of works have still not been translated from arabic and persian.

[@abdullahbinshahid3701]

These are the kinds of Knowledge one must persue rather than endlessly debating over sects and denominations

[@polaris3134]

I totally agree with Al-Ghazali.... Ibn e Rushd was living in the past and adhered to the ancient Greek philosophy like the Eternal nature of universe etc.... This adherence to Greek philosophy constrained his thoughts... Al Ghazaali on the other hand was creative and had a a deep understanding of rational thought and philosophy.... He was well-read in Greek philosophy but knew the flaws and blunders of ancient philosophers.... Time has proven that his rejection of the eternal nature of universe is correct... Then why is it that modern philosophers and academia disregard Al Ghazaali's greatness and blame him for even the downfall of Islamic intellect through the ages.... This is because he brings God in his theories and no matter how much rational you are but the philosophers since ancient times so not like God in their equations.... I mean these so called philosophers are willing to believe that aliens may be the creators of human beings or this universe maybe a simulation created by much advanced civilization but they will never accept God being the primary cause of everything.....

[@RAMBO14001]

Well put👏🏻

[@rajababy2009]

@polaris3134 I mean these so called philosophers are willing to believe that aliens may be the creators of human beings or this universe maybe a simulation created by much advanced civilization but they will never accept God being the primary cause of everything..... and by these theories they are accepting a creator of this world but in polytheistic way but they reject monotheistic creator which is really funny and illogical

[@moinshaikh89]

Stimulation reality or mathematical universe still have logic and rationale in it, but the concept of god and his character in the religious scriptures is hilarious and evidently creation of not so smart humans

[@learningtape]

Do you know that Ghazali directed the Ummah towards the "Tasawwuff" which deleted the word "logic" from Muslim's minds.

[@farhanpathan2976]

But it implies that we do not have free will. I'm writing this comment is caused by Allah.

[@eternalharmony-978]

It's quite a spectacular way of creation, creation of this video. I really appreciate the emergence of the simulation of the past and concepts in the format of videos. Keep your head up and move continiously and this particular choice of content in the video is also spectacularly spectacular (The Great Debate of Ghazali and Averroes)! Thank you.

[@mert3793]

Keep your good work inşallah you will be rewarded by much more views someday

[@sujamahmudasad8548]

Wow! Really enjoyed the video! Imam Al Ghazzali's logic is irrwfuta here. But one thing is needed to mention here that, imagining time has a beginning was quite hard on that time. But now we know scientifically that time has a beginning.

[@genovayork2468]

Why do we know scientifically that?

[@sujamahmudasad8548]

​@@genovayork2468 Scientifically now we know that time cannot exist independently without space. Time and space are intertwined. One cannot exist independently without another. Time and space emerge from big bang and it is believed 'before' big bang there was no time.

[@alamin3000]

I give the Causality and Universal principles arguments to Ibn Rushd, and Eternity of the world argument to Al Ghazali.

[@RAMBO14001]

Exactly

[@blackanarchicreacts]

The causality argument is also, by implication, the argument for the eternity of the world

[@ahzamrasheed1208]

1. I think both are right, we can and should study how a fire burns and cotton but ultimately, it burns because of the will of God. That is the only way to explain miracles. 2. Here I believe that Ghazali has the upper hand with a slight margin. As long as the concept is not manifested, we cannot believe in its existence. For example, Allah is an eternal being and being All Merciful is his attribute which is also eternal. So that mean Allah is All Merciful eternally but to whom he was being merciful before anything was created?? A quality of anything can exist eternally but that quality can only be acknowledged when it is manifested. But that quality existed always. 3. Here, Ghazali got the better of ibn Rushd simply because we today know it from science that this universe has a beginning and sun is also not eternal, it will run out of its fuel someday.

[@aashirali2172]

@@ahzamrasheed1208I agree with you on all the points. addressing your first point I'd say that's exactly the position of Al Ghazali. He said everything is caused by God however that doesn't mean you should give up on trying to find explanations behind the phenomenons happening in the world and said that it should be studied the way it has been. I find it extremely weird when people say he destroyed the value of philosophy and science in Islam when instead he was hugely in favour of sciences like maths and logic. Weirdly enough this is the exact position of pretty much all the modern day philosophers of science as well.

[@basuta-dshrara]

@@aashirali2172 yea in regards to the first point, its a fallacious argument, called or similar to the god of the gaps, you can fill anything in between. Why did Allah corrupt the hadiths and the quran ? well he could do it, why did the ummayads build the most racist apartheid in history, well allah allowed it. Thats why we have soo many different versions of islam, the isnad chains of hadiths have ben utterly destroyed to the point ahulul sunnah are basically following the whims of the ahlul hadiths (people who made things up for any and all reasons for thier own gains). Modern researchers have basically destroyed the reliability of the hadiths hence the foundations of the islamic apartheids that were created. Clarification, Ghazzali, was the root cause of the destruction of philosophical thinking, since he tried to discredit neoplatonic metaphysics, though he did not discredit philosophy as a whole, the issue was he had a crisis near the end of his life which made him go grazy. This however was used as an argument by the khanzeer ul islam, the lowly men who wanted wealth, destruction and evil upon their hands. Remember islam long time ago is not what is today, everything from early traditions to early cultural norms. Mostly destroyed by the madhabi scholars such as shafi, malik, hanbali, hannafi (may allah destroy them and burn them in jahanam forever). They are the root cause of islamic colonization/apartheid/ innocent land seizures etc... One of the main reasons ISIS came into being as well after hasan al bannah (1950) and their ilk (al zarkawy) (1990) tried to revive the caliphate. Everything runs its course and inshallah, the destruction of these evils comes to pass, we defeated the ottomans (may allah curse them), we defeated the evil people from east to the west and we defeated ISIS, iran, iraq, libya, syria (may allah curse them all and those who support them).

[@Janji146]

@@basuta-dshrara Who do you mean by we in your last point?

[@basuta-dshrara]

​@@Janji146 The people of haqq and goodness. Not the ones who follow the propaganda of the wahabi/salafist/ahulul seerat/hadith

[@Janji146]

@@basuta-dshrara Everyone claims to be haqq, this tells nothing.

[@drwho9055]

Thank you for this fantastic guide. May Allah reward you brother.

[@saadmerchant770]

Bridging the debate between both perspectives isn't really all that complicated if we look at it this way: 1. God creates as God wills and when God wills. 2. God creates via discernible, governing principles not for God's own sake but rather for the sake of those who would understand creation and God better. 3. Imagine a being that crosses a river through teleportation or by being omnipresent, but creating a bridge out of material objects so that others that cannot teleport might make it to the other side. 4. God can create without the rules or with the rules that govern us, and God can change the rules - but the rules are for our benefit. 5. God recreates or eliminates or transforms what God creates whenever God wills. But also, however, God wills. This is hinted at in the Quran in Surat Al A'la: "Glorify the name of thy Guardian-Lord Most High, Who hath created, and further, given order and proportion; Who hath ordained laws. And granted guidance; And Who bringeth out the (green and luscious) pasture, And then doth make it (but) swarthy stubble."

[@arsalanshaikh3763]

Very beautiful and informative video, thanks a lot.

[@megatronDelaMusa]

the architect designed the natural process to operate independently and otherwise . It's like a ship with autopilot and manual steering. both modes can be exploited by the captain at will

[@TheMercifulAndJust]

{ وَمَا خَلَقۡنَا ٱلسَّمَـٰوَ ٰ⁠تِ وَٱلۡأَرۡضَ وَمَا بَیۡنَهُمَاۤ إِلَّا بِٱلۡحَقِّۗ وَإِنَّ ٱلسَّاعَةَ لَـَٔاتِیَةࣱۖ فَٱصۡفَحِ ٱلصَّفۡحَ ٱلۡجَمِیلَ } [Surah Al-Ḥijr: 85] { إِنَّ رَبَّكَ هُوَ ٱلۡخَلَّـٰقُ ٱلۡعَلِیمُ } [Surah Al-Ḥijr: 86] صدق الله العظيم ولم تكن مصيبا يا موسى ولا الفرابي ولا أبو الفرابي ولا ابن تيمية... { إِنَّ رَبَّكَ هُوَ ٱلۡخَلَّـٰقُ ٱلۡعَلِیمُ } [Surah Al-Ḥijr: 86] خلاق من فعال الفعَّال: اسم من أسماء الله الحسنى، ومعناه: الفاعل فعلاً بعد فعل، كلَّما أراد فَعَل الخلاق اسم من اسماء الله الحسنى ومعناه : الخالق خلقا بعد خلق ، كلما أراد خلق والزمان والمكان مخلوقتان خلقهما الله معا مع كل خلق خلقه جل جلاله وليس الأمر كما يُظن بأنه سبحانه وتعالى خلقَها وتركَها بحرِّيَّتها تستقل في أفعالها تفعل بذاتها ما تريد بل كل شيء مخلوق وجميع المخلوقات في قبضة الله جل جلاله

[@aljufritaufik397]

In his philosophy, Al-Farabi posits that God is the primary cause and nature is the effect. Since God, being the perfect creator, does not require time to create, nature exists "simultaneously" with God from a temporal perspective. Thus, nature always exists because God always exists.

[@RAMBO14001]

But that's the thing; God isn't bound by Nature the same way Time is. And He Himself isn't a product of any nature..that intertwine with the religious knowledge that in the beginning only God excited.

[@TheMercifulAndJust]

That's the same mistake Ibn Taymiyya fell into .

[@zulfizakarya5703]

Al gazhali ❤ Quantum physics supports the sufi view of universe .

[@exarquazowexa7247]

Wrong. The creator cannot be within the creation. Sufis and ash3aris alike both have wrong 3a9a2id and are warned against by the prophet of Allah.

[@mustafahussain1638]

I understand how the comments here are more towards ghazali pov. Well it shows how the people generally lean towards things that are supernatural. If you study both of them with a sane and a practical mind. You will know ibne rushd was right. Its just that his opinion since is more practical, is lesser acceptable to people who generally tend to live in there magical world scenarios. The laws of nature itself are miracles of Allah.

[@learningtape]

Ibn e Rush was right in saying that if we believe that Allah is the puppitier and he is constantly intervening everytime in natural processes, then why are there natural laws?

[@user-td2sz1em8f]

Amazing channel!

[@Amir-dw1rg]

Good... please study mulla sadra, avicenna, The burhan al-siddiqin, Shia Islam and Henry Corbin too.

[@abdullahfahad9756]

I must agree with Ibn Rushd on the matter of causality. For any meaningful knowledge and applications you must be aware of causality. Of course Allah created everything and he is the almighty, but for the sake of function he must applied many many rules to the universe which we uncover by studying math, physics and many other subject. I think when Al Ghazali started as a philosopher, he was deeply inspired by SUFISM. That's why he was promoting that kind of philosophical view of islam. In a more senseble way, Ibn Rushd's thought of school is more compound and real life oriented rather than oriented toward sufism In the end that's only my beliefs, if you have other opinion it's totally fine😁

[@zulfizakarya5703]

Don't let your wahabism get you away from al gazhali .

[@apachekafka773]

You don't sound like a student of knowledge at all. Your final statement says it all.

[@lordtaseen2947]

the philosophers denied miracles of prophets

[@polaris3134]

But for a Muslim it is important to believe in the primary cause of everything and that is God .... By the way both of them are not mutually exclusive.... Al Ghazali does not tell us that we should not study or get benefit from the process that caused an event or bring into existence a thing rather he believes the primary cause of the is God and you should never forget him being the primary cause.... Now what you do after that is not affected by this thought..... For example fire burns..... Imam Ghazali believed that it burns because it is the will of God not the inherent nature of fire.... Now what process is involved in burning that is an open field and everyone can study that and use that process for whatever benefit he/she can get from it.... He doesn't illegitimise the study of the process and it's application and manipulation rather he suggest you to never forget God as the primary cause....

[@lordtaseen2947]

@@polaris3134 imam ghazali didnt deny secondary causality, he just attributed it to allah. You can think of the world as a system he put in place but allah oversees it at every point and can change it at any point howsoever he likes.

[@imiikhan]

❤❤❤ great work

[@starsian]

You earned a new sub!

[@Lumina_Vision]

Great insights ❤

[@m45h85]

The universe having no beginning indicates an infinite regress. In an infinite regress there would be no present. Its like trying to pour water in a bottomless cup.

[@aljufritaufik397]

In his philosophy, Al-Farabi posits that God is the primary cause and nature is the effect. Since God, being the perfect creator, does not require time to create, nature exists "simultaneously" with God from a temporal perspective. Thus, nature always exists because God always exists.

[@SameerAnsari-hz3pg]

Imam al gazali easily won the debate

[@shinoaki00]

It would be more convenient if timestamps are added. But anyways this is a great video

[@mohammedamin8311]

They are both right since there are two principles of creation they are clearly defined in the Quran those that disbelieve are also given the rights they deserve but those that believe are given the right of eternity since time is God's right only and no one else's.

[@aljufritaufik397]

AlGhazali denied Al-Farabi's opinion before knowing exactly what Al-Farabi meant in his philosophy, especially in matters of the eternity of nature and God's knowledge of particular things. So his rebuttal is not on target.

[@TheMercifulAndJust]

{ وَمَا خَلَقۡنَا ٱلسَّمَـٰوَ ٰ⁠تِ وَٱلۡأَرۡضَ وَمَا بَیۡنَهُمَاۤ إِلَّا بِٱلۡحَقِّۗ وَإِنَّ ٱلسَّاعَةَ لَـَٔاتِیَةࣱۖ فَٱصۡفَحِ ٱلصَّفۡحَ ٱلۡجَمِیلَ } [Surah Al-Ḥijr: 85] { إِنَّ رَبَّكَ هُوَ ٱلۡخَلَّـٰقُ ٱلۡعَلِیمُ } [Surah Al-Ḥijr: 86] صدق الله العظيم ولم تكن مصيبا يا الجفري ولا الفرابي ولا أبو الفرابي ...

[@TheMercifulAndJust]

الخلاق من فعال الفعَّال: اسم من أسماء الله الحسنى، ومعناه: الفاعل فعلاً بعد فعل، كلَّما أراد فَعَل والخلاق اسم من اسماء الله الحسنى ومعناه الخالق خلقا بعد خلق كلما أراد خلق والزمان والمكان مخلوقتان من خلق الله تعالى يخلقهما مع كل خلق معا وليس الأمر كما يُظن بأنه سبحانه وتعالى خلقَها وتركَها بحرِّيَّتها تستقل في أفعالها تفعل بذاتها ما تريد بل كل شيء مخلوق وجميع المخلوقات في قبضة الله جل جلاله خالق الأشياء والأحوال كلّها وكل الذي خلقه بقدرته فهو في قبضته سبحانه وتعالى والله جل جلاله هو الخالق والمخلوق لا يخلق شيئا فالله جل جلاله هو الخالق والمخلوق لا يخلق شيئا ضرب فيهما من المقاييس العلمية والرياضية كما قال (لتعلموا عدد السنين والحساب) اي لمنفعتنا وللنظر كما قال (أفلا ينظرون إلى السماء كيف خلقت )

[@kingshmaryhrash4264]

كلهما على حق وكل واحد منهما ينظر إلى الأمور من زاويه موازيه

[@exarquazowexa7247]

كلا بل كلاهما على عقيدة فاسقة مختلفة.

[@AbdennourZiane-n3v]

​@@exarquazowexa7247انت المنزه او جبريل يتنزل عليك و تعرف الحقيقة المطلقة مجنون انت ام ماذا تقول على حجة الاسلام الامام الغزالي أنه فاسق انت انسان متخلف و في نفسك خلل تادب مع العلماء روحك النجسة يجب ان تتطهر

[@imuranyusif7551]

My take: Causality - Draw Universal reality - ibn Rushdie Eternal universe - Al-Ghazali

[@AhmarNaushad]

YES you're right. Though ghazali fall short in the first 2 but id say he really pointed out in the last one that Allahs will is not change in His nature but its a free will.

[@007kash007]

This is brilliant. Enjoyed the tennis match here. And now I'm even more confused yet mind has expanded a little. I guess the ijma is with Ghazali right?

[@exarquazowexa7247]

Yes but it was airway known before him by the 3ulama2 and Blyth al ghazali and obn rushd had wrong 3a9a2id. That's why we follow scholars and not philosophers.

[@folken1761]

God sat down the universal laws of nature and it is the human mission to understand, apply and explore them, the laws are supposed to make sense from a human perspective ultimately and be alltogether coherent the more we dive deeper into them. How the laws came to be that is beyond the universal laws of nature.

[@sabaffira]

I feel grounded and empowered when listening to IbnRushd. Al Ghazali makes me feel helpless like a dry leaf which goes everywhere the wind blows. Ultimately I accept that both are true. But as humans we operate by causality that the Creator determines. Of course when the outcome is not to your expectation be it positive or negative , “Ghazalizing” the situation glorifies God as the ultimate Cause. Ibn Rushd is more practical in my humble opinion. Looking into history and around us, the species and nations who dominate are those who master causality.

[@zakikhan6148]

al-ghazali clearly has an edge👏

[@zulfizakarya5703]

Being a sufi and knowing what gazhali is talking about , I'm on his side . Great respect for ibn rushd ❤

[@histarchus]

Both are thinking within their own boxes. Both philosophers' freedom of thought is constrained by their religious beliefs. Ibn Rushd, living under Muslim rule in Spain, could not dare to express himself more freely. Alas.

[@vampireducks1622]

3:33 Ibn Rushd (Averroes) was an Aristotelian, so it's strange to hear him liken natural processes (fire burning cotton or wood, say) to the mechanical operation of a clock. For Aristotelains there is a vast difference between substances (fire, tree, human being, etc), which contain substantial form, and mere artifacts which have only extrinsic, accidental form. The clock analogy doesn't really work because clocks lack *entelechy*, that is, inherent purposiveness guiding development and self-organization, having only extrinsic design. Taking the working of a mechanism to be paradigmatic of processes in the natural world is not at all Aristotelian or Averroistic, but much more characteristic of the mechanistic philsophy that emerged in the 17th century and that gave birth to modern scientism. Aristotelian and Averroistic philosophy of nature, while eminently rational and 'scientific', is not mechanistic and reductionist, but rather, organic and holistic. I doubt the person who wrote this has a good grasp of Ibn Rushd's metaphysics and philosophy of nature.

[@kazinaher7808]

Al Ghazzali sounds to be rational and authoritative

[@universitylink]

The one you called natural laws is what we called the will of God

[@rayzimmerman6740]

Hi....You may want to spellcheck your slide...."principles"

[@anhareludni786]

I agree with gazali. Same as i think

[@goldendome-l1l]

gazi, rushi...what a name for a philly. did they know where their names came from? did they care? istanbul was constantinopole but beofre that it was tzarigrad. cant listen to it all, seems to me old vs new something along the lines. but all of this was already done in the past and didnt change a thing. so, what good are they both for? also...how many scientists arabs have and why did most of them in the west?

[@moinshaikh89]

Ghazali arguments sounds like logical fallacies

[@Grid252]

The universe does have a beginning and end

[@m45h85]

Imam ghazlis view on the causality of fire is more align with the quran and sunnah. The fire did not burn Ibrahim (as) as Allah willed the fire to be cool even though the natural characteristics of the fire is to burn.

[@user-re7iv7zr8z]

Allah doesn't need strings to control his puppets, asuming that puppets must have strings to be controlled means that if the strings somehow disappear then the puppeteer loses control over his puppets. Are Natural laws absolute or is Allah the absolute ruler over all things.

[@tahahaggui2521]

You have misunderstood Ibn Rushd's profound insight. He does not contend that Allah is confined to the necessity of using strings to control the puppets. Rather, he elucidates that Allah, in His boundless omnipotence, wills the movement of puppets with strings as an expression of His divine will. The puppeteer, who maneuvers the puppets, might choose to animate them through strings or, alternatively, with a battery. The state of His creation, the puppets, is contingent upon His sovereign decision to manifest something that did not exist prior to His decree. In His act of creation, Allah ordains a framework that we, as observers, can study and comprehend as part of His intricate design. He establishes a system and a manual. Yet, in the realm of miracles, as you have rightly mentioned, His will transcends the established order and framework of His creation. This underscores that His will is the ultimate source of all existence. He commands "Be," and it is.

[@user-re7iv7zr8z]

​@@tahahaggui2521I understand what ibn Rushd is saying... But I think Al Gazali's insight is being dismissed and pushed to the realm of mysticism or sufism. Consider this analogy, natural law dictates that you need a certain amount of force to move an object with a certain amount of mass. If we say this law is absolute universally and it is an unchangeable principle, then we are contradicting the Quran and Sunna. Have you considered the hadith where 3 people where trapped in a cave by a big rock that they couldn't move. So they used their good deeds to appeal to their Lord and Allah accepted their dua and moved the rock so that they may be saved? Now does a good deed have a quantifiable force that I can apply to move objects? No rather it's Allah who has power over all things.

[@ibrahimmohammedibrahim9273]

Eventually al ghazali won debate Through the modern evidence that universe created from the big ban

[@biibris9950]

Is this actually true debate, I think the debate may actually differ than this.

[@shuaibmohammed3256]

Chat GPT generated?

[@IbnWobbler]

It was a good video but the ai voiceover is too irritating .

[@KatariaGujjar]

Nice video but Ghazali in Istanbul?? 😅

[@hutame1553]

Is this a Turkish channel or channels name is automaticly translating?

[@nowie4007]

Ibn rushd was right in my opinion ❤❤❤

[@curiosone8843]

Ghazali is more wise and well thought in depth.

[@freedomforthebrave]

Quran and sunnah all the way

[@AbrarManzoor]

you are misrepresenting ibn rushds ideas in last part.Ibn rushd disagrees with ibn sina on emanation he doesnt agree with emanation.

[@AtticBooks]

Thank you for your interest. When creating these simulated discussions, we train the AI model by inputting the author’s works into the system. While we do have editors, including religious scholars, overseeing the content, we do not have specialists for each specific area. Therefore, these video discussions should be seen as tools to generate interest in the author, and potential errors should not be overlooked. As you can appreciate, even among experts, differing interpretations of an author’s views can occur.

[@s_warhawk]

I don't think the debate is actually from Imam Ghazali & Imam Ibn Rushd, rather created by the KZbinr's own script. How can Imam Ghazali say the sun has always (eternally) existed while knowing it part of the Islamic Core believe system in Akhira, once the Judgment Day will be established there will be no more Earth or Sun. Moreover there was a time when Allah created the Sun, at the time of creation of Universe. It is not eternally existed.

[@s_warhawk]

7:14 Imam Ghazali using the word Car or is that your own GPT created script. The channel should not say this was the debate between them. Rather he made it on his own using AI just like the narrations and images shown.

[@daringprince900]

Al ghazali was correct

[@yourdailyguide]

This is weird. I don't know if they would ever debate in this manner. Quran has the answers Causality: Allah made fire cold for Ibrahim Principles: Rushed raised the right points here. Eternal: Allah is Awwal and created the heavens and the earth. I don't believe either would be wasting time when they have Quran with definitive statements

[@centurion5210]

In the middle age they already had background music.

[@jamilabagash149]

Bogus arguments to simply confuse what is very obvious.

[@exarquazowexa7247]

Music is 7aram and it was known at the time.

[@exarquazowexa7247]

​@@jamilabagash149 both of them had incorrect 3a9a2id.

[@prasetyoardi7912]

7:13 Is there a car in their time?

[@s_warhawk]

Exactly! The youtuber is quoting his own GPT created script as the thoughts of Imam Ghazali.

[@FaridUlIslam-co2ys]

The Muslim philosophy begins with the concept presence and acceptance of divine personality the one and only Almighty Allah! Who is present since the beginning and shall be present eternal and forever! Now puzzle is to understand the beginning not continuation and ending! How can we understand it through our intellect query and quest? This has many aspects depend on the individual endeavour to use his or her ability approch and method to reach the possible conclusion of getting answer of the " beginning"! One possibility is to look at beginning is that there is no space there is no time what is then? Then there is only the presence of Almighty and all the manifestations of space and time physical/ material world all are due to the will of Almighty and every single object stays as if its presence is nothing but will of GOD/ Allah Almighty! And for how long an object is to/ has to persist is depends on the will of Almighty so the physical non physical nature physical non physical reality/ world both are on the will of Almighty! We humans have nothing to do with it but to surrender and submit before the will of Almighty!

[@kasfuhammi1974]

I hope another beyond "tahafut" will be released soon ... ghazali and rushd have dominated far too long

[@AtticBooks]

Ibn Arabi versus Ibn Taymiyya, coming soon!

[@amaljamal5703]

neither of them can explain why prophet muhammad could have 8 wives and a concubine at a time while his followers were only allowed 4 😂

[@aiya5777]

it happened Before and you simply don't care about it I wonder why Solomon got like a gazillion spouses while his followers ain't gotten even 4 of em

[@aiya5777]

try to actually compare one God's messenger to other fellow God's messengers it's called, apple to apple research

[@hamzaahmad3387]

Good AI created debate lol

[@Messi97149]

3-0 for ghazalli

[@yassinhamza574]

Team Ghazali

[@pradeeppandey7228]

🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻

[@xpsmango4146]

Does the human mind, a mere 1350cc of brain, has the capacity to understand the concept of God ? I think not.

[@exarquazowexa7247]

To assert that with full certainty entails understanding the aspect of incomprehensibility to God. Making it understood. So, it is a self-contradicring idea that cannot hold true by its own standards.

[@bilalkhanmuhammadzai3340]

A red car? 07:12

[@thesuperiorman8342]

The author of this video is simulating the debate using anachronistic examples. The word car (perhaps resembling the old caravan) was probably not used but colour was discussed in their debate.

[@freudba1578]

There is a difference between an autocar and car or cart

[@s_warhawk]

This is a GPT created script, it shouldn't be presented to viewers as Imam's own thoughts or ideas. This is misleading

[@SamMosawi]

Allah set in motion The layout of the word, astafurallah think of if as a video game. Allah programmed the mechanisms of the world and set them in motion. Science is just humans observing the natural universe and trying to understand it. We can tell the properties of fire and how it interacts with surrounding objects and that is a fact wherever and however you conduct the experiments. However, Allah is more grander than we can possibly imagine, Allah can will fire to freeze things instead of burn because he is capable of all thing. When it comes to humans we can only observe fire burning thing because that is how Allah willed it from the beginning.

[@saadhorsepower8908]

Allah did not just set the world into motion. He is actively creating every instance. When an animator makes an animation, he creates each frame on it's own separately. When we play the animation, we can see there is some sort of patterns and laws that give the animation some meaning or sense. However the animator could've decided to make the frames however he would've wanted, even if it appeared to be random or nonsensical. Allah creates the cause and the effects independantly of each other, however in His creation of causes and effects you can see some patterns. For example: Every time I let go of a ball on Earth, it drops and falls to the ground. Allah creates both the cause and effect, but if He wanted to, He could have not decided to create the effect or have done something different.

[@SamMosawi]

@@saadhorsepower8908 I agree with everything you said, I love the Animator analogy My video game analogy is what made sense at the time however I completely see and agree with what you’re saying!

[@leoa3259]

Think their robes and garmets are too long to be Islamic

[@aakhtab8403]

Don’t be stupid

[@exarquazowexa7247]

​@@aakhtab8403he is right. Garment for men is prhibited to be longer than the ankles and it cannot be folded either. So either their wrong beliefs rranslated into theur wrong apllications if the religion or these pictyres are inaccurate.

[@exarquazowexa7247]

Both have incorrect 3a9eeda sadly. May Allah forgive them.

[@samiismail8548]

Interesting video. Are these actual translations of Al Ghazali's and Ibn Rushd's writings? Not to sound skeptical, but at 3:32, Ibn Rushd uses the 'clock' analogy... but did they even have clocks back then? If I'm not mistaken, wasn't the clock invented in the 1300s?

[@jamalludin7114]

Clock exist even when Abbasid Dinasty , remember the event when Chalipate Harun Al Rasyid sent Clock to King of Franc , Charlemaigne

[@Longlivepetergriffin]

I left pisslam

[@CTzons]

We don't care.

[@Longlivepetergriffin]

@@CTzons palestine is fkd by allah