Forgotten Thinkers: Al-Ghazali and Averroes

Visit my new website: www.wescecil.com A lecture delivered by Wesley Cecil PhD. at Peninsula College. Explores the Islamic Golden Age, Translation Movement, and the work of Al-Ghazali and Averroes.
I apologize if my speech is in-distinct at times, I was quite sick when delivering this lecture - perhaps should be titled "The Incoherence of Me." Also note, Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani's website is still active.
Download the lecture handout at www.wescecil.com/alghazali-and...
For more information visit www.wescecil.com

[@lorenwyman]

Islamic philosophy is underrated. Thanks for the vid. Always waiting for more lectures.

[@brdmohamedali]

I just want to add 3 commentaries, about this brillant lecture of Pr Wesley Cecil: 1.Averroisme was recognised by some teachers and scholars of the "lEcole de l'Eglise de Chartres" in Paris, as a source of knowledge in philosophy. 2. in the year 1277, that teachings was forbidden by the church of Paris. 3. in the 19 century, Averroisme was viewed by many Arabic intellectuels as a source of aspiration to modernity and liberation of Arabic societies from the feodal political powers and old ideology. • Finely, the Moroccan thinker, Mohamed Abed Al-Jabri (in "Critique de la raison arabe"), in the late 20 century, consider Averroès as a great thinker, and the champion of the Reason which could pave the way to authentic modernity of the Arabic world

[@claimofthrones4955]

There is always time for a Wes Cecil lecture. 👌🏼

[@mohammadbinmahbub9160]

If al-Gazali's critics are to be believed - that he successfully destroyed philosophy ..... using philosophy. He must be the greatest philosopher - ever.

[@mrtaz4340]

His interpretation of Islam is better than your stupid violent one that goes against the attributes of Allah & his words.

[@baheer156]

@@mrtaz4340 So your problem is with the adherents of islam or islam?

[@waqas729]

Madhav Tiwari you need a serious study of Al ghazali's works before you put such a claim. I can help you if you really are interested otherwise you can continue with your false baseless claim.

[@mustafarehman1580]

Madhav Tiwari you Haven't a single book of His for sure

[@syedqamaranwar14]

Thanks to gazali who was successful in nipping the intellectual thought and logic towards the creation of Allah ...He stuck with the creater only defyi g Quran challenges to human to understand his creation . May Allah forgive him for creating moulvi,mullah sybdicat and Gang created through madarsas .

[@cagriyuksel6448]

I wish more Muslim scholars could have such detailed knowledge about the history and greatness of Islam as this Western professor has we can learn alot from him !

[@MsMyselfish]

Thanx for this insightful talk. No one ever explained the bottom line diffrence between alghazali and averoes's philosophies. Keep up the good work

[@alija83]

Just another great lecture. Thanks Wes for making feeding my mind and making it a great hour of learning.

[@daraarmand1221]

Dear Dr. Cecil; thank you ever so much for the most informative and masterfully delivered lectures. I was wondering if you could do one on Salman the Persian and his role in development of Islam. His role has been shrouded in much mystery and conflicting opinions exist on his input. The striking resemblance of many passages in Quran to those of Avesta gives us the sense that he dictated much of the book to Mohammad. This is a highly controversial claim but one surely worth delivering a lecture on. Once again, thank you for the unbiased and informative lectures.

[@hoos.crypto]

Thanks Wes, another highly informative lecture.

[@Hasanwiqar]

Thanks to Dr.Cecil for discussing the two Muslim philosophers. They not only translated the greek philosophers but also developed original philosophical ideas which should have been discussed.

[@youzulf]

Interesting lecture. Thank you for sharing.

[@aleye3795]

Great lecture, very informative.

[@lawgali1]

Thank you for this informative and interesting lecture.

[@bobirnasimov9421]

Your contribution is priceless

[@islamrewards2860]

This was a incredible talk. I would be very interested if you could do a follow up on Al-Ghazali, i believe he has so much more to offer. Also have you looked into ibn-Arabi and his works? Thank You

[@grahamcroxford6971]

as always wonderful thank you

[@YhuMum]

Could you consider a lecture on Thoreau?

[@mallakhel]

Great Content Mr. Cecil, you have compressed the current Islamic mindset in a nutshell. Subscribed.

[@oussamaelgerari7395]

Really moved by this.. thanks

[@cheri238]

Absolutely enlightening Wes. GREAT LECTURE. I enjoy learning from you. THANK YOU , SIR. REVERENCE ✨️ ❤️

[@sarahperez1146]

thanks for this lecture. Very interesting

[@ahtles1]

Hello Wes Cecil, love your work, would you consider doing a lecture on Henry David Thoreau?

[@rake667]

+ahtles1 Thoreau is hardly forgotten though. maybe he'll do him in a different series

[@arteen97]

amazing videos hope you post vids more frequently

[@mourajini]

that was amazing.

[@carpe164]

Wes, would you consider doing a lecture on Gödel and his incompleteness theorem? I see strong connections between the ideas of Al-Ghazali and Gödel.

[@garretttedeman]

Fantastic! Now, I know one more person (Averroes), in my print of the School of Athens.

[@lechevalierdesmots2979]

Ibn Rushd's most impressive contribution to Philosophy is his realisation of its importance to keep the language of community as healthy equal as to Medicine's importance to keep the community's bodily health. That is why he issued a fatwa as the Qadi of Seville, Cordoba equal to the fatwa of Medicine, namely "Philosophy is fard-i qefaya for the community". I think that stand had been shared by Wittgenstein in his seeing Philosophy as cure to the conceptual problems of Language. But unfortunately Muslim Communities ignored and marginalized this fatwa for mostly political reasons prefering Al-Ghazali's stand to Philosophy.

[@WaqarAhmed-jo3bv]

Thanks Wes...

[@mustafamalimi]

Around 12:00 Id like to point out that Al-Ghazali means The Poet and Ghazals are poems.

[@FLORIDAHO]

Nice lecture. Al ghazali viewed reason to be compatible with the idea of a god. However, the mind may run but it cannot fly, sort of idea, it has limitations. Essentially Ghazali did not agree with deism. Which had already been there before him in around 748, called mu'tazila, where they had the power for a century before one man Al-Ashari, came with stronger philosophical methods and destroyed them. Ghazali was a follower of the idea that the creator was recreating everything in an instance, which is different to the view that god has made a mechanical system. However the system which Ghazali proposed is very much alike the idea of quantum theory as the lecture comes into. However it does not dive into this comparison. That Ghazali was able to deduce an idea as such, shows his great mind. There is made a paper by Karen Harding(chair of chemistry), where she goes over the idea of how in 11 century Ghazali ideas are similar to that of the 20 century. Besides the notion that evidence in the middle east should be different to "his" definition might be due to the inclinaton of textual believe and not taking the side of either Ghazali or averroes. However, it might be as such, but not for everyone. Again, some generalization, but since he is talking about evidence, it would be nice with some evidence.

[@JohnSmith-rz7fh]

Lies, Lies, and more lies. The Mu’tazila were not deists in any sense of the word. The two points of contention the Mu’tazila had with the Sunni branch of Islam were A) The Quran being created and B) The person who commits a major sin being in a “suspended” state i.e a state between being a believer and a disbeliever. Both points were challenged on a _scriptural_ basis not a _philosophical_ basis, as the Mu’tazila were far better educated in the philosophical and logical sciences than the Sunnis who viewed the study of philosophy a path to “deviance” and “misguidance.” The fact that you claim that Abdul Hassan Al Ashari refuted the Mu’tazila on philosophical grounds is laughable, as the early asharites were to famously accuse the Mu’tazila for being “hyper rationalists” when it comes god. Secondly, the “special, quantum mechanic-like” view of the world that al Ghazali had was not special and is not like quantum mechanics. The idea you claim he came with is called occasionalism, and this theological concept was around in the Muslim world since as early as the 4th century AH. This world view is well known to be shaky on philosophical grounds, and would be misguiding and disingenuous to claim that it is an Islamic representation of quantum mechanics. Thirdly, Ghazali was a very impressive influence in the Muslim world, but his philosophy was, in all honesty, nothing special. Having read his work Tahafut Al Falsafa both in English and Arabic, along with Ibn Rushd’s Tahafut At Tahafut, one can conclude that Al Ghazali’s criticisms were very weak from a philosophical stand point. Ibn Rushd gave a point by point response to Al Ghazali’s “Incoherence of the Philosophers” which the Muslim world, in large, simply ignored. Choosing instead to immortalize Al Ghazali and portray him as their (Sunnis) “great philosopher” because he was the only Sunni who ever attempted to challenge philosophy from a “rational angle” ( I put this in quotation simply because half of his criticism is that certain doctrines of the philosophers do not agree with scripture so therefore it is false). The amusing thing is whilst Ghazali may have won in terms of popularity, he did not win intellectually, with his strand of thinking leading to the scientific decline of the Islamic world.

[@rhetoric5173]

@@JohnSmith-rz7fh Al Ghazali was arguing against metaphysics, and rightfully so. It's nonsense. As for the Mutazilites the issue was Hadith usage and Free Will or Predestination first and foremost.

[@mohammadbinmahbub9160]

Do you think this is a mirror conflict between Socrates and Aristotle?

[@ahtles1]

Wes would you also consider a lecture on John Dee?

[@abdelghanielamrani5932]

HIGHLY INTERESTING LECTURES

[@tigerlilysoma588]

YES YES I AGREE

[@khaaaled2007]

The lecture was informative and accurate enough but the conclusions the lecturer arrived at about the Islamic world's "complete abondement of the Scientific method and reason" are too simplistic and plainly wrong at times

[@youzulf]

You didn't highlight why Al-Ghazali's arguments won, over the arguments of Averroes's. Hadn't Al-Ghazaili exhausted Averroes's arguments and only then said that these weren't good enough? Thank you for the lecture, much predicated.

[@MrBluefinsure]

Al-Ghazali, died 11 years before Averroes was born. Hope this helps.

[@youzulf]

Kazam Nasar Thank you, that was helpful.

[@MrBluefinsure]

Sure every little helps

[@vinlondon8904]

I am Learning averroes went against al ghazali because he thought that avicena and farabi did not present properly aristotelianism. Them two mixed Aristotle's views with Socrates and plato. Therefore for this reason averroes wrote a counterpart book of what al ghazali wrote against the philosophers according to Avicenna&farabi . Al ghazali refuted their ideas with logic not with inspiration and his refutation was accepted throughout the Islamic world and that's why he became famous. Averroes tried with his book that the representatives of the Greek philosophers, Avicennas and farabies were wrong and that's why al ghazali was also wrong in his refutation. Many academics though, did not follow the works of averroes and al ghazali' work became a pinnacle of Islamic literature. From the western point of view though , averroes thinking was the most rational one, even in terms of natural sciences and philosophy, but it turns out lately in both these subjects that al ghazali's thinking is not that far off with science and philosophy. The unfavourable in the west for the last 7-8 centuries becomes the favourable now ironically enough. Ironically enough, al ghazali was right when he proposed that "if you give science (in a broader meaning) the authority of everything will be a bad move since they change their position after a while, as it was the case of ghazali vs averroes.

[@rhetoric5173]

@@vinlondon8904 He also wasnt against science, but rather the first cause was his issue, ""what fire breathes life into equations" toquote Hawking.

[@LameBushido]

Not sure how you can say the difference between these two is tone and flavour, when the difference amounts to blasphemy and therefore death?

[@dionysianapollomarx]

Ibn Rushd rescues the Greeks and Ibn Sina, by developing from Al-Farabi's thoughts, from the critique of Al-Ghazali. To be sure, the next wave of Islamic philosophy developed out of Al-Ghazali more so than Ibn Rushd, so there's that.

[@itssanti]

The issue with "islamic philosophy " is that the achievements of the golden age of islam was not solely islamic, because the islamic world was a multicultural, multireligious world. It shouldn't be narrowed to islamic thinkers, remember that Maimonides had the opportunity to develop under the islamic empire and in turn he was influenced by islamic thinkers like Avicenna. Without the tolerance (for the standards of the time) you wouldn't have an Espinoza ....

[@nicolaslacombe1979]

What is this area of the mind thou hast provoked??

[@fidel5medina]

Blood on the laws of Moses (10 laws of Moses) or Noah (7 laws of Noah) or the laws of Messenger Medina (the laws of mercy, the laws was designed for people to survive...and the better...hundreds of laws came from this legal system and in time it faded away).

[@TheLastIshbalan]

Wes pronounces every name at least slightly differently than Peter Adamson does.

[@crtpo1809]

He's better than Adamson, the latter is shockingly shallow

[@ednasadler3064]

❤

[@zenlokamaya]

Ernst Alfred Cassirer, neo-Kantian

[@matsulrich7765]

32:05

[@MrBluefinsure]

Accurate account of two great philophers of 10-20 years of being apart. Al-Ghazli r.a was a mujjaddid and a played cruicial role in his period. I do lean towards Al-Ghazali r.a thought process that only a few individuals can understand Allah/almighty. We have to understand that God is uncreated and beyond the human mind. Yet God is aware that majority of mankind are rational thinkers. Hence, good for Aristotle (and other Greek philosophers i.e Socrates, Plato and so on) and Avveroes to base decisions on rational thinking. The fine line is that not everything can be explained with logic or rational thinking, which can bw gained and attained via non-materialistlic platform.

[@yusrilyusril2381]

Al ghazali make us stupid! Im muslim

[@syedqamaranwar14]

You do not need to waste time with gazali to understand Allah . Quran is blunt ,clear and convincing to introduce concept of God .before gazali peole did not needed philosopher to introduce concept of God to convert to Islam .

[@MrBluefinsure]

@@syedqamaranwar14I am guessing this is your opinion to apply 'opportunity effort' where best time and effort should be made. I am not sure if you were able to read and understand the material as per stated of individual discussion. Please confirm where did I say about the Quran in my paragraph. If you read the paragraph more than twice you will try to understand the point. I am happy to discuss the points if you are ok with me continuing the points. However, before I begin. You said about the Quran being blunt (I trust you did say basmalla at the start before the ego kicks in 'just saying'). It depends on the person how they view the Quran. You have individuals that are either programmed, brainewashed, extremists, violent, narrow minded, if this is case you will take Quran and interpret it in a violent manner. However, if the individual, is positive, open minded, non violent, ability to use the 6th sense correctly, happy, motivational, then the Quran is simple for the believer who are on the straight path (one must always say basmalla at the start to protect themselves). Now, that i have provided a few points, imam ghazali as per the material 'alchemy of happiness', one should know oneself first. If the individual knows who they are, control emotions, does not get angry, positive, humble, modest, then then can go to the next step of understanding Allah. The third step is then using your 5 senses to be controlled leading to the fourth step of intellect using the 5 sense provided one is objective and not subject or bias. The final step is the purification step and the cycle continues. People are programmed, brainawashed, controlled by media, following desires, materialistic, and so comes the partial intellect of 'rational thinking'. So one has to purify onself on a continuing basis to maximise and understand themselves and then understand the Almighty. We are all educated but does not mean we can understand Almighty Allah. We have to understand ourself first. Questions ones should ask to wake up conscious mind include the following: 1: Is wealth halal/legal/clean or dirty money/laundered money? 2: Food eaten is it good or bad? 3: Am I 'just' to myself and others? 4: Do I have mercy? 5: Am I happy? 6: Am I complacent? 7: Am I objective? 8: Do I use my power, knowledge, faith and wealth correctly? 9: How good is my sabr (patience, shukar, gratefulness, thankfulness, endurance, perservenance and steadfastness)? 10: Am I ready to die? I could continue but do not want to grow and expand if it may. Happy to discuss further jazakallah. Ameen. Salam

[@crtpo1809]

@@yusrilyusril2381 no you were born that way.

[@doumahamigahila8133]

they're forgotten because of whats going on in the world now

[@akdimnet1076]

Islamic philosophy is so fascinating

[@iworship6951]

Great lecture. I strongly disagree with your relativistic approach with Sharia law and Islam however. If Sharia law was a philosophy open to debate and discussion on how to thrive, it would be clear by now. Likewise, chess is a great example of how Islam picks the things that make humans thrive and declare them ممنوع: dancing, singing...basically fun and happiness. This must be acknowledged as a major issue in Islam apart from its golden age. Please ask minorities (Christians and the few remaining Jews, and others...) in the middle-east how they live this philosophy.

[@saimbhat6243]

Well, there is so much to unpack in your comment. Firstly, there is not THE sharia, there are many sharias. And the codification of sharia happened in much later centuries after muhammed and was outcome of almost 3 centuries of debating and interpretation of islamic doctrines and texts, infact much of the literature on which current sharia derives its validity was compiled and written after atleast 150 years after death of the prophet. And the debate was so intense that the sheer amount undigitzed, unpublished and untranslated manuscripts still available in libraries of cities like Basra, Cairo, Baghdad etc. is still by any measure the LARGEST collection of manuscripts in the world. The multiplicity of number of sharia versions is still very much present, although by adoption of most convenient interpretations of sharia as official laws by ruling classes, the multiplicity is much less now. And you clearly have no idea about the sheer amount of poetry, music and singing that was generated in islamic world. Most of the modern music theory was developed in islamic spain, including the invention of precursor of guitar itself. You are obviously exposed to just the post-colonial reactionary fundamentalist and puranitical modern sects of islam. I mean I wanted to reply to almost every assertion that you had put it in your comment, but while replying I just realized that your historical and textual ignorance about islam is irredeemable, it is just convenient that you continue to believe in whatever you heard from tv news and footages of taliban etc.

[@beastwars5789]

the iranian golden age *

[@michaelpurvis2247]

I'm a bit surprised when you speak with what seems like real conviction things that are incorrect that's not what sharia is. there is no sharia without hadith. and you don't mention hadith. this would be like teaching mathematics without mentioning multiplication. it doesn't really work.

[@TheMoQingbird]

Sorry, I can't keep listening. The content is great but the production is appalling. Why is someone chewing on the microphone!

[@joejohnson6327]

What was so new about Muhammad's ideas? 😕 Islam's just rehashed Abrahamic monotheism.

[@saimbhat6243]

That is true, that is even the premise of the religion. Abraham, moses, jesus(PBUT) are part of the continuous tradition.

[@MrAlanfalk73]

Yes Islam is a very good religion , just this week a Danish TV crew dokumented (having filmed With hidden cameras) how Imams in 4 different Mosques teaches that Islam permit: you to hit your children if they still wont pray by the age of 10, force your wife to have sex at least once a month, Stone women who have had sex outside of marrige, be freindly (but NOT love) Danish People, a man to have several wifes !!! But indeed Islam is a religion of peace and is very wise in It's core! !!! And did they really conqure the entrire known World in 70 years (including the roman and greek empire?) ?? Can't wait to reread my history books to see when they conqured Italy, England, Northern France, Romania, Greece etc. Always when these scolars teaches about Islam they are so set on being political correct that they overpraise it , just to be a "good" person, it is very stupid IMO . I,M an agnosticisme, so don't start telling Me about how bad chritianity is, I live in Scandanavia (not USA), and her we belive in THOR ;

[@MrAlanfalk73]

damn spelling control, " Agnostic "was the word.

[@badHproductions]

+Alan Falk Throughout history a great many religions have been used to turn people against each other, or suppress it's minorities, or unite for a cause. This is the danger of faith without thought. To attack an entire religion for the fault of man is not very helpful though. Feeding fire with fire. And yes Alan, we do believe in Thor in Scandinavia (This being 1000 years ago?). But Oden is our leader. The man who swapped an eye for knowledge. Maybe he had an idea there? But neither of these guys would probably care too much about the corrupted Imams you talk about. More than to plunder their people if you could. I'd love to see a lecture on Norse mythology, wouldn't you?

[@jkovert]

Shut the fuck up.

[@jkovert]

Business Builder Yes, you'll read in the news how children bludgeoned to death on a daily basis in Episcopalian neighborhoods.

[@12344321717]

J William Pope

[@Poszlakowaneopinie]

boring :(

[@PremjitTalwar]

Wes is either misleading his audience or he himself is misguided. His speech is hardly truthful, let alone scholarly. One example: although sharia does literally mean the path, it is its contents that are dangerous in our time. Please learn to be honest.

[@saimbhat6243]

There is a reason that he is a professor and you most probably are not. Which religious moral code do you think is not dangerous in modern era. I assume you are a hindu. Well, let us then start comparing the modernist humanist credentials of MANUSMRITI AND SHARIA. At least sharia doesn't declare women to be thrown out of home during their period week.

[@PremjitTalwar]

@@saimbhat6243 You assume wrong on all accounts. All religious doctrines possess something wrong. Islam is especially dangerous since it proclaims to be the exact word of god, valid for all times and places. Furthermore it is supremacist, expansionist, oppressive, asking you to submit your intellect to the toxic words of the quran. But, you already know this.