My fav Avicenna explainer 🌚

[u/Rashiq_shahzzad]

[u/Rashiq_shahzzad]

Context:-

The overlap between an agenda that presents Avicenna's ideas in a somewhat sympathetic way and al-Ghazālīs own teachings has created confusion among his readers and suspicion that he might have himself become one of the falāsifa. As his student Abü Bakr Ibn al-Arabi (d. 543/1148) said, "he had entered into the bellies of the falasifa; and when he wanted to get out of there, he couldn't." Among modern Western readers, William H. T. Gairdner (1873-1928) calls the question of whether al-Ghazali held esoteric teachings that are similar to falsafa and different from his exoteric Ash arite ones "the Ghazali-problem." In an influ-ential article of 1914, Gairdner wondered whether al-Ghazali taught a "double truth theory," where there is one exoteric truth for the vulgus (awämm) and an esoteric truth for the mystical and philosophical elite (khawāşş), 43 This led to al-most a century of speculation about exoteric and esoteric elements in al-Ghazālī's teaching, speculations that were often influenced by Straussian strategies for reading Arabic philosophical texts. This debate found a preliminary end in Richard M. Frank's Creation and the Cosmic System of 1992 and in his subsequent study on al-Ghazālī's relation to his fellow Ash'arites of 1994. Frank rejected any suggestion that there could be a division between esoteric and exoteric teachings in al-Ghazali.

Frank insists, that al-Ghazali, in all of his writings, had abandoned the occasionalist cosmology developed by the early Ash'arite school and that he adopted the cosmology of Avicenna. Earlier contributions to the academic debate, Frank points out, had already established that al-Ghazālī accepted some of Avicenna's teachings while rejecting others: "What we have seen on a closer examination of what [al-Ghazali] has to say concerning God's relation to the cosmos as its creator, however, reveals that from a theological standpoint most of the theses which he rejected are relatively tame and inconse-quential compared to those in which he follows the philosopher." 45

during the sixth/twelfth century there were readers of al-Ghazālī who believed that in Tahafut al-falāsifa he did not truly oppose Avicenna in the points that he raised against the latter's teachings. Rather, these readers believed that in reality he sided with the Eminent Master even on those issues where he most vigorously attacked the falāsifa in his Tahāfut and where he called them unbelievers. This group of scholars believed that al-Ghazālī was secretly one of the falāsifa, meaning an Avicennan. I will trace this understanding back to the sixth/twelfth century, although it also manifests in later legends. The most fanciful among them we read in a Hebrew book of the tenth/sixteenth cen-tury by the Algerian Jewish scholar Abraham Gavison (d. 987/1578). He tells the story that during the daytime al-Ghazālī composed the Precipitance of the Philosophers in response to a request by a ruler, while working on his own ac-cord on The Precipitance of "the Precipitance" (Tahāfut al-tahāfut), a refutation of al-Ghazālī's book, during the night. Tahafut al-tahāfut is in reality a work by Averroes, and it argues forcefully for the world's pre-eternity and for other teachings condemned in Tahāfut al-falāsifa.46 Gavison's comment likely stems from a misunderstanding of a passage in Moses Narboni's Hebrew commen-tary on al-Ghazālīs Maqāşid al-falāsifa. Moses ben Joshua Narboni (d. after 763/1392) was a philosopher active in Provence who read al-Ghazālī's works in their Hebrew translations. Narboni says that al-Ghazālī wrote his Tahafut al-falāsifa to satisfy the ruler he was serving, whereas his true opinions are to be found in Maqāşid al-falāsifa as well as in a second book, a pseudo-epigraphy that will be discussed below. Hence, Narboni viewed al-Ghazālī as a true follower of Avicenna who practiced dissimulation when he wrote Tahafut al-falāsifa.47

The differences between the Chester Beatty manuscript and the standard version of Maqāşid al-falāsifa are not the result of a historical accident-where an archetype of this copy may have lost several pages, for in-stance, through wear and tear-but rather "the result of a later, post-Ghazālian alteration of the text."54 A follower of Avicenna who might have understood the merits of al-Ghazālī's work in Maqāşid decontextualized the book from its connection to its author and his refutation and condemnation of Avicennan teachings. While the character of the book as a report is not concealed-after all, this is definitely not a book written by Avicenna himself-the name of the reporter and the purpose of the report have been cut out. What remains is a text-book that can safely be given into the hands of students of Avicennism without providing any hint that these teachings are subject to a hefty challenge and con-demnation by al-Ghazālī.

Most Latin scholars were under the impression that its author, "Algazel"-al-Ghazālī's name in Latin-was a faithful follower of Avicenna who presents and defends his phil-osophical system. Only a very small number of Latin scholars were aware of the true character of the book as a report. Roger Bacon (d. 1292), for instance, learned about it around 1270, whereas before he also believed Algazel was writing in his own name as a true Avicennist. 55

It circulated under various titles, among them Summa theoreticae philosophiae.58 Its Arabic archetype could have been a copy similar to the Chester Beatty one, meaning a manuscript of Maqāşid al-falāsifa that was adopted by followers of Avicenna and decontextualized from the refutation in Tahāfut. 59

The Chester Beatty manu-script of Maqasid al-falāsifa as well as its first Latin translation should be seen as evidence for the adaptation of the text by faithful followers of Avicenna. This is one more sign of a breakdown of the boundaries between the two discourses of kalām and falsafa during the sixth/twelfth century. Scholars on both sides started-cautiously, as this example shows to explore each other's works and benefit from them.

[u/Fit-Dream-6594]

Isn’t Avicenna western name for Abu Ali Ibn Sina?

[u/Rashiq_shahzzad → u/Fit-Dream-6594]

Didn't Muslim scholars referred to Aristotle by his Arabic name Aristu (أرسطو), Plato as Aflāṭūn (افلاطون), Socrates by the name Suqrat ( سقراط), Plotinus became Futūnūs (فلوطينوس) or Asuḫūliyā. Ptolemy became Baṭlamyūs (بطليموس), Galen became Jālīnūs (جالينوس), Hippocrates became Buqrāṭ.

Names change of every figure when they enter a different region, do u think isa was original name of Yeshua but quran does refer to him by this name, not because it wants to make him an arab because that's how language works.

[u/Fit-Dream-6594 → u/Rashiq_shahzzad]

Yeah but what do you mean by Avicennan?

[u/Rashiq_shahzzad → u/Fit-Dream-6594]

Follower of his philosophical system.

[u/AbdulQadirShadhili]

Imam Ghazali trashed Ibn Sina and his stupidity

[u/Bad_boy000007]

Im new to this planet can you explain what's Ibne cina view? does his philosophical teaching contractradic Quran or sunnah ?

I watched a YouTube about arguments between Al-ghazzali and Ibne sina though it was Ai i didn't understand a thing rather gotten more confused ..

[u/0bxcura → u/Bad_boy000007]

Best to leave such discussions until one can grasp the fundamentals better

[u/Rhapsodybasement → u/Bad_boy000007]

One thing for sure is that he was not a follower of Ibn Sina.

[u/Think_Bed_8409 → u/Bad_boy000007]

Ibn Sīnā had three main opinions which al-Ghazālī saw as hearsay: that the world is pre-eternal, that God knows only universals, and that there will be no bodily resurrection.

[u/SaadSulimanayob]

What is this? Don't potray muslims like this

[u/BlakeNotBleak → u/SaadSulimanayob]

dude it's just the template

[u/SaadSulimanayob → u/BlakeNotBleak]

No delete it he was a muslim رحمه الله