Ghazali Damage To Muslims And Islamic World. By CSP Naeem Khan.

 Ghazali Damage To Muslims And Islamic World. By CSP Naeem Khan.

On Ghazali 

Ghazali plunged Muslims in darkness and mental slavery. Ghazali is worse than Halaku Khan.

His book Tahāfut al-Falāsifa ("Incoherence of the Philosophers") criticized Aristotle. This book made the Mullahs and theologians of Asharite school of Islamic theology dominant by  criticizing the Avicennian school of early Islamic philosophy. Muslim philosophers such as Ibn Sina (Avicenna) and Al-Farabi (Alpharabius) are denounced in this book, as they follow Greek philosophy even when it contradicts Islam. This book made  faith more dominant over philosophy. 

Ibn Rushd (Averroes) wrote a refutation of Al-Ghazali's work entitled The Incoherence of the Incoherence (Tahāfut al-Tahāfut) in which he defends the doctrines of the philosophers and criticizes al-Ghazali's own arguments. It is written as a sort of dialogue: Averroes quotes passages by al-Ghazali and then responds to them. This text was not as well received by the wider Islamic audience as Philosophy was no more palatable to them.

Al-Ghazali's insistence on a radical divine immanence in the natural world has been posited as one of the reasons that the spirit of scientific inquiry later withered in Islamic lands. If "Allah's hand is not chained", then there was no point in discovering the alleged laws of nature. For example:Ghazali says

...our opponent claims that the agent of the burning is the fire exclusively; this is a natural, not a voluntary agent, and cannot abstain from what is in its nature when it is brought into contact with a receptive substratum. This we deny, saying: The agent of the burning 

is God, through His creating the black in the cotton and the disconnexion of its parts, and it is God who made the cotton burn and made it ashes either through the intermediation of angels or without intermediation. For fire is a dead body which has no action, and what is the proof that it is the agent? Indeed, the philosophers have no other proof than the observation of the occurrence of the burning, when there is contact with fire, but observation proves only a simultaneity, not a causation, and, in reality, there is no other cause but God.

All the Rationalists and Mutazilites like Al-Razi, Ibne Rushd, Ibne Sina etc miserably failed and ultimately the Mullah version of Ghazali prevailed.  Ghazali was wise enough to save religion from the invasions of Philosophy and Science.  Same happened to so-called Christian Philosophers like Aquinas as Scholasticism didn't work neither in Islam nor in Christianity.

It's wrong to assume that Religion promotes Science or Philosophy. Religion only connects you to God. Mentioning of thinking or observation or natural phenomena in Holy books is invitation to God as creator, not to conduct research or lab experiments or philosophize.

There was no Science and Philosophy when Christianity was robust. 

The best Muslims were in the first 100 or 50 years and there were no scientists or philosophers amongst them. After studying Greek Thought, there were some rationalist or Mutazilites but Asharites like Ghazali or Mullahs murdered Philosophy and Science and  till Today it's dead.

Ghazali is studied in Philosophy of Religion.  Philosophy of Religion is like Philosophy of Mind or Philosophy of Language or Philosophy of Science.  It doesn't make Philosophy Language or Mind or Science.  Philosophy discusses the reality  or nature or existence of these subjects.

MPHIL in Chemistry is or PhD is not pure Philosophy. 

Scholasticism is philosophizing Religion which is divine not human made. Christian Philosophers like Aquinas and Muslim Mutazilites tried to explain Religion philosophically or rationally but they couldn't and that's why such approach is now dead. Religion is as per book and faith not to be proved logically.