Was Ghazali correct to do takfir on Ibn Sina (Avicenna)?

In a Nutshell: Ghazali's takfir on Ibn Sina was mistaken It is doubtful if Ghazali was correct in his takfir of Ibn Sina. There appears room to grant Ibn Sina space for his line of questioning regarding (i) God's relationship with the universe, (ii) God's knowledge, and (iii) the nature of bodily resurrection on the day of judgement. Introduction The intellectual confrontation between Al-Ghazali and Ibn Sina (Avicenna) stands as a pivotal moment in Islamic philosophy. Ghazali's takfir (declaration of disbelief) on Ibn Sina raised profound questions, especially regarding Islamic metaphysics and theology. This article revisits this historical debate, exploring its nuances and contemporary relevance. Historical Context: Ghazali and Ibn Sina Al-Ghazali and Ibn Sina are towering figures in Islamic philosophy. While Ghazali is known for his work in Islamic theology and mysticism, Ibn Sina made significant contributions to Islamic Neoplatonism. Their differing views on the nature of God and the universe sparked intense debates that have resonated through centuries. The Concept of Takfir in Islamic Thought Takfir, the act of declaring someone a non-believer, is a serious and controversial move in Islamic theology. It has profound consequences, not just for the accused but also for the accuser, as it involves deep theological implications. Ghazali's Critique of Ibn Sina Pre-Eternal Matter vs Temporal World Ghazali critiqued Ibn Sina's concept of a pre-eternal universe, contrasting it with the orthodox Islamic view of a temporally created world. He challenged Ibn Sina's assertion that God's creation was not bound by time or matter. God's Knowledge of Particulars and Universals Ghazali misunderstood Ibn Sina's idea of God's knowledge. While Ibn Sina proposed that God knows particulars through universals, Ghazali interpreted this as a limitation on God's omniscience, reducing His knowledge to only universals. The Nature of Bodily Resurrection Ghazali also contested Ibn Sina's views on bodily resurrection, emphasizing the traditional understanding of physical resurrection, in contrast to Ibn Sina's more philosophical interpretation. Ibn Sina's Philosophical Standpoints Defining the Temporal World Ibn Sina's argument that the universe, while dependent on God, is pre-eternal, challenged traditional Islamic thought. He separated the concepts of time and creation, proposing a universe not limited by temporal constraints. Ibn Sina defines his terms and questions carefully when exploring God's relationship with the universe - pre-eternal matter vs temporal world. Ibn Sina defined ‘sunan’ (creation) as “Creation according to the philosophers is referring to something which has to do with the possible things and does not have time or matter preceding it.” Muslim philosophers' use of the term Ibdaa (creation) means "possibility", which differs in that Ibn Sina is excluding time or matter preceding the act of creation thereby distinguishing God and his creation as different eternal entities. For Ibn Sina creation is possible whereas God is necessary; creation is not preceded by time or matter as both come together given time is movement of matter. Ibn Sina thought time existed before the universe limited God arguing: "the creator is also eternal and that it is not possible for something temporal to come from something eternal. Further to this point and to be more specific, the main problem that they have with those that hold that the universe is temporal is that it means that one is applying time to God. That there was a time ‘before’ the creation where God was not creating, then after a period of time God decided to create the universe. Applying the terms before and after to God means that one is reducing God to the level of his creation, in this case the creation is time. Another problem that Avicenna had with this view point is that according to this it means that God had a change of intention. What is meant by this is that in the first instance God did not intend to create the universe and later he decided to create it." Understanding of God's Knowledge Ghazali appears to have misunderstood the argument God's knowledge of particulars and universals. Ibn Sina sought to understand how does Allah known what he knows. He concluded Allah knew particulars through universals. Ghazali misunderstood this argument and assumed Ibn Sina was claiming Allah only knew universals. Ibn Sina's view that God understands particulars through universal principles offered a different perspective on divine knowledge, contrasting with the prevailing theological views of his time. Conceptualizing Bodily Resurrection Ibn Sina's interpretation of resurrection focused on the idea that the resurrected body would not be identical to the earthly body, a view that diverged significantly from traditional Islamic teachings. Ibn Sina argued that if something ceased to exist, it did not exist again in exactly the same way. When Allah resurrected humans, the body would not be the exact same as the one at the point of death as one will in all likelihood be resurrected at a different age. The Broader Philosophical Debate This debate extends beyond Ghazali and Ibn Sina, touching on fundamental questions about creation, God’s nature, and life after death. It has engaged other Islamic scholars such as Ibn Rushd, Tusi, and Ibn Arabi, each contributing unique perspectives to these enduring theological questions. Modern Interpretations and Relevance Today, the Ghazali-Ibn Sina debate continues to be relevant. Modern Islamic scholars reexamine their arguments, finding value in the diversity of thought they represent. This debate underscores the richness and complexity of Islamic philosophical and theological traditions. Conclusion From the above review, it appears is doubtful if Ghazali was correct in his takfir of Ibn Sina. This has been endorsed by philosophers like Ibn Rushd, Ibn Tufayl, Tusi, orthodox theologians like Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, Iji, Amidi, Jurjani and Sufis like Ibn Arabi and Suhrawardi. As such there appears genuine room to grant Ibn Sina space for his line of questioning regarding: (i) God's relationship with the universe, (ii) God's knowledge, and (iii) the nature of bodily resurrection on the day of judgement. The fact it should be rejected as little more than a speculative enquiry has not been considered so as to address the above question and avoid addressing the mutakallimeen (theologian) arguments too which were of a similar nature. References Ghazali, Tahafat al-Falasifah Ibn Rushd, Tahafut al-Tahafut Ibn Sina, Al-Isharat wa al-Tanbihat Ibn Sina, Kitab an-Najat Iji, Kitab al-Mawaqif fi Ilm al-Kalam Jurjani A, Sharh al-Mawaqif Maturidi, Kitaab At-Tawheed Nasr, Syed Hossein, An Introduction to Islamic Cosmological Doctrine Proclus, On the Eternity of the World Razi, Sharh al-Isharat Sulaiman Ahmed, The Disagreement between Avicenna and al-Ghazali on the Issue of the Pre-eternity of the Universe, how their Arguments Originated from Greek Philosophers and their Effect on Muslim Philosophers Tusi N, Sharh al-Isharat Wa Al-Tanbihat