Al-Ghazali (1058-1111) was concerned that early Islamic philosophers were leaning too heavily and uncritically on Aristotelian and Neoplatonic ideas in developing their models of God and His relation to the world. He argued that their views were not only irreligious, but philosophically problematic, and he defended an alternative view aimed at staying closer to the Qur’an and the beliefs of the ordinary Muslim. Ibn Rushd (1126-1198) responded to al-Ghazali’s critique and developed a sophisticated Aristotelian view. The present chapter explores their (...) views in light of a problem facing any philosophical model of God in Islam or classical theism more generally, the problem of conceiving of God’s nature and relation to the world in a way that places an appropriate distance between God and humans. On the one hand, we want a notion of God that is not overly anthropomorphic, or that does not make him to be too much like us. On the other hand, we want to be able to say something positive and substantive about God. And we want to do this while preserving the harmony of reason and revelation, of philosophy and religion, as much as possible. (shrink)

The problem that will be dealt with in this paper is al-Ghazālī’saccount of causality in the observed phenomenal world where he denies thenecessity of that causation. This denial brought about Ibn Rushd’s accusationon the denial of knowledge, arguing that knowledge is based on causalityin the phenomenal words. However, detailed perusal of al-Ghazālī’s workssuggests that Ibn Rushd’s accusation is not the case. al-Ghazālī differentiatesbetween knowledge of the fact and knowledge of reasoned fact, or in otherwords he distinguished ontological causality from logical (...) causality. Inaddition, al-Ghazālī’s denial of causal necessity is supported by his ownlogic, where the knowledge attainment becomes possible when it is examinedfrom demonstrative sciences, especially from empirically tested premises. (shrink)