RETHINKING THE BOOK OF TAHAFUT AL-FALASIFAH: Examining Al-Ghazali's Argumentative Criticism Against the Thinking of Philosophers

This study explains al-Ghazali’s argumentative criticism in Tahafut al-Falasifah. It aims to analyze the intentions of al-Ghazali’s argumentative refutation of other alleged rational thinkers considered by irfani epistemology as the cause of decline of Islam and to observe the method used by al-Ghazali in his argument. This study is a library research which is included in the qualitative research cluster. The result of study is that the intentions of al-Ghazali’s argumentative criticism are to discuss the twenty errors of Muslim philosophers, namely al-Farabi and Ibn Sina in matters of metaphysical philosophy. The method used by al-Ghazali is also the same as Aristotle’s criticism of Eudoxus, that is attacking Muslim philosophers in terms of the arguments they built, even labelling them as heretics and infidels/apostates. This method is known as argumentum ad hominem because it attacks Muslim philosophers when it comes to argumentation. It is built on the dialectical method of speech or in other terms known as jawab wa su’al which always recalls an imaginary trial.

The explanation above shows that al-Ghazali is a very intelligent person so that in the process of finding a belief and knowledge, al-Ghazali did not accept a knowledge for granted, but got through a very deep curiosity process. That is because knowledge will be obtained by doubt which raises questions that must be sought and answered. The previous explanation has provided an interesting picture of al-Ghazali's thinking, but this study further explains al-Ghazali's argumentative criticism. The aim is to look beyond the intentions contained in al-Ghazali's argumentative rebuttal on the allegations of other rational thinkers who according to irfani epistemology were the cause of the decline of Islam, but also the method used in argumentation. Therefore, the figure of al-Ghazali is well known as a great thinker of Islam with his humanitarian philosophy. Besides that, he was also an expert in various fields of religious science such as jurisprudence, ushul fiqh, kalam, manthiq, Sufism, morals and many more. But this greatness is not flawless, his involvement in various Islamic disciplines is seen by some historical observers as one of the factors causing the loss of rationalism. Often he is unjustly accused of being the culprit of the decline of Islam only because he attacked philosophers through his book Tahafut al-Falasifah. This has stimulated this research to discuss more on which side of the philosophers' thoughts attacked by al-Ghazali as well as what is the focus of his attack and argument. Up to this point, it seems that al-Ghazali would become a prominent academic for good. However, it turns out that his life moves to another direction. 9

B. Memoirs of Al-Ghazali
In the city of Baghdad, the name of al-Ghazali was increasingly popular with the halaqah (kelompok) of his recitation was expanding. In this city, he also started a polemic, especially with the Bathiniyah Isma'iliyah group and the philosophers. In this period he suffered from a spiritual crisis as a result of his scepticism (al-syak), which is known by Westerners as scepticism, 10 i.e. a crisis which doubts all ma'rifah, both empirical or rational. This spiritual crisis was mentioned by Van Ess on philosophical issues as follows: Thumamah b. Ashras (died 213/828), Mu'tazilitie theologian at the court of al-Ma'mun, apparently once found such a person. In the presence of the caliph he was confronted by someone who believed that -as Ibn 'Abd Rabbih puts it ini his al-'Iqd al-Farid -"all things are mere phantasy and conjecture, that man grasps them only according to his own mind (that means: subjectively) and that there is no truth in (what we call) reality." Instead of answering, Thumamah, boxed his ears so that his face became green and blue, and remarked on his vain protestations: "Oh, perhaps I only anointed you with oil.". this man was a skeptic, and Thumamah's method was, as it seems, the usual way to deal with people like him. 11 Al-Ghazali suffered pain for six months so that the doctor ran out of power to From the above information, it can be seen that al-Ghazali in his life has taken various paths and researched various schools of thought, started as an Islamic jurist, turned into a Muslim theologian, then as a Muslim philosopher, and ended as a Sufi. 13 Certainly in his lifetime, the development of Theology, Philosophy and Bathiniyah was very rapid, then al-Ghazali felt compelled to study such things.
According to him the philosophy that developed was not in line with theology, this doubt eventually led the tension between Islamic philosophers, the peak point was when al-Ghazali published Tahafut al-Falasifah. 14

C. Al-Ghazali's Disclaimer of the Philosophers' Thoughts
An important note in the Islamic tradition that needs to be affirmed is the foundation of Islamic philosophical thinking norms sourced and inspired by the Qur'an and the Hadith. Seyyed Hossein Nasr explained: If seen, however, from its own perspective and in the light of the whole of the Islamic philosophical tradition which has had a twelve-century-long continuous history and is still alive today, it becomes abundantly clear that Islamic philosophy, like everything else Islamic, is deeply rooted in the Qur'an and Hadith. Islamic philosophy is Islamic not only by virtue of the fact that it was cultivated in the Islamic world and by Muslims but because it derives its principles, inspiration and many of the question with which it has been concerned from the sources of Islamic revelation despite the claims of its opponents to the contrary. 15 This explanation is not as described previously that the thoughts or ideas of al-Ghazali are seen by some historical observers as one of the factors causing the loss of rationalism which in turn will be an important factor for the decline of the Islamic world. This conclusion was obtained from his several steps, i.e. first, his efforts in maintaining his kalam affiliation (asy'ariyah) as the official ideology of the Abbasid rulers, at least it added to the Muslim's hatred of the Mu'tazilites so that the rational 13  According to al-Ghazali, the philosophy of Aristotle which was copied and disseminated by Al-Farabi and Ibn Sina was divided into three groups: First, the philosophy that does not need to be denied, meaning that it is acceptable. Second, the philosophy that must be seen bid'ah (heterodox). Third, his philosophy must be seen as infidels.
The grouping of philosophies above can be seen from the division of  (Cancelling their opinion that states that the body will not be resurrected and that will receive pleasure in heaven and pain in hell the only spirit).
There are three important thing that represent the twenty problems above which, according to al-Ghazali, make philosophers become infidels, namely: 20 1. Nature and all the substance of qadim In general, Muslim philosophers argue that nature is qadim, meaning that the form of nature coincides with the form of God. The genuineness of God from nature is only in terms of the dzat (taqaddum zaty) and not in terms of age (taqaddum zamany), such as the primacy of cause and effect from the Sun. If it is assumed that the God of Qadim already exists, whereas nature does not yet exist and is a mere possibility, and after that, it will be created, then what is the reason that nature is created now not before?
Al-Ghazali answered the arguments of Muslim philosophers above that according to him there was no obstacle whatsoever for Allah to create nature since azali with His iradah which was sent at the time He created it. Meanwhile, the absence of nature before because He did not want it yet. Iradah, according to al-Ghazali, is a trait for Allah that functions to distinguish (choose) something from the similar, if not its function, of course, for God, it is sufficient with the nature of qudrat. While the presupposition of philosophers when God precedes nature in terms of time, not in terms of matter, this means that there is an age before nature is created which is not limited to the end, this is paradoxical. This was also denied by al-Ghazali, according to him indeed the form of God exists before nature and time. And then, age was created. Before the age of created, there was no age. First, there is God, then there is nature because God created it. So, in the first state, we imagine only God, and in the 20 Al-Ghazali, 307-8. http://ijiis.or.id | e-ISSN: 2615-5184 p-ISSN: 2597-9698 second state, we imagine there are two essences namely God and nature, and we don't need to imagine the third essence, that is, age. Times exist after nature because time is a measure of time that occurs in nature. 21 It can be simply understood that al-Ghazali's rebuttal of the earlier version of the Muslim philosopher uses causality, so in this case, the existence of the times is due to nature. If there is no nature, then there cannot be age, -whereas Allah Swt has the nature of the qadim certainly not related to the age. It is because the times are created after the existence of nature.

Allah does not know the juz'iyyat (details) that occur in nature
Muslim philosophers, according to al-Ghazali, argue that Allah only knows His essence and does not know anything other than Him (juz'iyyat). Ibn Sina said that Allah knows everything by His knowledge kulli. The reason for Muslim philosophers, Allah does not know the juz'iyyat, that nature is always changing, if God knows the details of these changes, it will bring changes in His substance, such as changes in the object of science, which will bring changes to those who have knowledge (increase or decrease). This is impossible with God. 22 Al-Ghazali's answer to the above arguments is that the opinion of those philosophers is a fatal mistake. Changes in the object of science do not bring changes to science because science is idhafah (something related to the matter).
If science changes do not bring changes to substances, meaning that the conditions of people who have knowledge do not change. Likewise Allah's knowledge, He knows everything with His one knowledge since the beginning and does not change even though the nature known to Him changes. A more easily understood explanation is that al-Ghazali denied the Muslim philosophers about the change in the object of knowledge being the cause of the change in knowledge, so that Allah may not know juz'iyyat. Al-Ghazali's http://ijiis.or.id | e-ISSN: 2615-5184 p-ISSN: 2597-9698 refutation is that the cause and effect came from the others, while Allah's knowledge is derived from Him.

Physical awakening does not exist
According to Muslim philosophers, what will be resurrected in the afterlife is the spiritual, while the body will be destroyed. So the one who will feel happiness or pain is the spiritual. Although there is a picture of religion in the form of material in the afterlife, such as heaven and hell, they are only symbols (allegories) to facilitate the understanding of ordinary people. Even though in the hereafter it is too holy from what is described by ordinary people. They also argue that it is impossible to restore spiritual to the original body. According to them, when someone's life has ended, the body is destroyed. Re-creation means a new creation that is not the same as the previous creation. 23 Al-Ghazali in refuting the opinion of Muslim philosophers relies more on the textual al-Qur'an. According to him, there is no reason to refuse happiness or physical and spiritual misery together. Allah says (meaning) "no one knows what is hidden for them (all kinds of favours) which make eye contact". Likewise, His words: "I provide for my righteous servants, what is not seen by the eye, not heard by the ear, and is not scratched by the human heart". It is God's perfect promises. Meanwhile, the body resurrection has been explicitly affirmed by syara' (religion), with the meaning that the soul is returned to the body, either the original body or another body. Allah Almighty created everything, it is not difficult to make the body from a speck of sperm into various organs of the body, such as bones, flesh, skin, nerves, muscles, fat, etc.
From this result, he has a different tongue, eyes, teeth, and feelings between each human being. It is easier for God to return spiritual to the body in the hereafter than the first creation. 24 This explanation can be understood simply on the issue of the resurrection http://ijiis.or.id | e-ISSN: 2615-5184 p-ISSN: 2597-9698 of man in the Muslim philosopher's version that it is only the spirit which will be resurrected, while the body cannot return because it is already destroyed.
According to Al-Ghazali's criticism it is easier to return something than to create it and if it is easy for Allah to create human beings, then it is also easy for Him to restore a destroyed body.
After knowing which side of philosophy was attacked by al-Ghazali, we can conclude that the accusation above has no strong basis. This can be described by Georges Tamer, that: Abu Hamid, in this Tahafut al-falasifa, charged the philosophers with apostasy in relation to three propositions and declared them heretics in relation to 17 others, employing "arguments which created doubts and accusations which caused confusion. He led, thus, many people astray from both philosophy and religion. Consequently, he said in his book known as Jawahir al-Qur'an that that what he stated in the Tahafut are [merely] dialectical statements and that the truth is but included in al-Madnun bi-hi 'ala ghayrt ahlihi. 25 The explanation seems to reinforce that the intentions contained in al-Ghazali's argumentative refutation uses the answer and question method (jawab wa su'al), more clearly this method always recalls an imaginary trial and every argumentative note is recorded and refutes with final and satisfying apodictic certainty. 26 Furthermore, al-Ghazali does not only deny heresy but he also denies philosophers' arguments towards disbelief, the method used by al-Ghazali seems flexible, easy to adjust because it follows the philosophical rules of argumentation but in a critical manner.
Therefore al-Ghazali did not attack the entire philosophical building, but only a metaphysical part of it. Furthermore, what he was attacking was not the object of his study but rather the structural error of the philosophers' arguments. 27  important note that the knowledge that has been learned is protected from damage due to the absence of teleological concepts and can still be understood to date. 32 Leor Halevi looked at al-Ghazali as "a skeptical theologian with a dialogic imagination...", 33 but the arguments that are built besides being critical are also logical and empirical.
In this case, al-Ghazali affirms that there is no causal agency in natural matters and all-natural events are the direct creation of Allah. 34 Researchers here see the work of This is in line with Mariola Sulkowska when discussing Aristotle's arguments with Eudexus as follows; One of the arguments used by Eudoxus in an attempt to show that pleasure is the chief good and that "any good thing -e.g., just or temperate conduct -is made more desirable by the addition of pleasure". Aristotle, however, claimed that an argument of exactly the same type can be constructed to show that the chief good is not pleasure. For, as Plato had already argued, "the pleasant life is mre desirable with wisdom than without", so wisdom would seem to be the chief good... on this assumption, Aristotle's critism is devastating... There can be no question that Aristotle's critism of Eudoxus' argument is relevant to what it attacks... Indeed, the very force of Aristotle's criticism is just the result of the way in which that critism makes use of the point of Eudoxus' argument... It is, in fact, an argumentum ad hominem, since it attacks Eudoxus in terms of his own principles. 36 The explanation above indicates that the method used by al-Ghazali in philosophical criticisms in Tahafut al-Falasifa nominally has the same method with the criticism of Aristotle against Eudoxus. This shows that al-Ghazali attacked http://ijiis.or.id | e-ISSN: 2615-5184 p-ISSN:  Muslim philosophers in terms of the arguments they built, even labelling heretics and infidels. The problem of the mistakes of Muslim philosophers in discussing metaphysics by al-Ghazali is that there are twenty errors and the arguments built are"the dialectic method of speech", 37 so this method can be said to be rooted in the Greek-Roman tradition.

D. Conclusion
Even though al-Ghazali criticized many philosophers' thoughts, it does not mean that al-Ghazali left the role of reason in using the proposition. Al-Ghazali in the matter of reason has the opinion that reason is the principle of naql. Without prophetic and shari'ah, reason will not be established. Reason and naql are both nur from Allah, therefore between reason and naql there is no contradiction. Both reinforce and justify each other. Furthermore, al-Ghazali's argument is the evident from the mapping of twenty Muslim philosophers' problems in metaphysical philosophical thought.
The jawab wa su'al method used by al-Ghazali follows the philosophical but critical rules of argumentation, especially attacking problematic philosophers such as al-Farabi and Ibn Sina, so this method is called the victory of argumentum ad hominem. This is nominally rooted in the Greek-Roman tradition because there is a similarity of methods with Aristotle's criticism of Eudoxus, therefore the argument built is dialectical of speech.