Brilliant! Dr. Lumbard is a genius who sees the deeper meaning of Amad al-Ghazali. All true knowledge comes from love, and knowing God is the highest love.
I can relate to this..Vedanta echoes the same where " knowledge" is the path of reaching awareness. But knowledge is not just dry intellectual activity sans heart( bhakti). It has to be a heart with words and not words without heart. I call Fitrah as " reset to factory" setting where we go back to our real knower state once one goes beyond the Dunya. Vedanta too is very much on these lines. But at one stage we cant really " know"..we have to finally become " the unknown" I say " the unknown" becos we cant really know tru the faculty of our senses but get revelation from the Qalb( heart). Great lecture..
I am born muslim and I have been searching for the truth from the physics to Aristotle to descartes to kant to existentialism to nihilism. I am finally here, and I appreciate your work to put forward the teachings of islam. There are very few authentic modern sources and the scholarship in islam is almost non-existent. If islam is true, then i think allah will be loving you for what you are doing.
@@jelumbard in other words reason cannot perceive the reason for which Allah said that sun sets in a pool of murky water. Of course, Muhammad confirmed it in a hadith. O yeah, yeah, he had knowledge of knowledge while we are limited in intellect. Maybe you tell me who was Dhul Quarnain. I asked 1000 Muslims and not a single one knew who was Dhul Quarnain. But again, they are limited whereas you are limited only by sky margins, right?. Blah, blah, blah of two pennies from which 99% out of al world's Muslims understand nothing, that is what you said here. Much noise for nothing. How true was Shakespeare 500 years ago. Maybe he traveled in future and heard you, so that he said what he said. Seriously! That must be true. Joseph, you are a man of entertainment, a dual speach one. When you talk, you either say a lie or a nonsense of two pennies. Beyond this..... nothingness is its name. But you are sympathetic, so I like you.
@@jelumbard ha, ha, ha, I am sure you are. The problem is that it is not that your intention. " We know what we are, but know not what we may be." From Shakespeare with love. You might be one to say something of substance, but you instead prefer to believe in flying carpets and suns that set in pools of murky waters. Why? That is the question you never puts to yourself because you have not the courage to do it. But, unlike most of the Muslims I've met, you look a little more reasonable. Of course, I will never forget that you looked confident and serious when you said: Quraish tribe attacked Muslim's caravanes, when you knew that in fact it was exactly vice versa. That is why I will never trust you, never, because now I know that you can look directly into people's eyes and then lie to them.
@@Ronakalin70 In the name of Allah we spread love message through the world. We waste our time and effort for such ignorance. Let them happy having it.
6.) 17:09 Philosophers [hukamaa], excellent translation, however this raises the question as to why Tuhaafut al-Falsafah was and remains translated/transliterated as "The Incoherence of the Philosophers", especially if now we are translating the term "philosophers" as hukamaa.. That is to say, in Ghazali's view, who are the "Falsafah" and who are the "Hukamaa"? 7.) 22:07 Polishing the mirror of the heart, having long since heard Ghazali's words on the "Wonders of the Heart" back in my Fons Vitae days; I would argue that in light of genuine epistemology more relative to actual knowledge, facts, science, and that which is known through either sense perception or rational induction - it becomes clear (at least in my view) that Ghazali's work is really not a work on epistemology nor intended to be a philosophical contribution as such.. Rather, I would argue that such work was (for starters) a response of relief to his daunting context of having been so heavily preoccupied with theological debate etc. Secondly, and more importantly, it seems that this work of his is actually a work on "Spiritual Purification" [tazkiyyah] and a brief summary of the varying levels and stages that he, or those he has met & heard of, have encountered or experienced first hand. In other words, perhaps the reason why so many find his work on epistemology so confusing is because it is not a work intended for epistemology, irrespective of his allusions to that which is known via sense perception etc. His work is however, a sound contribution to the field of spiritual purification [tazkiyyah] and stages of the traveller [madaariju-s Saalik]. Wa Allahu a'lam.
Assalamualaykum So falaasafa refers to the school of philosophical though of Aristotle. But the hukahaa are more the platonic or neo platonic school of though
Nourichment for the Thirsty Soul in the Infinity.Yallah,prepare My Body and Soul so that I with Allah's Blessings may Absorb this Soul Food.This Food of Knowledge and Truth that through its metabolism in my Body and Soul Appreciate and Love All of Allah's creatures and Worship only Allah,The Most Generous and Most Merciful and To Whom Belongs The Most Beautiful Names,"Huwalahul Ammanul Husna".Ameen.
Ahhh Islamic Philosophy... 💚 Okay, my two cents iA: Wa 'alaykumu-s Salaam wa Rahmatullah. 1.) 4:00 nadhr (reasoning?), I would have opted for "theoretical speculation" [nadhr] which in essence, is epistemologically void until proven substantial. 2.) 10:00 'ilmu-l Adami, given that this kind of knowledge is the highest form of knowledge to which all other forms are subservient thereto; the question remains as to how we can actually prove that it even exists at all? That is to say, can we even define it? E.g. "it has no intermediary... directly between the soul and the Creator..." given that these two things both constitute the unseen [ghayb] beyond our ability to prove, how then can we prove what, when, or if anything occurs between these two things? 3.) 11:25 knowledge of the Prophet, which constitutes both "inspiration" [wahy] and "revelation" [ilhaam] from the Divine, I would argue that both revelation [wahy] and inspiration [ilhaam] in and of themselves do not constitute knowledge ['ilm] but only do so when they can be factually verified through either sense perception or rational consistency by way of the 'alam [dimension] itself through which we come to know all things... In this case, 'alamu-d Dunyah [the dimension of the lower world]. 4.) At this stage, as was the case in my earlier years being exposed to Ghazali's works & views - I found that his work seems to be more of an attempt to substantiate his own office of sainthood among the greater decorum of those who bare genuine significance in the greater scheme of Islamic epistemology such as the: - 'Ulamaa [scientists; people of science, knowledge, & facts] - Fuqahaa [scholars of religion] - Hukamaa [philosophers; people of wisdom] - Mutafakkireen [Intellectuals] - Uloo-l Absaar [People of foresight] - Uloo-l Baab [...] - Awliyaa [Representatives of the Divine] And so many others of course beyond al Anbiyaa [Prophets] and ar-Rusul [Messengers]. 5.) Good thing I'm in Australia because I think our wives would've grown tired already by merely foreseeing the hours of discussion yet to unfold... loll BarakAllahu feeka Ustadh wa zaadaNallaahu 'ilmaa wa-l Hikmata wa fee ihsaani-d Deen.
Sorry for the delayed response. As regards the first point, it is translated according to context. As regards the second al-'il al-laduni can only be substantiated through experience. Even if there were an external event to substantiate what is received through al-ilm al-laduni, the knowledge some receive through that would not be al-ilm al-laduni itself. One cannot "factually verify" every aspect of revelation, e.g. resurrection in the Hereafter cannot be 'factually verified'." 3) If al-ilm al-ladunī required external verifications, it would not be al-ilm al-laduni. 4) I have never seen al-Ghazali make a claim to sainthood. In fact he seems to claim quite the opposite when in the Iḥyā' he states that he is not writing about ilm al-mukāshafāt, knowledge of unveiling.
This lecture clearly shows that the Islamic tradition, knowledge was greatly influenced by the Vedic texts, Bhagavad Gita and Srimad Bhagavatam which talk about these topics in much more detail. The similarity between these texts and Ghazali's work seem interesting.
I'd rather go to jail than read Al ghazali, I read too much of him and cursed every minute I spent doing so. The only two summits of conceptual thinking the Arabs can boast of are; Ibn Rushd and Ibn Arabi, two great thinkers in every respect.
Brilliant! Dr. Lumbard is a genius who sees the deeper meaning of Amad al-Ghazali. All true knowledge comes from love, and knowing God is the highest love.
I can relate to this..Vedanta echoes the same where " knowledge" is the path of reaching awareness.
But knowledge is not just dry intellectual activity sans heart( bhakti).
It has to be a heart with words and not words without heart.
I call Fitrah as " reset to factory" setting where we go back to our real knower state once one goes beyond the Dunya.
Vedanta too is very much on these lines.
But at one stage we cant really " know"..we have to finally become " the unknown"
I say " the unknown" becos we cant really know tru the faculty of our senses but get revelation from the Qalb( heart).
Great lecture..
Alhamdulillah! Well done. May Allah reward you.
Thank you. May God reward you as well.
I am born muslim and I have been searching for the truth from the physics to Aristotle to descartes to kant to existentialism to nihilism. I am finally here, and I appreciate your work to put forward the teachings of islam. There are very few authentic modern sources and the scholarship in islam is almost non-existent. If islam is true, then i think allah will be loving you for what you are doing.
Thanks Professor Joseph Lumbard! very good reminders about knowledge..
Thanks for your input
34:12
Yes!
Your thinking is correct!
I'm like that in every life because our character's are our fate!
Excellent! Very grateful for this. THANK YOU.
Thank you
Alhamdulillah. What a good lecture in defining the true meaning of knowledge by studying Abu Hamid al-Ghazali's books. Jazzakallahu khairan.
Thank you. Allah ya'tik al-khayr.
@@jelumbard in other words reason cannot perceive the reason for which Allah said that sun sets in a pool of murky water. Of course, Muhammad confirmed it in a hadith. O yeah, yeah, he had knowledge of knowledge while we are limited in intellect.
Maybe you tell me who was Dhul Quarnain. I asked 1000 Muslims and not a single one knew who was Dhul Quarnain. But again, they are limited whereas you are limited only by sky margins, right?.
Blah, blah, blah of two pennies from which 99% out of al world's Muslims understand nothing, that is what you said here.
Much noise for nothing. How true was Shakespeare 500 years ago. Maybe he traveled in future and heard you, so that he said what he said. Seriously! That must be true. Joseph, you are a man of entertainment, a dual speach one. When you talk, you either say a lie or a nonsense of two pennies. Beyond this..... nothingness is its name.
But you are sympathetic, so I like you.
@@neluroman555 It is always an honor to be able to entertain the trolls.
@@jelumbard ha, ha, ha, I am sure you are. The problem is that it is not that your intention.
" We know what we are, but know not what we may be." From Shakespeare with love.
You might be one to say something of substance, but you instead prefer to believe in flying carpets and suns that set in pools of murky waters. Why? That is the question you never puts to yourself because you have not the courage to do it.
But, unlike most of the Muslims I've met, you look a little more reasonable.
Of course, I will never forget that you looked confident and serious when you said: Quraish tribe attacked Muslim's caravanes, when you knew that in fact it was exactly vice versa. That is why I will never trust you, never, because now I know that you can look directly into people's eyes and then lie to them.
@@Ronakalin70 In the name of Allah we spread love message through the world. We waste our time and effort for such ignorance. Let them happy having it.
It's mind blowing, I have to watch at least two more times to digest.
P
Great lecture machaAllah ! I didn’t get the article mentioned on inspiration & knowledge in ghazali work 🙏🏽
ManshAllah
Just ...Fantastic! Alhamdulillah
Thank you very much.
Excellent lecture
Very kind of you. Thank you.
Thank you for providing this.
6.) 17:09 Philosophers [hukamaa], excellent translation, however this raises the question as to why Tuhaafut al-Falsafah was and remains translated/transliterated as "The Incoherence of the Philosophers", especially if now we are translating the term "philosophers" as hukamaa..
That is to say, in Ghazali's view, who are the "Falsafah" and who are the "Hukamaa"?
7.) 22:07 Polishing the mirror of the heart, having long since heard Ghazali's words on the "Wonders of the Heart" back in my Fons Vitae days; I would argue that in light of genuine epistemology more relative to actual knowledge, facts, science, and that which is known through either sense perception or rational induction - it becomes clear (at least in my view) that Ghazali's work is really not a work on epistemology nor intended to be a philosophical contribution as such..
Rather, I would argue that such work was (for starters) a response of relief to his daunting context of having been so heavily preoccupied with theological debate etc.
Secondly, and more importantly, it seems that this work of his is actually a work on "Spiritual Purification" [tazkiyyah] and a brief summary of the varying levels and stages that he, or those he has met & heard of, have encountered or experienced first hand.
In other words, perhaps the reason why so many find his work on epistemology so confusing is because it is not a work intended for epistemology, irrespective of his allusions to that which is known via sense perception etc. His work is however, a sound contribution to the field of spiritual purification [tazkiyyah] and stages of the traveller [madaariju-s Saalik].
Wa Allahu a'lam.
Assalamualaykum
So falaasafa refers to the school of philosophical though of Aristotle. But the hukahaa are more the platonic or neo platonic school of though
Jazak Allah!
Allah ya'tik al-khayr
Nourichment for the Thirsty Soul in the Infinity.Yallah,prepare My Body and Soul so that I with Allah's Blessings may Absorb this Soul Food.This Food of Knowledge and Truth that through its metabolism in my Body and Soul Appreciate and Love All of Allah's creatures and Worship only Allah,The Most Generous and Most Merciful and To Whom Belongs The Most Beautiful Names,"Huwalahul Ammanul Husna".Ameen.
Ahhh Islamic Philosophy... 💚
Okay, my two cents iA:
Wa 'alaykumu-s Salaam wa Rahmatullah.
1.) 4:00 nadhr (reasoning?), I would have opted for "theoretical speculation" [nadhr] which in essence, is epistemologically void until proven substantial.
2.) 10:00 'ilmu-l Adami, given that this kind of knowledge is the highest form of knowledge to which all other forms are subservient thereto; the question remains as to how we can actually prove that it even exists at all? That is to say, can we even define it?
E.g. "it has no intermediary... directly between the soul and the Creator..." given that these two things both constitute the unseen [ghayb] beyond our ability to prove, how then can we prove what, when, or if anything occurs between these two things?
3.) 11:25 knowledge of the Prophet, which constitutes both "inspiration" [wahy] and "revelation" [ilhaam] from the Divine, I would argue that both revelation [wahy] and inspiration [ilhaam] in and of themselves do not constitute knowledge ['ilm] but only do so when they can be factually verified through either sense perception or rational consistency by way of the 'alam [dimension] itself through which we come to know all things...
In this case, 'alamu-d Dunyah [the dimension of the lower world].
4.) At this stage, as was the case in my earlier years being exposed to Ghazali's works & views - I found that his work seems to be more of an attempt to substantiate his own office of sainthood among the greater decorum of those who bare genuine significance in the greater scheme of Islamic epistemology such as the:
- 'Ulamaa [scientists; people of science, knowledge, & facts]
- Fuqahaa [scholars of religion]
- Hukamaa [philosophers; people of wisdom]
- Mutafakkireen [Intellectuals]
- Uloo-l Absaar [People of foresight]
- Uloo-l Baab [...]
- Awliyaa [Representatives of the Divine]
And so many others of course beyond al Anbiyaa [Prophets] and ar-Rusul [Messengers].
5.) Good thing I'm in Australia because I think our wives would've grown tired already by merely foreseeing the hours of discussion yet to unfold... loll
BarakAllahu feeka Ustadh wa zaadaNallaahu 'ilmaa wa-l Hikmata wa fee ihsaani-d Deen.
Sorry for the delayed response. As regards the first point, it is translated according to context. As regards the second al-'il al-laduni can only be substantiated through experience. Even if there were an external event to substantiate what is received through al-ilm al-laduni, the knowledge some receive through that would not be al-ilm al-laduni itself. One cannot "factually verify" every aspect of revelation, e.g. resurrection in the Hereafter cannot be 'factually verified'." 3) If al-ilm al-ladunī required external verifications, it would not be al-ilm al-laduni. 4) I have never seen al-Ghazali make a claim to sainthood. In fact he seems to claim quite the opposite when in the Iḥyā' he states that he is not writing about ilm al-mukāshafāt, knowledge of unveiling.
Wlaikum slaam wa rahma tulla wa barakatu
So what is the distinction between epistemology and noetics?
Sir i am from pakistan and my wish study the pholsphy to you and i have done msc chemistry .
so what is al-ilm al-ḥuḍurī vs/ al-ilm al-laduni?
Some say that they refer to the same stage of realization, knowledge from the divine presence.
never mind all the big words...that sigh after a few glugs of water from his bottle directly communicates everything
Wa alaikum Salam wr wb.
wa alaykum al-salaam
13:00
1:45
This lecture clearly shows that the Islamic tradition, knowledge was greatly influenced by the Vedic texts, Bhagavad Gita and Srimad Bhagavatam which talk about these topics in much more detail. The similarity between these texts and Ghazali's work seem interesting.
I'd rather go to jail than read Al ghazali, I read too much of him and cursed every minute I spent doing so. The only two summits of conceptual thinking the Arabs can boast of are; Ibn Rushd and Ibn Arabi, two great thinkers in every respect.
Lol. Ignorant
Al Ghazali is power level on max. Few understand this.
Nobody force u to do so. Just leave.
Your brain is scattered as bull shit
It means you don't have the capacity. You are shallow..