Abstract

Al-Ghazali, one of the most influential Muslim theologians, in his well known book, Tahafut al-Falasafeh, deals with the incoherent statements of philosophers about the problem of God’s knowledge of particulars. His accusation goes directly to Avicenna’s view about the way God knows particulars. Ghazali thinks that this kind of attitude toward the knowledge of God of particulars practically implies the denial of God’s knowledge and ends to infidelity. Explaining the views of Imam Muhammad al-Gazali and Avicenna in this regard, we try to make a comparison between their views and show that this accusation is originated from a misunderstanding by a person who claims that his religious concerns cause him to take up this position against the philosophers. Ghazali had imagined that Peripatetic philosophers, especially Avicenna, fearing from penetration of change in the divine essence, have denied God’s knowledge of particulars; while they themselves believe in a changing eternal being. So it was better for them to accept God’s knowledge of particulars without any concern about the change. But Ghazali didn’t notice that from Peripatetic’s viewpoint God cannot be the same as the changing eternal being. Finally we come to this conclusion that the motive of Peripatetics and Avicenna in explaining the manner of God’s knowledge of particulars is more sacred to be accused of infidelity.