امام غزالی اور سلسلہ علت و معلول کی حقیقت

The issue of causality remained one of the heatedly debated issues in the early centuries of Islam. The fundamental question faced by Muslim theologians was whether cause and effect havea self-sustained relationship or each event in the universe is continuously governed by the Will of God? If the former is the case, then how are miracles possible? If latter, why do we observe regularity in events? The impossibility of miracles could not be accommodated by Muslim theologians because miraclesareregarded as one of the primary means of establishing the truth of prophethood. This article explains the critique levelled by Abū Ḥāmid al-Ghazālī in his famous book Tahāfut al Falāsifah on the position of Muslim philosophers about causality. Al-Ghazālī’s primary concern was to show that the cause-and-effect relationship is neither necessary nor sufficient; what we call “cause-and-effect relationship” is an opinion based on the observation of one event happening after the other. In his opinion, we never observe “cause,” rather we only observe two events. In recent past, some Muslim thinkers have accused al-Ghazālī of diverting Muslims away from scientific endeavour by criticising the principle of causality. Others confused al-Ghazālī’s critique of causality with David Hume’sposition. The article attemptsto bring forth the flaws behind these views.