Recasting the Ghazālī–Ibn Rushd Conflict as a Metadiscursive Dispute: Register-realism vs. Register-instrumentalism
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47766/tharwah.v5i2.2574Keywords:
Educational Management, Entrepreneurial Ecosystem, Management Practices, Vocational SchoolAbstract
The dispute between al-Ghazālī (d. 1111) and Ibn Rushd (d. 1198) is typically told as a doctrinal fight over twenty metaphysical theses, with Ibn Rushd's charge that al-Ghazālī confuses demonstrative (burhānī), dialectical (jadalī) and rhetorical (khaṭābī) argument treated as polemical cover. We argue the dependency runs the other way. The doctrinal disputes are downstream of a prior conflict over the ontology of discourse: what a register is, and what fixes the register of an utterance. Ibn Rushd holds register-realism: registers are capacity-indexed, tracking stable divisions among kinds of mind, thus a text's register is settled in advance by its audience. Al-Ghazālī holds register-instrumentalism: registers are function-indexed, chosen for an occasion and a therapeutic end, so one author may shift registers within a work, and one text may act differently on different readers. Three consequences follow. Ibn Rushd's charge of “mixing” detects no fallacy but commits a category error, his taxonomy has no gap for immanent critique. His own second-order theory is performatively bound, the Faṣl al-Maqāl asserts demonstration's supremacy in a juridical-dialectical register that cannot, by his criteria, establish it. And beneath both lies a semantic disagreement: reading the veils of light in the Mishkāt al-Anwār, we take al-Ghazālī to locate obstruction in conceptuality rather than falsity, prising truth-yielding apart from adequacy to the object. The dispute prefigures a modern contest between ascriptive and enactive theories of genre.
References
Adamson, P. (2016). Philosophy in the Islamic world: A history of philosophy without any gaps (Vol. 3). Oxford University Press.
Ahsan, A. (2025). Transcending Ibn Rushd’s methods of reasoning. Asian Philosophy, 35(3), 236-268.
Ahsan, A., & Karima, M. (2022). Torn between the Contours of logic: Exploring logical normativity in Islamic philosophical theology. European Journal of Analytic Philosophy, 18(2).
Griffel, F. (2021). The formation of post-classical philosophy in Islam. Oxford University Press.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays (V. W. McGee, Trans.; C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Eds.). University of Texas Press
Bell, A. (1984). Language style as audience design. Language in Society, 13(2), 145–204
Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (2019). Register, genre, and style (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Black, D. L. (1990). Logic and Aristotle’s Rhetoric and Poetics in medieval Arabic philosophy. Brill.
Buchman, D. (Trans.). (1998). Al-Ghazālī: The niche of lights (Mishkāt al-anwār) (Parallel English–Arabic text). Brigham Young University Press.
Butterworth, C. E. (Trans.). (1977). Averroes’ three short commentaries on Aristotle’s Topics, Rhetoric, and Poetics. State University of New York Press.
Butterworth, C. E. (Trans.). (2001). Averroës: The book of the decisive treatise determining the connection between the law and wisdom. Brigham Young University Press.
El-Rouayheb, K. (2010). Relational syllogisms and the history of Arabic logic, 900–1900. Brill.
Gianotti, T. J. (2001). Al-Ghazālī’s unspeakable doctrine of the soul: Unveiling the esoteric psychology and eschatology of the Iḥyāʾ. Brill.
Girdner, S. M. (2018). Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, Johanan Alemanno, and al-Ghazālī’s The niche of lights. Philosophy East and West, 68(2), 371–385.
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. University of Pennsylvania Press.
Griffel, F. (2009). Al-Ghazālī’s philosophical theology. Oxford University Press.
Griffel, F. (2021). The formation of post-classical philosophy in Islam. Oxford University Press.
Hakim, A. (2021). Counter-discourse on the criticism of Ibn Rushd toward al-Ghazali. Jurnal Theologia, 32(1), 63–88.
Hallaq, W. B. (1997). A history of Islamic legal theories: An introduction to Sunnī uṣūl al-fiqh. Cambridge University Press.
Hourani, G. F. (Trans.). (1961). Averroes on the harmony of religion and philosophy. Luzac.
Janssens, J. (2001). Al‐Ghazzali's Tahafut: Is it really a rejection of Ibn Sina's Philosophy?. Journal of Islamic Studies, 12(1), 1-17.
Kukkonen, T. (2013). Review of Inspired knowledge in Islamic thought, by A. Treiger. Journal of Islamic Studies, 24(1), 74–77.
Landolt, H. (1991). Ghazālī and ‘Religionswissenschaft’: Some notes on the Mishkāt al-Anwār. Asiatische Studien / Études Asiatiques, 45(1), 19–72.
Marmura, M. E. (1965). Ghazali and demonstrative science. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 3(2), 183–204.
Marmura, M. E. (Ed. & Trans.). (2000). Al-Ghazālī: The incoherence of the philosophers (2nd ed., parallel English–Arabic text). Brigham Young University Press.
Miller, C. R. (1984). Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70(2), 151–167.
Moad, E. O. (2007). Al-Ghazali’s reflections on the metaphysics of metaphor in the Mishkāt al-Anwār. Sophia, 46(2), 163–175.
Moosa, E. (2005). Ghazālī and the poetics of imagination. University of North Carolina Press.
Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation (J. Wilkinson & P. Weaver, Trans.). University of Notre Dame Press.
Street, T. (2023). Arabic and Islamic philosophy of language and logic. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Stanford University.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press.
Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument (Updated ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Treiger, A. (2012). Inspired knowledge in Islamic thought: Al-Ghazālī’s theory of mystical cognition and its Avicennian foundation. Routledge.
Van den Bergh, S. (Trans.). (1954). Averroes’ Tahafut al-Tahafut (The incoherence of the incoherence). Luzac.
Van Dijk, T. A. (2008). Discourse and context: A sociocognitive approach. Cambridge University Press.
Van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge University Press.
Walton, D. (2008). Informal logic: A pragmatic approach (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Whittingham, M. (2007). Al-Ghazālī and the Qurʾān: One book, many meanings. Routledge.
Wohlman, A. (2010). Al-Ghazali, Averroës and the interpretation of the Qur’an: Common sense and philosophy in Islam (D. Burrell, Trans.). Routledge.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Fadhlur Rahman, Mohammad Kholid, Nizar Saputra
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
