In fact, these scholars were regarded primarily as religious figures by the general public with side interests in sciences. A few examples among such scholars are Ibn al-Nafis, Nasir al-Din al-Tusi, Qutb al-Din al-Shirazi ,and Ibn al-Shatir who lived in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries and made important contributions to such diverse scientific disciplines as mathematics, astronomy, medicine, physics and philosophy. Secondly, many of the scientists in the Islamic world were also religious authorities at the same time. Hence, studying religion and studying natural sciences does not create a conflict for Muslims. Therefore, Muslims see no insurmountable contradictions between their faith and natural laws. The religion of Islam encourages rational and scientific inquiry. First, the European paradigm of conflict between religion and science does not really apply to the Islamic world. Saliba argues that both of these assumptions are false. From that point on they assume that science in Islam declined, and the Islamic world did not produce anything significant in terms of scientific advancements.
To them, al-Ghazali represents the orthodox tradition in Islam and with Tahafut, written in the late eleventh century (between 10), they assume that orthodox religious thought won a decisive victory over rational, scientific thought. This paradigm is probably based on their European experience. In making his argument, Saliba first notes that most of the orientalists operate under the assumption that there must be a sharp conflict between religion and science. Saliba challenges almost all of the major tenets of the classical narrative on the basis of (1) a critical examination of historical evidence, some of which is quite recent, and (2) the results of his own long-term research in Islamic astronomy. If Ghazali had killed science in Islam in the twelfth century, then al-Shatir's work from the fourteenth century could not have been so influential on Copernicus's work. An example of such discoveries is the strong connections between Ibn al-Shatir, a famous Damascene astronomer of the fourteenth century, and the Renaissance astronomer Copernicus (Roberts, 1957). However, interesting discoveries in the second half of the twentieth century by historians of science challenged many of the assertions of this classical narrative. George Saliba, a Professor of Arabic and Islamic Science at Columbia University who specializes in the development of astronomy within Islamic civilization, calls this view the "classical narrative" (Saliba, 2007). It seems to be the most widely accepted view on the matter not only in the Western world but in the Muslim world as well. This is their key thesis as they attempt to explain the scientific and intellectual history of the Islamic world.
Many orientalists argue that Ghazali's Tahafut is responsible for the age of decline in science in the Muslim World. Can this prominent scholar of Islam or his famous book, Tahafut al-Falasifah, be held responsible, single handedly, for causing an age of decline in the scientific activities in the Muslim World? This book prompted me to think more critically about this long, accepted argument.
However, a recent book, Islamic Science and Making of the European Renaissance, by George Saliba calls these arguments into question. And this challenge, in a way, stopped critical thinking in the Islamic world. Critics of al-Ghazali argue that he challenged philosophers on the grounds that the philosophers could not lay down rational explanations for metaphysical arguments. It is a widespread belief among orientalists that one of the major factors, if not the single most important reason, for the decline of science in the Islamic world after its golden age is al-Ghazali's (1058-1111) attack on philosophers that was culminated in his famous book Tahafut al-Falasifah (The Incoherence of Philosophers).