Unlike al-Ghazali, who defines love as one's inclination towards a thing which gives pleasure, al-Dabbagh defines love in terms of pleasure or joy, which actually is the outcome of love. He then tries to explain the impact of the beloved object on the lover through the latter's imagination. In this way he explains why the impact of a beloved object which is perfect, effects the lover so powerfully. Although both scholars refer to the lover's state, each one deals with a different aspect of this state. AI-Ghazali points out the need of the lover for the beloved which is expressed by the lover's inclination toward the beloved object; in fact the beloved object may be love itself and not a specific beloved. AI-Dabbagh, on the other hand, speaks of the beloved's impact on the lover, and stresses the effect of the lover's thinking about the beloved. AI-Ghazali emphasizes the element of will and desire to reach the beloved, whereas al-Dabbagh emphasizes a certain feeling of the lover. Neither definition conveys the full meaning of love, if it is possible at all to perceive this meaning because, for example, just as love does not incline one toward what gives pleasure, it also does not always makes one joyful. In the case of divine love the contrary can be sometimes stated; one loves God although his love gives neither pleasure nor joy. AI-Dabbagh's definition can be absolutely justified only if love is bestowed on the lover with its delightful results, but not when love is the result of the lover's own efforts.