In my layman's understanding of things, I would say that Al-Ghazli was not so much the "cause" as the final nail in the coffin. "Islamic science" had been twiddling over time for centuries, and Incoherence of the Philosophers was simply what put it to bed.
Toby Huff [1] puts forward the thesis that Islam was not really interested in science, and it was simply tolerated by certain rulers. There were no 'universities' as we understand them now, as the madrasas were primarily religious schools (per Huff) and it was all about memorizing and interpreting the Quran. So as time went on (the argument goes), after Islam became the dominant culture in a region, non-religious education institutions tended to dwindle. [2] And this wasn't unique to Islam: Imperial China was also fairly 'non-curious' according to Huff. In ~1600 China was probably more advanced than most/all of Europe, but the Jesuits could not get the Chinese interest in (e.g.) the telescope, and after that point scientific endeavours basically did not occur in China, and neither did technological ones—and so the Europeans were able to walk in a few centuries later. [3] See also Mughal Empire.
As one commentator I ran across put it: Islam never had the equivalent of an Aquinas that could reconcile Aristotle with the faith. A merging of Athens and Jerusalem (or Mecca) as some put it. Christianity was able to trudge on because there was no metaphysical conflict (especially when it came to Occasionalism and secondary causation; Aquinas and even Augustine before him rejected Occasionalism [4]), and so Natural Philosophy (aka, Science) was able to develop.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toby_Huff
[2] See Huff's The Rise of Early Modern Science.
[3] See Huff's Intellectual Curiosity and the Scientific Revolution.