Abu Hāmid Muhammad Ibn Muhammad al-Ghazālī aṭ-Ṭūsī was born in 450 AH in Tus (Tous) Persia (Iran) and died there in 505 AH. This was the age in which Philosophy and the Ashʿarī Theological Speculation (ʿIlm al-Kalām) amalgamated.
He accompanied and studied under Imām al-Haramain al-Juwainī for a while and he mastered al-Kalām (Speculative Theology) and argumentation. He went through various stages in his life: he became engrossed with Philosophy and eventually abandoned it and refuted it—then he focused on Speculative Theology (ʿIlmul-Kalām) and became its leading proponent.
He then took to the path of the Bātiniyyah seeking hidden realities and concealed meanings in the Sharīʿah—after turning away from that, he turned towards Sufism.
The scholars of Islam refuted him. His own student and companion, Abu Bakr Ibn al-ʿArabī stated: ‘Our teacher Abu Hāmid delved deeply into philosophy, then he desired to exit from it but was not able to, and he had speech agreeing with the beliefs of the Bāṭiniyyah that can be found in his books.’
Ibn Taymiyyah makes the point that though Abu Hāmid was endowed with strong intelligence that led him to eventually refute the philosophers and declare them to be unbelievers, and he venerated prophethood—nevertheless there was still in some of his speech and writings the ideas of philosophy and its principles in opposition to Sunnah and sound reason. For this reason, he was refuted by a group of scholars of Khurasān, Irāq, Morocco and Spain.
Ibn Taymiyyah also stated that the likes of Abul-Maʿālī and al-Ghazzalī had little knowledge of the narrations of the early Salaf—and likewise, their knowledge of Ḥadīth was not strong such that they could be counted among the people of specialisation. They were not acquainted with Aḥādīth of al-Bukhārī and Muslim except as the common people—they would not distinguish between a ḥadīth mutawātir known to the people of knowledge and a fabricated ḥadīth that is a lie [upon the Prophet (salallāhu ʿalaihi wasallam)—and their books testify to this and to other strange matters.
It is said about al-Ghazzālī that he returned to the path of Ahlul-Ḥadīth at the end of his life, and Allāh knows best.
(See Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā of Ibn Taymiyyah 4/71-72, Siyar Aʿlām an-Nubalā’ of adh-Dhahabī 19/323, 328)
قال الإمام الطرطوشي المالكي -رحمه الله-:
لا أعلم كتابًا -يعني إحياء علوم الدين- على وجه بسيط الأرض أكثر كذبا على الرسول ﷺ منه.
[سير الأعلام : (٤٩٥/١٩)]
Al-Imām At-Tartooshi al-Māliki said: “I do not know a book upon the face of the earth filled with more lies upon the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) than this book ― meaning Ihyā ʿUloom ad-Deen.” (Siyar al-Aʿlām of Imām Adh-Dhahabi 19/495)
وقال ابن الجوزي -رحمه الله-:
كتاب إحياء علوم الدين فيه آفات لا يعلمها إلا العلماء وأقلها الأحاديث الباطلة الموضوعة والموقوفة وقد جعلها مرفوعة.
[مختصر منهاج القاصدين : (صـ١١)].
Ibn Al-Jawzi said: “The book Ihyā ʿUloom ad-Deen has calamities that are not known except to the scholars – and the least of those calamities are false and fabricated, and disconnected ahādeeth that he ascribed to the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him).” (Mukhtasar Minhāj al-Qāsideen, p. 11)
وقال الشيخ العلامة عبداللطيف بن عبدالرحمـٰن آل الشيخ -رحمه الله-:
(وقد حذر أهل العلم والبصيرة عن النظر فيها ومطالعة خافيها وباديها -يعني: كتاب الإحياء للغزالي-، بل أفتىٰ بتحريقها علماء المغرب ممن عُرف بالسّنة، وسمَّاها كثير منهم (إماتة علوم الدين)…).
[الدرر السنية: (٣٤٦/٣)].
Ash-Shaikh al-ʿAllāmah ʿAbdul-Lateef Ibn ʿAbdur-Rahmān Aalush-Shakh said: “The people of knowledge and insight have warned from looking into it, and from reading its mysteries, and apparent meanings – meaning the book Ihyā ʿUloom ad-Deen. Indeed, the scholars of the Maghrib (West Africa), those known for Sunnah, have ruled that it should be burned – and many of them renamed the book Imāmatu ʿUloom ad-Deen (Killing the Sciences of the Religion)!” (Ad-Durar as-Sanniyyah 3/346)
وقال الشيخ العلامة ربيع بن هادي المدخلي -حفظه الله-
في كتاب(كشف زيف التصوف صـ4) :
بعد أن نقل كلام العلماء في كتاب إحياء علوم الدين.
وأقول:
جزى الله خيراً من أحرقوا الإحياء لما فيه من الضلالات ولو لم يكن فيه إلا وحدة الوجود والأحاديث الموضوعة لكَفَى ذلك مُوجِباً لإحراقه دع عنك الأباطيل الأخرى.
أما رواجه بعد ذلك فلا حجة في رواجه ولا في أقوال وأفعال مروجيه فهذا وذاك ليس فيهما دليل على أنه حق ولا أن مروجيه على الحق بل هم على الباطل وبعيدون عن النصح للأمة وأعتقد أن الله سوف يحاسبهم على ترويجهم لهذا الكتاب وفيه ما فيه.
Ash-Shaikh al-ʿAllāmah Rabeeʿ Ibn Hādi al-Madkhali said after citing the speech of the scholars regarding the book of Abu Hāmid al-Ghazāli, Ihyā ʿUloomid-Deen: “I say: may Allah reward those who burned the book Al-Ihyā due to what it contains of misguidance. And if there was nothing within except for the deviation of Wahdatul-Wujood and fabricated ahādeeth, that would be a sufficient reason for obligating its burning, let alone the rest of its falsehood. As for its popularity after [knowing] this, then its popularity is not a proof – nor are the sayings or actions of those who spread it. None of this is evidence that Ihyā ʿUloom ad-Deen is upon the truth – and those who spread it are not a proof that the book is upon the truth. Rather, those who popularise it are upon falsehood, and are far removed from offering sincere advice to the Ummah – and I believe that Allah will call them to account for publicising this book considering what it contains [of falsehood].” (Kashf Zayf at-Tasawwuf, p. 4)
Shaikh Al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullāh) stated while refuting those who believe in the unity of existence (wahdat al-wujood), i.e., that all of existence is Allah, and the Ittiḥādiyyah, who believe that the Creator and the created are one, a creed taught by Ibn ʿArabī (died 638H), Ibn al-Fārid (d. 633H) and others, “It is obligatory to punish whoever ascribes himself to them, or defends them, praises them, venerates their books, hates that they are spoken against, or finds excuses for them claiming that he doesn’t know this speech and says, ‘What is it?’ Or he says [in their defense], ‘Who said that they authored this book?’ And other similar excuses that are not made except by one who is either ignorant or a hypocrite. Indeed, it is a must to punish anyone who knows their condition yet does not assist in standing up against them—for indeed standing up against them is from the greatest of obligations.” (Majmooʿ al-Fatāwā, 2/132)
Other terms:
Hulool ʿAam: Allah is present in everything – not that He is everything but that He is in everything.
Hulool Khās: Allah is present in some of His creation – not that He is that creation but that He is in it.
Ittihād ʿAam: also referred to as Wahdat al-Wujood: The belief that the existence – all of it is Allah – they are one, not separate.
Ittihād Khās: The belief that Allah is one with some of His creation, i.e., that the created thing is Allah.
All these beliefs are kufr.
Be the first to comment