What is your opinion regarding al-Ghazali’s statements about the people of hadith in his latest book, given that you praised him in the introduction of the book?

The questioner: His EminenceThe Shaykh- May Allah preserve you - what is your opinion regarding al-Ghazali’s statements about the people of hadith in his latest book, given that you praised him in the introduction of "Ghaya al-Maram fi Takhrij al-Halal wa al-Haram," and may Allah reward you with good?

The Shaykh: Excuse me, I ask you to remind me; what is the praise that I gave him? DoesThe questioner : he mention that?

The questioner : No, I...

The Shaykh: PresentThe questioner : ? What is the praise that I gave al-Ghazali? When I traced the hadiths of his book "Fiqh al-Sirah," I explained my methodology in tracing this book. Then he explained his methodology, stating that it contradicts the methodology of the scholars of hadith; for he criticizes the hadiths with his mind - if not his desires -; this is not permissible; because he will validate what is weak or weaken what is authentic... So I say: This al-Ghazali, or the reality of al-Ghazali, appeared from some of his books to have a deviation that we thought was a passing phase. This deviation was first seen when he commented on the introduction to the tracing of the hadiths of his book "Fiqh al-Sirah," where he revealed this serious deviation; which is that he weakens authentic hadiths and validates weak hadiths with his mind. I met with him repeatedly when we were members of the Supreme Council of the Islamic University, and I drew his attention to this methodology. Then I told him - as I recall - that his weakening of the hadith of Ibn 'Umar mentioned in "al-Sahihayn" that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) raided Banu Qurayzah while they were at their water, he rejected this hadith even though it is in "al-Sahihayn." He admits that it is in "al-Sahihayn" and that the scientific tracing is precise, but he rejects this hadith because it is established and certain that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not raid a people until he conveyed his call to them. So I told him in one of the gatherings we held there at the Islamic University, where did you come from and add this addition to the hadith that he raided them and the call had not reached them? Where from? The hadith is one that gathers for you the rulings of jihad and the rulings of the military expeditions; you must gather that from the various hadiths related to the rulings of jihad. We agree with you that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not raid a people until he had conveyed the call to them, but you say that this hadith is not authentic because he raided them before the call reached them. So where did you get this footnote that the call had not reached them? You have no proof or basis for what you go to, except that the narrator, who is Ibn 'Umar, did not mention that he had conveyed it to them. Is it necessary that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), whenever he raided a people and returned and one of the Companions narrated it to us, should say in every incident that he had conveyed it to them and that he had conveyed it to them? No, rather we understand from the raid of the Messenger (peace be upon him) on a people that he did not raid them except after the call had reached them.
And I mentioned to him what also came in "al-Sahih" that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), when he intended a military expedition, would feint in another direction; do you want to announce to the people he intended to raid that he would say to them, "Prepare yourselves, for I am going to raid you"? I do not think you would say that. Of course, he said: No, that is not what I intend. So when he intends to raid a people and feints in another direction, and this is part of the style of jihad, and as he (peace be upon him) said: - or deception or deception -; so we must understand from this hadith alone that he (peace be upon him), when he intended to raid a people, that the call had not reached them? The call had reached them. So I told him, and I hope you will reconsider what you wrote, otherwise you will fall - as they say today in the modern era - into many pitfalls and violations of the Shari'ah that are countless. He promised me well, but in reality he did not fulfill it. Rather, I saw some of the new printings, and the printing for which I traced the hadiths was the fourth edition. I found after that a fifth edition or what came after it, I do not remember now, and there he refutes me with this deviant methodology from the scholars of hadith in some of the hadiths that I had weakened from the hadiths of his book.
As for his latest book, which the question was about; he has reached the limit of deviation from the Sunnah and of harshness toward the people of the Sunnah, both past and present. And you have no doubt read his book and known its defects in it. It does not concern us that he has attacked the people of the Sunnah who are eager to follow it; rather, the more important thing is that he has attacked authentic hadiths that came from the mouth of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). Then, by his ignorance, first of the methods of validating hadiths, and second of his understanding of these hadiths - and he claims to be a jurist! -; so he did not know fiqh nor did he know hadith; he is neither a hadith scholar nor a jurist; as evidenced by the fact that he rejects some of the authentic hadiths. If he had known the science of hadith, he would not have dared to reject these authentic hadiths. Then he rejected some of them because of his poor understanding of them; so where is his fiqh of hadith that he boasts of and accuses the people of hadith of having no fiqh?!
And therefore, if I praised him, it was not in this field, of course. It is well known and without doubt that he has efforts in da'wah. But it became clear later that this da'wah was not the da'wah of the Book and the Sunnah, but rather a da'wah against the Book and the Sunnah. It is sufficient for you that he explicitly states, without any shame or fear of Allah or of His servants - Blessed and Exalted is He - that he likes to be alone sometimes and listen to music or listen to the songs of Umm Kulthum. An Islamic da'iyah descends to this low point and contradicts the agreement of the four Imams in this. Here you see the extent of his understanding of fiqh. He sometimes accuses the people of hadith of not respecting or valuing the statements of the Imams; because they hold fast to the hadiths, and he claims that they misunderstand them, and do not know the specific and the general, and the like. And there he falls into what is worse than what he accused the people of hadith of, by contradicting the four Imams and others following his desires, while the proof is with them. Among this is his explicit statement that he wants singing and listening to music, and he philosophizes and names and divides music into two parts; music - I do not know how to describe it? - meaning soft music and music meaning loud music, and so on. So he likes to listen to the first type, and flees from listening to the music; is this a jurist?! Is this a Muslim who sees and knows that the four Imams agreed on the prohibition of all musical instruments based on some of the hadiths that are authentic in this field? Then if he does not care about the hadith; why does he not care about the agreement of the four Imams, while he tightens the path that the hadith, when it contradicts the jurists following the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him)? And if he had any of the taqwa and fear of Allah - Blessed and Exalted is He - he would at least hold back and cover himself by not explicitly stating his love for listening to music. But he wants to get close to the soft young people who consider that the statement of the people of hadith: this is haram, this is not permissible, this is bid'ah; this is strictness in religion. So he wants to show himself before these young people that he is of the type who are lenient and easy-going. So there he explicitly states that he listens to the singing of Umm Kulthum and her like!!
A single book would have been sufficient to deter him. It is by one of the later scholars of the Shafi'i school, known as Ahmad al-Faqih Ahmad al-Haythami. It should be noted that this attribution sometimes varies in print and transmission as "al-Haythami." Al-Haythami is earlier than this scholar; he is the Shaykh of al-Hafiz al-Iraqi in hadith, and he is Nur al-Din al-Haythami, the author of the book *Majma' al-Zawa'id wa Manba' al-Fawa'id*. As for Ahmad ibn Hajar al-Haythami, his name is written with the taa marbutah, as they say in the books of hadith. This jurist has a book that he named—and what a name it is—*Kaff al-Ra'a' 'an al-Sama'*. This title alone would have been enough to stop him from revealing what he had permitted out of his love for listening to musical instruments and listening to songs, contrary to the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): .
Yes.