Discussion of *Ihya' 'Ulum al-Din* by al-Ghazali, and its tracing: *Al-Mughni 'an Haml al-Asfar fi al-Asfar* by al-Hafiz al-'Iraqi.

The Shaykh : Al-Hafiz al-'Iraqi authored a book on tracing the hadiths in *Ihya' 'Ulum al-Din* by Imam al-Ghazali, and he named it with a title of unusual strangeness... He said: "The book that dispenses with carrying the journeys in the journeys, in tracing the reports in *Ihya'*, 'The book that dispenses with carrying the journeys'—meaning the books—'in the journeys, in tracing the reports in *Ihya'*." The book *Ihya' 'Ulum al-Din* by al-Ghazali (may Allah have mercy on him) is a style that distinguishes it from all other authored books; whether they are in fiqh, hadith, or spiritual conduct and morals. It is a compilation of books on tawhid (the oneness of Allah); the first book in it is on the creed, the second book is on the obligation of ritual purity, then prayer, then books on fiqh, and after that he authored books within the book *Ihya'* on morals and spiritual conduct; the book of repentance, the book of the wonders of the intellect, the book of showing off, the book of... The truth is that these last books were after... correcting morals and improving the behavior of the Muslim. But the reason for this book is from two aspects, or rather we can say from three aspects:
The first: regarding the first book on the creed; he follows the path of the Asha'irah in the creed, and the creed of the Asha'irah contradicts the people of hadith, foremost among them being Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him), in the creed. For example, he gives a figurative interpretation to the verses of attributes and the hadiths of attributes, such as His saying (Mighty and Majestic)—for example: They interpret it with an interpretation of reversal.
Then, what is taken against him from a second aspect: he had an inclination toward Sufism, and he was immersed in it to a degree that took him beyond the middle path that many of the jurists of his time and before his time were upon. For example, he mentions in the etiquette of the seekers (murids) with the shaykhs that the murid must be withThe Shaykh : like a dead person in the hands of the washer, or rather he compared... And in order to affirm this matter, he narrates a story, and its narration, as it is said, dispenses with commenting on it due to the clarity of its falsehood. This story says—of course, he mentioned it and then commented on it in a way that is more astonishing than the story itself; he said: It is narrated that a shaykh from the early shaykhs was visited one day by one of the seekers, and he mentioned to him that he saw him in a dream. The seeker saw his shaykh in a dream thatThe Shaykh : he ordered him to do something, so the seeker said to him: Why? ... the whole dream,The Shaykh : the seeker was ordered in what the seeker saw in his dream thatThe Shaykh : he said to him: Do such and such; the seeker said to him: Why? When the morning came, he told the story to his shaykh whom he saw in the dream.
The end of the story: so he boycotted himThe Shaykh : for a full month,The Shaykh : he boycotted his seeker; because he said to him in the dream: Why? The story ends here as al-Ghazali mentioned it, and he did not stop there, but he commented on it and said: "The truth is withThe Shaykh : the one who boycotted his student; because he said to his shaykh in the dream: Why? Al-Ghazali said: Because the boycottingThe Shaykh : of the seeker was based on the premise that if the seeker's heart had been pure with his shaykh, he would not have seen this vision in his dream." Therefore, he deserved the boycott for a full month; because he said to his shaykh in his dream: Why?
What should be the case with such a story, and al-Ghazali's comment on it? Something very serious is built upon it; namely, that it is not permissible for the seeker to say to his shaykh in a state of wakefulness, if he orders him to do something, that it is not permissible for him to say: Why? Rather, he must submit, and this submission is shirk (associating partners with Allah). I do not mean shirk in the servitude to Allah, but rather it is associating someone other than the Prophet in his message; because Allah (Mighty and Majestic) says: , so this submission is specific to the Lord of the worlds, specific to His noble Messenger. As for the shaykhs, however high they may be and however elevated, they are subject to error. So what is the case for the seeker if he says to the shaykh: Why? ... And a fortiori, what is the case if he says to him: Why...? This is from the directives of the Sufis to the seekers that... their directives. And we know that in most Islamic countries, the Arab ones—let alone the non-Arab ones—the Sufi orders are numerous and varied, and they all converge on this crooked line; which is training the followers and seekers to submit to the orders of the shaykhs, no matter how much they contradict the Shari'ah.
We read in the books that are called books of Sufism and softening of hearts, and we have heard from some of the Sufis there in Syria news that all align with this directive that came in this book of al-Ghazali.