What is your opinion of the creed of the famous da'iyah Muhammad al-Ghazali?

The questioner : What is your view of the famous da'iyah Muhammad al-Ghazali from the perspective of creed and methodology? Do you have any refutations of him, or do you intend to write them?

The Shaykh : This is something we strive to answer with the utmost care, because we have been telling him that the issue requires a dedicated session. I knew al-Ghazali before the revolutionaries rose up against him, and he had been deviating from the Sunnah ever since he wrote the introduction to the fourth edition of his book *Fiqh al-Sirah*. There, he mentioned his methodology of relying on the hadiths of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), whether they related to the biography or to other matters. He follows the methodology of his predecessors, the Mu'tazilah, and he gives no weight whatsoever to the efforts of the hadith scholars. With a single stroke of his pen, he dismisses a hadith that is agreed upon as authentic and sound, and from his own throat he authenticates a hadith that is not authentic according to the hadith scholars. For this reason, I am pleased with what is narrated from 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) when he said: "If the people of desires argue with you using the Qur'an, argue with them using the Sunnah, for the Sunnah either refutes the Qur'an or clarifies it." In truth, I have observed over many long years and numerous centuries that Muslim scholars, for the most part, did not focus on studying hadith because of the difficulty of the matter and the ruggedness of its path compared to other sciences. They found this science difficult and turned away from it to analogies and opinions. This was one of the strong causes of the division of the Ummah and the departure of many of them, even in some legal issues, from the Muhammadan Sunnah. This is evident today in the writings of contemporary authors, who never concern themselves with studying the Sunnah, because studying it would take them a long and long time and effort, leaving them no room to become famous in the Muslim society as they desire through the kind of loud, resonant articles they write. For the science of hadith requires a person to withdraw into himself, bending over the study of the books of his predecessors day and night, and after a long time and much effort, he can pick the fruits of his toil and sleepless nights. So this man is on the path of the Mu'tazilah; he authenticates whatever he wishes, even if it is not authentic, and he weakens whatever he wishes, even if it is authentic, or even if it is mass-transmitted, because he has no knowledge of the Sunnah. He is not unique in this among the other authors, but he distinguished himself from them by a boldness that some might call literary boldness, which is not a path of good conduct at all. He writes without shame, without fear, and without anxiety. Then he is not ashamed to say, for example, that he has retracted from socialism. He used to glorify it in the past, but then its delusion and misguidance became clear to him, so he says he has retracted from it in this era or this time, and he may return to it, Allah knows best, because he has no guidelines and no legal rules to confine him to a path and keep him on the right way. For example, in the introduction, when he weakened the agreed-upon hadith of Ibn 'Umar that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) raided Banu al-Mustaliq, he denied this, saying that the legal evidence indicates that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) does not fight a people unless he has conveyed to them the correct call. But what he built upon is incorrect, because the hadith he denied does not deny that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) raided them before he had conveyed the call to them or invited them to it. Likewise, and conversely, he authenticated the hadith Do you remember the hadith?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : And he says, even though it was weakenedThe Shaykh : by al-Albani, but I see that it is authentic. Well, is every correct meaning you see necessarily something the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) spoke? In that case, all wisdoms, even poetic wisdoms, should be attributed to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). And Allah describes him by saying: The point is that he went to extremes in this book, which caused confusion and turmoil regarding him. He went to extremes in giving examples that reveal the veil over the truth of his matter... He gives no weight on one hand, and then he gives no weight to the sayings of scholars if they contradict his desire. And conversely, if he finds a desire in one of the imams, he clings to it and takes it as his religion, even if it is by the path of weakening an authentic hadith that the hadith scholars agreed to authenticate, such as the hadith of musical instruments, for example. And so we say regarding this man. As for a detailed refutation of the book, perhaps some of our brothers among you and in other countries have done some of that. This is what comes to my mind now regarding al-Ghazali. Others.