He was asked about al-Ghazali’s book (Fiqh) and what it contains of contradiction of the Shari'ah and his denial of the possession of jinn.

The questioner : The Shaykh : Muhammad al-Ghazali (may Allah forgive him) put forward opinions in his book *The Prophetic Sunnah Between the People of Fiqh and the People of Hadith* regarding singing and demonic possession. I wish we could know your opinion, my teacher, on this matter?

The Shaykh : My brother, this opinion of al-Ghazali of that era is like many of al-Ghazali’s opinions from that past era: it stems from a specific philosophy that comes from one who was not saturated with the Muhammadan Sunnah. This is evident in al-Ghazali of that era, for he denies established legal realities that have no refutation except by the judgment of the small intellect, which cannot possibly accommodate this revelation that Allah sent down upon the heart of Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him). Our Lord (Mighty and Majestic) did not say this in vain, but in truth He said: The revelation is heavy. When the revelation descended upon Muhammad (peace be upon him) while he was on his she-camel, and the she-camel was one of the most enduring of animals, it would lower its head and submit, unable to bear it. Therefore, the human intellect can never bear all of this revelation except through the way mentioned by the Lord of the Worlds: The more a Muslim is well-versed in both the Book and the Sunnah, the more... I know from this al-Ghazali that he was constantly reciting the Qur’an, for I met him repeatedly and often in Madinah when we were in the council they call the Higher Council at the Islamic University. And when I was exiled from here and went to Qatar, my room in the hotel I stayed in there was opposite his room in the same hotel. So I truly felt that he was a man who was constantly reciting the Qur’an, as if he had it memorized. But when I saw him in this light and saw him from another perspective, that scientific perspective in his works and writings, I say with the tongue of the situation, and now I say with the tongue of speech: This man did not produce these anomalies. Rather, I do not reconcile with him, even if there was companionship between us as I mentioned earlier. I say, instead of what are these anomalies? These are misguidances. They did not come to him except because he was a forger and he was distant from the Sunnah, and he judged by his intellect. He judged his intellect against the Sunnah: whatever pleased him, he took and held in his heart, and whatever did not please him, he mocked. I do not say he cast it aside; he mocked it, and he also mocked its carriers. The two examples you asked about are two examples from among many, some of which are scattered in the book you named earlier, and many of them are also scattered in his other books, and some of them overflow from him whenever the occasion arises. You raised two questions, one concerning singing and the other concerning jinn possession. Here the effect of being distant from the Sunnah appears in those who claim to belong to the Sunnah. These people ignorant of the Sunnah may be scholars, but scholars in a certain aspect, whether that aspect is religious or scientific. The important thing is that they are ignorant of the knowledge of the Sunnah and how the scholars receive the Sunnah or the hadith from the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), and between them and the Prophet of Islam are fifteen centuries. Their original principle, as it came in the fabricated hadith in which some of the previous imams said it was fabricated by the Zana-diqah (atheists): "When a hadith comes to you from me, judge it by the Book of Allah. Whatever agrees with the Book of Allah, take it, and whatever does not agree with it, leave it." This is a fabricated hadith fabricated by the Zana-diqah. Why? Because this hadith implies that Islam is nothing but the Qur’an, and everything else is judged by the Qur’an. Among the amusing and witty anecdotes we read in some of the books of the Sunnah, one of the imams said: "We acted upon your fabricated hadith and judged your hadith by the Qur’an, and we found it contradictory and not in agreement. For the Qur’an says: So the hadith itself carries within its folds the signs of what? Falsity and error. But these heedless people are influenced by this hadith, even if they do not dare to say that the Messenger said it, they are saturated with its meaning. So the first thing they do when a hadith comes to them is not to apply the scientific rule that transmission comes before intellect. They are exactly the opposite. They judge this hadith by their intellects. And what is the proportion of their understanding? What is the proportion of their influence by the desires surrounding them? What, what, what, and so on? And there is no doubt, and no question, that there is no sane person in the world who understands what comes out of his mouth. He says that the intellect in the world is one thing. This does not exist, while every person has an intellect that differs from the intellect of another. So this one sees something as acceptable, and this one sees something as not acceptable, and this one and that one have different sayings and opinions, as reality fully testifies. So these people made their rule the intellect, not the transmission. And this man in particular glorifies the intellect, and part of his glorification of it is that he prioritizes what? It over transmission. He cannot say that the intellect is prioritized over transmission, because he would then say the intellect is prioritized over the Qur’an as well. He cannot say such an explicit phrase. But his reality testifies that he prioritizes the intellect over transmission, even over the Qur’an. But the matter differs between prioritizing the intellect over the Sunnah and prioritizing the intellect over the Qur’an. As for prioritizing it over the Qur’an, he goes around in circles. Regarding the Qur’an, he cannot say this is established by ahad reports and does not yield certain knowledge, so we set it aside. But he sets its meaning aside. He sets its meaning aside through going around in circles. And I give many examples on such an occasion. The Islamic sects that cannot be counted today, and the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) counted them by revelation from the sky as seventy-two sects and judged them to be in the Fire. But the sect that is the seventy-third, he said: Seventy-two sects. Where did their disagreement come from? It is from the chapter of judging by the intellect over transmission. The Mu’tazilah, the Khawarij, the Murji’ah, and I do not know, other categories whose names may have perished but their designations remain. They all believe that the Qur’an is the speech of Allah, for if we imagined a sect saying the Qur’an is not the speech of Allah, they would not have entered Islam. But these are Islamic sects, so why this disagreement? Because when the verse comes to them, they looked at it with their intellects. So whatever agreed with their intellects they accepted, and otherwise they rejected it. This is the cause of the disagreement of all these sects. As for the principle of instead of it being for the divine speech, it is for the human intellect. This is submission. What the intellect did not believe in, it must be submitted to, otherwise not. But the Sunnah, or what is easiest for them, is to say this is an ahad hadith and does not yield certainty. The scholars of the Muslims, even today, distinguish by consensus that it is not required in its evidence that it be certain. They agree on this, that the evidence related to a legal ruling is sufficient if it is probable, and what is meant by probable? The stronger probability. But some of them, especially from the later scholars, said this evidence does not stand to establish creed. Creed must have evidence that is certain in its establishment and certain in its meaning. We now leave them aside; their saying is related to creed. But we say that a category of people has now emerged, among them the man mentioned earlier, and among them his companion and his fellow countryman al-Qaradawi. They now push aside legal rulings on the pretext that there is no certain evidence for them. There is no certain evidence for them, and this is the destruction of Islam, for it is known that most legal rulings are either based on Prophetic hadiths or on analogical reasoning. Most Prophetic hadiths are not mutawatir; the least of them are ahad. Ahad hadiths yield probability for them. So if it is said regarding a ruling, and we are now discussing singing, that there is no Yusuf al-Qaradawi, of course in agreement with this al-Ghazali, says there is no definitive text forbidding musical instruments and musical devices. And so a fatwa was issued by Yusuf al-Qaradawi to one of the British singers whose profession is singing. Then Allah guided him, I hope he truly guided to Islam with sincere and pure guidance. He was guided to Islam, but he heard here and there that singing is forbidden, so he sent him a message reassuring him that there is no obstacle to remaining in this profession, because there is no definitive evidence forbidding what? Musical instruments and musical devices. They introduced the word "definitive" and made it a condition in the evidence that it be definitive, contrary to all the scholars of the Muslims, so that it would be possible for them to demolish this and demolish that. And this on the pretext of what? There is no definitive evidence. And then it helps him that the least suspicion raised by some of them, whether out of ignorance or knowledge, is that this hadith has a flaw. Ha, we are relieved of it, for they are nothing.