Ibn al-Subki cited the following opinions from al-Ghazzali’s contemporaries:
Imam al-Haramayn: "Al-Ghazzali is a quenching sea."
Al-Ghazzali’s student Imam Muhammad ibn Yahya ibn Mansur al-Naysaburi al-Shahid: "He is the second al-Shafi‘i."
As‘ad al-Mîhani: "None attains the knowledge of al-Ghazzali’s science nor his merit except one who has attained or almost attained perfection in his intelligence." Ibn al-Subki comments:
I like this verdict, for he who wishes to look into the level of one who is above him in knowledge, needs intelligence and understanding…. I heard the Shaykh and Imam [Shaykh al-Islam Taqi al-Din al-Subki] say:
"None knows the rank of a person in knowl-edge except he who is his peer and has known him per-sonally, and he only knows him to the extent of what he himself was granted to know."
He also used to say to us: "None of his companions knew al-Shafi‘i like al-Muzani knew him, and al-Muzani knew al-Shafi‘i only to the extent of al-Muzani’s strength. Nor can anyone estimate the Prophet -- Allah bless and greet him -- as he deserves except Allah -- may He be exalted --, and each knows him -- Allah bless and greet him -- only to the extent of what he himself possesses. Thus the most knowledgeable in the Community about the Prophet’s -- Allah bless and greet him -- rank is Abu Bakr -- Allah be well-pleased with him -- because he was the best of the Umma, and Abu Bakr knows the Prophet -- Allah bless and greet him -- only according to Abu Bakr’s strength."
As the foremost examplar of the Sufi Ash‘ari scholar of knowledge al-Ghazzali, like his teacher Abu al-Ma‘ali al-Juwayni and Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, has attracted the faultfinding skills of latter-day critics of tasawwuf and Sunni doctrine as defined by Ash‘aris. Ibn Taymiyya peppered his discussions of al-Ghazzali with Ibn al-‘Arabi’s verdict – "Our master swallowed the seas of the philosophers in order to defeat them, but when he tried to throw them up he was unable" – and slighted al-Ghazzali’s Ihya’ as "containing both good and bad, but the good outweighs the bad.
" Burhan al-Din al-Biqa‘i (d. 885) attacked al-Ghazzali for saying "There is no possibility of anything more perfect than what exists." Al-Suyuti refuted al-Biqa‘i’s insinuations in his epistle Tashdid al-Arkan fi Laysa fi al-Imkan Abda‘u Mimma Kan ("The Buttressing of the Pillars Concerning al-Ghazzali’s Saying ‘There is no possibility of anything more perfect than what exists’") and, after him, al-Haytami who states:
Al-Biqa‘i’s fanaticism led him to criticize the saying of al-Ghazzali the Proof of Islam, "There is no possibility of anything more perfect than what exists." He went vituperating him until people became disgusted. Then, one day, he went to visit one of the scholars of knowledge who was sitting somewhere alone. The latter took his slipper and began to hit al-Biqa‘i with it until he almost destroyed it, all the while scolding him and saying: "Are you the one who criticizes al-Ghazzali?! You are the one who says such-and-such about him?!" until some people came and delivered him, although no-one disapproved of the incident. Following this, the people of his time rallied against al-Biqa‘i and published many refutations against him in defense of al-Ghazzali.
The gist of their replies concerning al-Ghazzali’s statement is that when Allah’s will linked itself to the origination of this world and He originated it, ordaining the abiding of part of it to a set limit and that of its remainder indefinitely – meaning Paradise and Hellfire – this precluded the linkage (ta‘alluq) of divine power to the eradication (i‘dâm) of the entirety of this world. For divine power is not linked except to the possible, while the eradication of the entirety of this world is not possible – not ontologically (li dhâtih) but because of the aforementioned linkage. Since its eradication is excluded according to what we said, it follows that its origination in the first place was the apex of wisdom and completion, and the most perfect of all that can possibly be created, for, as concluded above, there is none other in existence.
Al-Ghazzali’s Ihya’ ‘Ulum al-Din ranks as one of the most widely read books in Islam, having earned the praise of the scholars and the general acceptance of the Community. Among those who praised it:
- Ibn al-Subki: "It ranks among the books which Muslims must look after and spread far and wide so that many people may be guided by reading them. Seldom has someone looked into this book except he woke up on the spot thanks to it. May Allah grant us insight that shows us the way to truth, and protect us from what stands between us and the truth as a veil."
- Al-Safadi: "It is among the noblest and greatest of books, to the extent that it was said, concerning it, that if all books of Islam were lost except the Ihya’, it would suffice for what was lost."
- Fakhr al-Din al-Razi: "It was as if Allah gathered all sciences under a dome, and showed them to al-Ghazzali."
The Ihya’ was also strongly criticized for a variety of reasons, among them the number of weak or forged narrations cited in it, a list of which is provided by Ibn al-Subki, who stressed that al-Ghazzali never excelled in the field of hadith. Abu ‘Abd Allah al-Maziri al-Maliki said in al-Kashf wa al-Inba’ ‘an Kitab al-Ihya’ that most of the narrations cited in it were flimsy (wâhin) with regard to authenicity, while the Maliki censor Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn al-Walid al-Turtushi (d. 420) exclaimed in his epistle to Ibn Zafir – Abu ‘Abd Allah Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn ‘Atiyya: "He has crammed his book full with forgeries."
Ibn al-Subki replied:
"Al-Maziri was a passionate champion of al-Ash‘ari’s positions – both the authoritative, the modest, the great, and the small – declaring an innovator anyone who went beyond them in the least. In addition to this he was a Maliki with a strong bias for his school, which he de-fended strenuously. On the other hand, al-Juwayni and al-Ghazzali reached a level of expertise and knowledge which every impartial ob-server can acknowledge as unmatched by anyone after them, and where they may have seen fit to contradict Abu al-Hasan [al-Ash‘ari] in questions of kalâm. Ash‘aris, particularly the Moroccans, do not take kindly to this nor allow anyone to contravene Abu al-Hasan in the least.
Further complicating matters is al-Juwayni and al-Ghazzali’s weakening of Imam Malik’s position on certain points, such as rulings inferred from public welfare or the favoring of a certain school over another. …
As for al-Maziri’s saying: "al-Ghazzali was not a foremost expert (mutabahhir) in the science of kalâm," I agree with him on this, but I add: He certainly had a firm foothold in it, even if, in my opinion, it did not match his foothold in other sciences.
As for al-Maziri’s saying: "He engaged in philosophy before he became an expert in the science of principles," this is not the case. He did not look into phi-losophy except after he had become an expert in the science of usûl, and he indicated this in his book al-Munqidh min al-Dalal, adding that he involved himself in the science of kalâm before turning to philosophy. …
As for Ibn Sina, al-Ghazzali declares him a disbeliever – how then could he possibly rely on him? …
As for his blame of the Ihya’ for al-Ghazzali’s indulgence in some narrations: it is known that the latter did not have skill in the hadith, and that most of the narrations and stories of the Ihya ’ are taken from his predecessors among the Sufis and jurists. The man himself did not provide a single isnad, but one of our companions [Zayn al-Din al-‘Iraqi] took care to document the narrations of the Ihya’, and only a small amount were declared aberrant or anomalous (shâdhdh). I shall cite them for the sake of benefit ...
Nor is al-Ghazzali’s phrasing "the Prophet -- Allah bless and greet him -- said" meant as a definitive attribution to him but only as an attribution that appears definite. For if he were not assuming it true, he would not say it. The matter was not as he thought, and that is all.
As for al-Turtushi’s statement concerning the forgeries found in the Ihya’, then – I ask you – is al-Ghazzali the one who forged them so that he may be bla-med for them? To blame him for them is certainly nothing more than inane fanaticism. It is an attack which no serious examiner can accept. "
End of Ibn al-Subki's words from Tabaqat al-Shafi`iyya al-Kubra.
Ibn al-Jawzi – a detractor of Sufis – similarly dismisses the Ihya’ in four of his works: I‘lam al-Ahya’ bi Aghlat al-Ihya’ ("Informing the Living of the Mistakes of the Ihya’), Talbis Iblis, Kitab al-Qussas, and his history al-Muntazam fi Tarikh al-Muluk wal-Umam. His views influenced Ibn Taymiyya and others. The basis of their position was also that al-Ghazzali used too many weak or baseless hadiths.
Other moderate hadith masters documented almost every single hadith in the Ihya’ without questioning its usefulness as a whole, accepting its immense standing among Muslims and contributing to its embellishment and spread as a manual for spiritual progress. Among these scholars:
- Zayn al-Din al-‘Iraqi (d. 806): al-Mughni ‘an Haml al-Asfar;
- His student Ibn Hajar: al-Istidrak ‘ala Takhrij Ahadith al-Ihya;
- al-Qasim ibn Qatlubagha al-Hanafi: Tuhfa al-Ahya’ fi ma Fata Min Takhrij Ahadith al-Ihya’;
- Sayyid Murtada al-Zabidi al-Husayni (d. 1205): Ithaf al-Sada al-Muttaqin fi Sharh Asrar Ihya’ ‘Ulum al-Din in ten massive volumes, each scholar completing the previous scholar’s documentation.
More importantly, the majority of hadith masters hold it permissible to use weak hadiths in other than the derivation of legal rulings, such as in the encouragement to good and discouragement from evil (al-targhîb wa al-tarhîb), as countless hadith masters have indicated as well as other scholars, such as Imam al-Safadi. It must be under-stood that al-Ghazzali incorporated all the material which he judged of use to his didactic purposes on the bases of content rather than origin or chain of transmis-sion; that most of the Ihya’ consists in quotations from Qur’an, hadith, and the sayings of other than Ghazali, his own prose accounting for less than 35 of the work; and that three quarters of the huge number of hadiths cited are authentic in origin.
The Hanafi hadith master Murtada al-Zabidi began his great commentary on the Ihya’ with an explanation that al-Ghazzali’s method of hadith citation by conveying the general meaning without ascertaining the exact wording, had a basis in the practice of the Companions and Salaf:
"The verification of the wording of narrations was not an obligation for al-Ghazzali – may Allah have mercy on him! He would convey the general meaning, conscious of the different significations of the words and their mutual conflict with one another avoiding what would consti-tute interpolation or arbitrary rendering of one term with an-other.
"A number of the Companions have permitted the conveyance of Pro-phetic hadiths in their meanings rather than their wordings. Among them: ‘Ali, Ibn ‘Abbas, Anas ibn Malik, Abu al-Darda’, Wathila ibn al-Asqa‘, and Abu Hurayra – may Allah be well-pleased with them! Also, a greater number of the Successors, among them: the Imam of imams al-Hasan al-Basri, al-Sha‘bi, ‘Amr ibn Dinar, Ibrahim al-Nakha‘i, Mujahid, and ‘Ikrima…. Ibn Sirin said: "I would hear a hadith from ten different people, the meaning reamining one but the wordings differing."
Similarly, the Companions’ wordings in their narrations from the Prophet -- Allah bless and greet him -- have differed one from another. Some of them, for example, will narrate a complete version; others will narrate the gist of the meaning; others will narrate an abridged version; others yet replace certain words with their synonyms, deeming that they have consider-able leeway as long as they do not contradict the original meaning. None of them intends a lie, and all of them aim for truthfulness and the report of what he has heard: that is why they had leeway. They used to say: "Mendacity is only when one deliberately intends to lie."
"‘Imran ibn Muslim [al-Qasir] narrated that a man said to al-Hasan [al-Basri]: "O Abu Sa‘id! When you narrate a hadith you put it in better and more eloquent terms than when one of us narrates it." He replied: "There is no harm in that as long as you have fully expressed its meaning." Al-Nadr ibn Shumayl (d. 208) said: "Hushaym (d. 183) used to make a lot of mistakes in Arabic, so I adorned his narrations for you with a fine garment" – meaning, he arabized it, since al-Nadr was a philologist (nahwî). Sufyan [al-Thawri] used to say: "When you see a man show strictness in the wordings of hadith, know that he is advertising himself." He narrated that a certain man began to question Yahya ibn Sa‘id al-Qattan (d. 198) about a specific wording inside a hadith. Yahya said to him: "O So-and-so! There is not in the whole world anything more sublime than Allah’s Book, yet He has permitted that its words be recited in seven different dialects. So do not be so strict!"
"In the hadith master al-Suyuti’s commentary on [al-Nawawi’s] al-Taqrib, in the fourth part of the twenty-sixth heading, the gist of what he said is as follows:
"If a narrator is not an expert in the wordings and in what shifts their meanings to something else, there is no permission for him to narrate what he has heard in terms of meaning only. There is no disagreement concerning this. He must relate the exact wording he has heard. If he is an expert in the matter, [opinions have differed:] a large group of the experts of hadith, fiqh, and usûl said that it is not permitted for him to narrate in other than the exact same words. This is the position of Ibn Sirin, Tha‘lab, and Abu Bakr al-Razi the Hanafi scholar. It is also narrated as Ibn ‘Umar’s position. But the vast majority of the Salaf and Khalaf from the various groups, among them the Four Imams, permit narration in terms of meaning in all the above cases provided one adduces the meaning. This dispensation is witnessed to by the practice of the Companions and Salaf, and shown by their narrating a single report in different wordings.
"There is a hadith of the Prophet -- Allah bless and greet him -- relevant to the issue narrated by Ibn Mandah in Ma‘rifa al-Sahaba and al-Tabarani in al-Kabir from ‘Abd Allah ibn Sulayman ibn Aktham al-Laythi [= ‘Abd Allah ibn Sulaym ibn Ukayma] who said: "I said: ‘O Messenger of Allah! Verily, when I hear a hadith from you I am unable to narrate it again just as I heard it from you.’" That is, he adds or omits something. The Prophet -- Allah bless and greet him -- replied: "As long as you do not make licit the illicit or make illicit the licit, and as long as you adduce the meaning, there is no harm in that." When this was mentioned to al-Hasan he said: "Were it not for this, we would never narrate anything."
"Al-Shafi‘i adduced as his proof [for the same position] the hadith "The Qur’an was revealed in seven dialects."
"Al-Bayhaqi narrated from Makhul that he and Abu al-Azhar went to see Wathila [or Wa’ila] ibn al-Asqa‘ and said to him: "Narrate to us a hadith of the Prophet -- Allah bless and greet him -- in which there is no omission, no addition, and nothing forgotten." He replied: "Has any of you recited anything from the Qur’an?" (*) They said: "Yes, but we have not memorized it very well. We sometimes add ‘and’ or the letter alif, or omit something." He said: "If you cannot memorize the Qur’an which is written down before you, adding and omitting some-thing from it, then how about narrations which we heard from the Prophet -- Allah bless and greet him --, some of them only once? Suffice yourself, when-ever we narrate them to you, with the general meaning!" He narrated something similar from Jabir ibn ‘Abd Allah in al-Madkhal: "Hudhayfa said to us: ‘We are Beduin Arabs, we may cite a saying without its proper order.’" He also narrated from Shu‘ayb ibn al-Hajjab: "I visited al-Hasan together with ‘Abdan. We said to him: ‘O Abu Sa‘id! Someone may narrate a hadith in which he adds or from which he omits something.’ He replied: ‘Lying is only when someone deliberately intends this.’" … [He also narrated something similar from Ibrahim al-Nakha‘i, al-Sha‘bi, al-Zuhri, Sufyan, ‘Amr ibn Dinar, and Waki‘.] "
End of al-Suyuti’ s words from Tadrib al-Rawi as quoted by al-Zabidi, and end of al-Zabidi’s excerpt from Ithaf al-Sada al-Muttaqin.
(*) In al-Hakim al-Tirmidhi’s version in Nawadir al-Usul (p. 389) Makhul asks: "Has any of you stood in prayer at length at night?"
The Imams of hadith are unanimous in accepting the narration in meaning only on condition that the narrator has mastered the Arabic language and his narration does not constitute an aberration or anomaly (shudhûdh), among other conditions. Al-Zabidi’s documentation of the majority position that it is permissible to narrate the hadiths of the Prophet -- Allah bless and greet him -- in their meanings rather than their wordings is also the position of Ibn al-Salah in his Muqaddima, but the latter avers that the dispensation no longer applies at a time when the hadiths are available to all in published books. Shaykh Nur al-Din ‘Itr adopts this latter position: "The last word on this subject is to prohibit hadith narration in the sense of meaning only, because the narrations have all been compiled in the manuals of hadith, eliminating the need for such a dispensation."
A generation after al-Ghazzali’s death, the Ihya’ was burnt in Andalus upon the recommendation of the qadi Ibn Hamdayn who was named Commander of the Believers in Qurtuba in 539 then fled to Malaga where he died in 548. Shortly thereafter, the Moroccans rehabilitated the book as stated by Shaykh al-Islam Taqi al-Din al-Subki – in a long poem that begins with the words "Abu Hamid! You are truly the one that deserves praise." Ibn al-Subki narrated with his chain from Abu al-Hasan al-Shadhili that Ibn Hirzahm, one of the Moroccan shaykhs who had intended the burning of the book, saw the Prophet -- Allah bless and greet him -- in his dream commending the book before al-Ghazzali and ordering that Ibn Hirzahm be lashed for slander. After five lashes he was pardoned and woke up in pain, bearing the traces of the lashing. After this he took to praising the book from cover to cover.
Another rallying-cry of the critics of the Ihya’ is that it contains no exhortation towards jihad and that its author remained in seclusion between the years 488-499, at a time when the Crusaders ravaged the Antioch and al-Qudus, killing Muslims by the tens of thousands. Shaykh Yusuf al-Qaradawi replied to these insinuations with the following words:
The great Imam’s excuse may be that his most pressing engagement was the reform of his own self first, and that it is one’s personal corruption which paves the way for external invasions, as indicated by the beginning of Sura al-Isra’. The Israelites, whenever they became corrupt and spread corruption in the earth, were subjected to the domination of their enemies. But whenever they did good and reformed themselves and others, they again held sway over their enemies. He directed his greatest concern toward the reform of the individual, who constitutes the core of the society. The reform of the individual can be effected only through the reform of his heart and thought. Only through such reform can his works and behavior be improved, and his entire life.
This is the basis of societal change to which the Qur’ an directs us by saying
"Lo! Allah changes not the condition of a folk until they (first) change that which is in their hearts" (13:11).
Shaykh al-Islam Taqi al-Din al-Subki said about the detractors of the Ihya’:
I consider them similar to a group of pious and devoted men who saw a great knight issue from the ranks of the Muslims and enter the fray of their enemies, striking and battling until he subdued them and unnerved them, breaking their ranks and routing them. Then he emer-ged covered with their blood, went to wash himself, and entered the place of prayer with the Muslims. But that group thought that he still had some of their blood on his person, and they criticized him for it.
Among the most famous commentaries of the Ihya’:
- The hadith master Murtada al-Zabidi’s ten-volume Ithaf al-Sada al-Muttaqin Sharh Ihya’ ‘Ulum al-Din ("The Lavish Gift of the Godwary Masters: Commentary on al-Ghazzali’s ‘Giving Life to the Religious Sciences’") which contains the most comprehensive documentation of the hadith narrations cited by al-Ghazzali.
- ‘Abd al-Qadir ibn ‘Abd Allah al-‘Aydarus Ba ‘Alawi’s Ta‘rif al-Ahya bi Fada’il al-Ihya ("The Appraisal of the Living of the Immense Merits of the Ihya").
- Mulla ‘Ali al-Qari’s Sharh ‘Ayn al-‘Ilm wa Zayn al-Hilm ("The Spring of Knowledge and the Adornment of Understanding") on the abridged version. Al-Qari begins it by stating:
"I wrote this commentary on the abridgment of Ihya’ ‘Ulum al-Din by the Proof of Islam and the Confirmation of Creatures hoping to receive some of the outpouring of blessings from the words of the most pure knowers of Allah, and to benefit from the gifts that exude from the pages of the Shaykhs and the Saints, so that I may be mentioned in their number and raised in their throng, even if I fell short in their fol-lowing and their service, for I rely on my love for them and content myself with my longing for them."
End of biographical notice on Hujjatul Islam al-Ghazzali by Hj. Gibril --
Allah forgive him! -- written out of duty and love, not arrogance. Main source: Ibn al-Subki, Tabaqat al-Shafi`iyya al-Kubra ( 6:191-389 #694).
O Allah! bring us out of the darkness of illusion into the light of knowledge, adorn our manners with gentleness, and grant us deeds that are accepted in Your Presence. Glory to You! Truly we know nothing except what You teach us.
O Allah! benefit us with the Proof of Your Religion, Imam al-Ghazzali, and thank him on behalf of Muhammad's Community -- upon him Your blessings and peace.
Allah's blessings and peace upon the best of prophets and messengers, our master Muhammad, and upon his Family and all his Companions. Praise belongs to Allah, the Lord of the worlds.
copyright as-Sunna Foundation of America
No comments:
Post a Comment