In Defence of the Sunnī Creed and Manhaj

al-­‐Ghazālī’s  Return  to  the  Madhhab  of  the  Salaf;  

Looking  at  his  Ashʿarism  and  his  Iljām  al-­‐ʿAwām  
ʿAn  ʿIlm  al-­‐Kalām  
 
 
 
 

Compiled, Translated and Annotated

Abū Khuzaimah Anṣārī

 

DISCLAIMER: This paper is the first draft; it’s being released early
to time for another project. InshaAllah I’ll be adding to it later.
salafi Research Institute 2020  

é  
Salafi Research Institute

!
© Copyright 2020 Salafi Research Institute

al-Ghazālī’s Return to the Madhhab of

the Salaf; Looking at his Ashʿarism and his
Iljām al-ʿAwām ʿAn ʿIlm al-Kalām
Compiled, Translated & Annotated
Abū Khuzaimah Anṣārī

1st Edn. © [SRI] Salafi Research Institute

Dhul Qa’dah 1441H / July 2020

All rights reserved No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced

or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means,
No known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording,
without prior Permission from the publishers or authors.

Salafiri.com 2
Al-Ghazālī’s Return to the Madhhab of the Salaf

I n d e f e n c e o f t h e s u n n ī c r e e d a n d m a n h a j  

al-Ghazālī’s Return to the Madhhab of

the Salaf; Looking at his Ashʿarism and
his Iljām al-ʿAwām ʿAn ʿIlm al-Kalām

Compiled, Translated and Annotated

Abū Khuzaimah Anṣārī

Salafi Research Institute

LONDON - BIRMINGHAM - LAHORE

Salafiri.com 3
salafi Research Institute 2020  

"
Contents

Introduction 5

Perspectives on al-Ghazālī 8

The Stages in al-Ghazālī’s Life 11

Al-Ghazālī’s Views on Kalām 20

Al-Ghazālī’s Ashʿarism 24

Al-Ghazālī’s Iljām al-ʿAwām ʿAn ʿIlm al-Kalām 28

Manuscripts of the Iljām 30

Contents of the Iljām 31

Reception of al-Ghazālī’s View and the Iljām 33

Salafiri.com 4
Al-Ghazālī’s Return to the Madhhab of the Salaf

ʿAudhu Billāhi min ash-Shayṭān al-Rajīm

Bismillāh al-Raḥmān al-Raḥīm

Alḥamdullilāhi Rabbil ʿAlamīn, Waṣalatu Wassalām ʿAla Rasūlillahil

Karīm, Wa ʿAla Alihī Wa Aṣḥābī Wa Man Tabiāhum Bi-Eḥsan Ilaʾ
Yaum al-Dīn; Wa Baʿd

All Praise belongs and is directed to the Rabb of everything

that exists, Praise and Salutations be upon His
Final beloved Messenger, his revered family
and his noble Companions and upon
those who follow them in good
until the end of times,
To proceed,

Introduction
From what we know of al-Ghazālī is that he retracted from his
ardent Ashʾarī approach and returned back to the way of Ahl
al-Sunnah or as he described, Madhhab al-Salaf. We find that he
eventually denounced the Kalām approach or the way of the
Kalāmiyyah. This has been well documented and accepted by
many authorities, while some are still denying this established
fact. What we learn from this historical fact and what is of
primary focus is the rejection of the kalām system; which was
adopted by many in order to understand the divine attributes
or the Asmāʾ wa’l-Ṣifāt of Allāh. However, it must be said that
actually never totally left Ashʿarism and began taking early

Salafiri.com 5
salafi Research Institute 2020  

steps1, how much he left and how much of the creed of the Salaf
he adopted is open for much discussion and debate.
Al-Ghazālī censured the kalām approach and therefore
believed it was no longer an acceptable or viable approach for
the the common Muslims. This eventually led al-Ghazālī to
author is well known, Iljām al-ʿAwām ʿAn ʿIlm al-Kalām.

 
1
Did al-Ghazali Come Back to the Manhaj of the Salaf? / Shaykh Al-
Albaani. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QxsSovc9JY.
Accessed, 10th April, 2020.

Salafiri.com 6
Al-Ghazālī’s Return to the Madhhab of the Salaf

Al-Ghazālī wrote this treatise to aid the Muslims masses

shortly before he died, and I will discuss the details and
importance of this treatise later. It is similarly imperative to
understand the various stages in al-Ghazālī’s life and the
treatises he wrote and to correlate them with his theological
views, which will essentially offer insight to his beliefs as well
as his Ashʿarism and kalām approach. Unfortunately, these
substantial changes or stages in al-Ghazālī’s life failed to create
an acceptable understanding in some Islamic and modern
academics, who continue to promote al-Ghazālī as an all out
ardent Ashʿarī, who traversed this theological discourse
uniformly throughout his life.
This is an incorrect notion as the proceeding pages will
evidence, it is however, acceptable to believe that he retained
many aspects of Ashʿarism which was inevitable because to his
lifelong attachment to this theological school. Al-Ghazālī also
denounced and repudiated key premises of Ashʿarism, which
were considered central ideas of Ashʿarism and I mention some
of them further as we proceed through this paper, In-Shāʾ-
Allāh. So, in order to evidence his denunciation and retraction
from orthodox Ashʿarite beliefs and the Kalāmiyyah approach
or theological rhetoric, we move onto the various stages in al-
Ghazālī’s life.
We find from those who knew him on a personal level,
there were other concerns with his personality and approach
which perhaps led to some of these changes, self realisation,

Salafiri.com 7
salafi Research Institute 2020  

criticism from his contemporaries and personal experiences,

all seem to have played a relevant part. It would therefore, be
important to present a brief synopsis of this to get a broader
picture of his mindset.

Perspectives on al-Ghazālī
Al-Ghazālī was someone who had a level of acumen and
intelligence, he was pleased and aware of his knowledge and
capabilities. He had ability to discern between different
ideologies and methods of creed derivation, all of which is
deduced from his summary of the various approaches he
mentions in his Munqiḍh.2 He was unsparing with his comments
 
2
This is al-Ghazālī’s well known work titled, al-Munqidh Min al-
Ḍalāl waʾl Mūwaṣṣil Ilāʾ Dhīʾl ʿIzzah Waʾl Jalāl. I have discussed the
Arabic editions in a later footnote. The publication of this works also
has an interesting history. The text of al-Munqidh was discovered in
1842 by Auguste Schmölders who translated the text and published it
in French for the first time. Its first English translation appeared in
1909 by Claude Field, The Confessions of Al Ghazzali (London: John
Murray, 1909) and then again titled as The Faith and Practice of al-
Ghazālī (London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd, 1953) by M.
Montgomery Watt, the recent reference point for Yasir Qadhi! Richard
Joseph McCarthy also translated it Deliverance from Error (Boston:
1980). Reprinted 1st edition, Deliverance from error: An annotated
translation of al-Munqidh min al Dalāl and other relevant works of
Al-Ghazālī. (Louisville: Fons Vitae, 1999). 2nd edition, 2001. in 2001
again, a husband and wife from al-Azhar University, Dr. Muhammad
Muhammad Abū Laylah and Dr. Nurshif ʿAbd al-Raḥīm Rif’at
published a critical Arabic edition with an English translation of the

Salafiri.com 8
Al-Ghazālī’s Return to the Madhhab of the Salaf

and rebuttal of the other sects, namely the Batinī’s and

philosophers. He was also not shy to express his contempt and
scorn on them and used harsh words. We can draw lessons
from this while showing the Ashʿaris and other bystanders how
al-Ghazālī himself was unforgiving to other deviant creeds and
belief systems, giving the Ashʿari’s and other sympathisers
something to reflect over. A contemporary of al-Ghazālī, ʿAbd
al-Ghāfir al-Fārisī (d.529H) says about him,

I visited him many times and it is without

inference that whatever I saw of him in the past
with regards to malice and harshness towards
people, he looked down on them through his
being led astray and by what Allāh had given him
in terms of thought and expression and through
the seeking of rank and position, had come to be
the opposite and was purified from stains. I used
to think there was a level of pretence with him,
but I realized after investigation, it was the

 
Munqidh titled, Deliverance from Error and Mystical Union with the
Almighty (Washington: The Council for Research in Values and
Philosophy, 2001). The edition bears a certificate from the Director
General of the Department for Research, Writing and Translation at
al-Azhar al-Sharif Islamic Research Academy, Sami Sharʿawī that the
Munqidh contains nothing that contradicts Islamic ʿAqīdah and we
have no objection to its publication. (Introduction to the Arabic (page
F) English section, 329).

Salafiri.com 9
salafi Research Institute 2020  

opposite to what I had thought and that he was a

man who had recovered after being mad.3

This serves as a direct account from a contemporary

evidencing al-Ghazālī changing during his life and his
approach in general to the Shariʿah. He also shows his dislike
for taqlīd and blind following in general, where he encourages
people to seek the truth and develop ones own Madhhab, he
says,

So, stop relying on the Madhhabs and seek the

truth by looking into issues and become a founder
of a Madhhab. Do not follow a guide like a blind
man so that he leads you along while there are
thousands of similar guides around you, calling
out to you that he ruined and misguided you from
the right path.4

 
3
ʿAbd al-Karīm al-ʿUthmān, Sīrah al-Ghazālī wa Aqwāl al-
Mutaqaddimīn Fihi, 44. (Damascus, Dār al-Fikr, 1961), introduced by
Dr. Aḥmad Fuwʾād al-Ahwānī. Taken from al-Subkī’s Ṭabaqāt al-
Shāfiʿiyyah.
4
Al-Ghazālī, Mizān al-ʿAmal, (Cairo: Dar al-Maʿārif, 1964), 409. Al-
Ghazālī also said, ‘As for legal matters, it it is the way of the Qurʾān,
I don’t do taqlīd of any of the Imāms, neither al-Shafiʿī has any claim
upon me nor Abū Ḥanīfah has any right upon me.’ Makātīb al-Fārisī
Ghazālī Bi-Nām Faḍhāʾil al-ʿAnām Min Rasāʾil Ḥujjah al-Islam
(Tehran: Kitābfurūshī Ibn Sinā, 1333) Ed. ʿAbbās Iqbāl, 12.

Salafiri.com 10
Al-Ghazālī’s Return to the Madhhab of the Salaf

These statements and others show al-Ghazālī was an

independent thinker, just like his teacher al-Juwaynī, he was
not shackled and bound by the chains of taqlīd or blind
following or imitation. Al-Ghazālī and al-Juwaynĩ were
independent theologians, which perhaps the main reason why
they left fundamental Ashʿarism and departed from many
aspects, as if they were both unfaithful Ashʿarites. If having a
culmination of anti taqlīd sentiments, being independent,
having a precedence of his teachers, there is no doubt this
approach led al-Ghazālī to depart from Ashʿarism, how much is
the focus of discussion.

The Stages in al-Ghazālī’s Life

Al-Ghazālī while passing through a number of stages during his
life, also authored a number of works that depicted and offered
an insight to his thought. This paper will not exhaust these
various stages of his life, but rather it will highlight some key
changes, which essentially reveal some of his final views.
He was born in 450H in Tus and received his early
education in a madrassah around 465H, he went to study in
Jurjan.5 Around 473H he travelled to Nishapur to study at the
acclaimed Nizāmiyyah school. At the Niẓamiyyah he studied
with one of the leading authorities of the Ashʿarī school, ʿAbd
al-Mālik al-Juwaynī (d.478H) who had some sort of influence

 
5
Introduction to the Ijām. 1st ed. (Beirut: Dār al-Minhaj, 1439 / 2017),
15.

Salafiri.com 11
salafi Research Institute 2020  

over him.6 It is a given without a doubt that he must have

studied ʿAqīdah, theology and subsidiary issues including
kalam, and philosophy at the Niẓāmiyyah school and also
independently with the various teachers at the madrassah.
After the death of al-Juwaynī,7 he went on to serve the
minister Niẓām al-Mulk of the Seljuq empire in Baghdad, as
part of an advisory board. On this board they debated and
discussed an array of issues ranging from ʿAqīdah and fiqh. Al-
Ghazālī remained with Niẓām al-Mulk for approximately six
years. Then in 484H Niẓām al-Mulk appointed him as a
professor at the Baghdad Niẓāmiyyah school which he had
founded. He remained as a professor at the Niẓāmiyyah for
approximately four years until 488H where he served as the
chair of Shafiʿī fiqh.
It was in Baghdad when al-Ghazālī really focused and
exerted extensive time consulting the books of the
philosophers. In fact, he spent half of his time in Baghdad,
approximately two years as he mentions in his
autobiographical discourse, Munqidh Min al-Ḍalāl.8 When he
completed his research he proceeded to write a number of
treatises outlining the aims of the philosophers and refuting
their ideas.
Al-Ghazālī even at this early age showed signs of crisis in
his approach and belief. In some places he outlines his views
 
6
Introduction to the Ijām, 16.
7
Introduction to the Ijām, 16.
8
Munqidh Min al-Ḍalāl, 32.

Salafiri.com 12
Al-Ghazālī’s Return to the Madhhab of the Salaf

which become manifest through his writings. One of the

earliest periods of skepticism he displayed was during the time
he started to delve deeper into the Islamic sciences and leaving
for Baghdad from Nishapur. It was during this period that
began having doubts about his approach to the Islamic
sciences. He became very doubtful, his intellectual thought
failed him and he was unable to reconcile his uncertainties
with reason or any of the other sciences he knew. At the same
time, he became very ill, lost his appetite and was in a state of
sheer confusion.
It will not be surprising to learn, during this period in
Baghdad between 484-488H, while serving as a professor of
Shafiʿī fiqh in the Baghdadi branch of the Niẓāmiyyah and after
researching the ideas and principles of the philosophers and
refuting and answering their claims, al-Ghazālī suffered a
nervous break down.9 While in Baghdad he extensively studied
philosophy and its books and wrote a number of treatise10 in
refuting them. Al-Ghazālī says he studied the books of the
philosophers for two years while he remained in Baghdad.11
It is important to understand al-Ghazālī experienced this
breakdown after reading and writing about the philosophers
which was understood to be ‘a crisis of faith’. How tragic is it
then; to see novice Ashʿarīs claim philosophy is the recourse to
understand ʿAqīdah and the tenets of Imān? This clearly
 
9
Munqidh Min al-Ḍalāl, 38.
10
Introduction to the Ijām, 16.
11
add reference from hourani

Salafiri.com 13
salafi Research Institute 2020  

demonstrates how uninformed and the lack of knowledge the

new age Ashʿarī has, who is oblivious of the unprecedented
dilemma al-Ghazālī had to contend with.
According to biographers and historiographers, this
bewildered state of confusion lasted for approximately six
months.12 When he recovered from it, which al-Ghazālī
described as, ‘when Allāh illuminated his heart’. It was after
this period when he decided to study in great depth four
groups, the Mutakallimūn, the Bāṭiniyyah, the Philosophers
and the Ṣūfī’s. He authored his well known book, Munqidh Min
al-Ḍalāl (Deliverance from Error) based on his study of these four
groups while outlining his own discourse, understanding and
personal journey, as it was a semi autobiography of his journey
to the truth.
After suffering his nervous breakdown and his crisis of
faith, al-Ghazālī excused himself from his teaching post under
the guise of travelling to Makkah for Ḥajj13 but in reality it was
ruse to get away and use the time to self reflect. In 488-489H he
travelled to Damascus where he remained for two years,14
spending time on worship and meditating the Ṣūfī way. It is
perhaps during this period he began writing his Iḥyāʾ ʿUlūm al-
Dīn (Revival of the Islamic Sciences). He then travelled to
Jerusalem, where he wrote his al-Risālah al-Qudsiyyah (The
Jerusalem Tract). He then travelled to Hebron in Palestine and
 
12
Munqidh Min al-Ḍalāl, 32.
13
Introduction to the Ijām, 16.
14
Introduction to the Ijām, 16.

Salafiri.com 14
Al-Ghazālī’s Return to the Madhhab of the Salaf

then eventually on to Makkah and Madīnah. He spent a short

while there and then returned to Baghdad for a brief period
before moving on to his ancestral home of Tus around 490H.
He remained in Tus for ten years until approximately
499H in retirement. Then the son of Niẓām al-Mulk, Fakhr
requested al-Ghazālī to resume teaching at the Niẓāmiyyah
school in Nishapur, where al-Ghazālī had begun his Islamic
journey. It is not known how long he remained in Nishapur
teaching15 but a conservative estimate is about 2-3 years, as we
know he died in his home town of Tus where he lived for a few
years before he died in 505H.16
We therefore, learn that al-Ghazālī’s life, from the time
he began seeking knowledge throughout his career can be
divided into six distinct periods with some overlap between
the fifth and sixth period.

The First Period – 465-478H

This early learning period from 465H when he first began
seeking knowledge until 478H, when al-Juwaynī, who was
teaching at the Niẓāmiyyah school in Nishapur died.

The Second Period – 478-488H

This teaching and advisory period can be summarized as the
Baghdad Niẓām al-Mulk period. Where he served as an

 
15
Introduction to the Ijām, 16.
16
Introduction to the Ijām, 16.

Salafiri.com 15
salafi Research Institute 2020  

advisory minister to him for six years and under his courtesies.
He went onto accept the chief Shafiʿī jurist position for four
years, all at the Baghdad branch of the Niẓāmiyyah school.

The Third Period – 488-490H

This period can be aptly described as the deep crisis and revival
period. In this period al-Ghazālī suffers from an enormous
breakdown in the Rajab of 488H which lasts for six months. It
is then followed with a period of two years of travel, search for
the truth coupled with writing.

The Fourth Period – 490-499H

This period can undoubtedly be described as the retirement
period. Al-Ghazālī retired to his ancestral home of Tus. What
he exactly did during this period is not well documented.

The Fifth Period – 499~503H

This period can be classified as his resumption period, wherein
he returns to Nishapur to the Niẓāmiyyah to continue teaching
at the behest of Fakhr al-Mulk. It is difficult to ascertain the
exact length of this period; however, we can can make certain
presumptions. Al-Ghazālī completed his major work on Uṣūl al-
Fiqh, al-Mustaṣfā Min ʿIlm al-Uṣūl around 503H as some of the
manuscripts of the book indicate. It would make sense if, Al-
Mustaṣfā being a work of Uṣūl al-Fiqh was written during this
period when he renewed his teaching at the college as it’s a

Salafiri.com 16
Al-Ghazālī’s Return to the Madhhab of the Salaf

work that would be written while teaching and not retirement.

Nonetheless, it is also possible of potential overlaps from this
period to his last peri0d of final retirement.

The Sixth Period – 503-505H

The final retirement period, wherein he returns to native Tus
until he dies.

The importance of dividing al-Ghazālī’s life in such a manner

will allow us to place certain treatises to these specific periods
and thereby map his transformations. He also cross references
many of his works, which further allows us to form an
approximate chronology; this will also assist us to record
theological changes through his life.
I divided al-Ghazālī’s life into six parts; I found this easier
to show his respective works on theology, philosophy and
theological rhetoric during these distinct periods and in turn
his transformation. ʿAbd al-Karīm al-ʿUthmān, in his Sīrah al-
Ghazālī wa Aqwāl al-Mutaqaddimīn Fihi (The Biography of al-Ghazālī
and the Statements of the Earlier [Scholars] About Him) divided this
period into five and also dates the treatises that are relevant to
our paper.17 The most extensive research is perhaps offered by

 
17
ʿAbd al-Karīm al-ʿUthmān, Sīrah al-Ghazālī wa Aqwāl al-
Mutaqaddimīn Fihi, 202+ (Damascus, Dār al-Fikr, 1961), introduced
by Dr. Aḥmad Fuwād al-Ahwānī.

Salafiri.com 17
salafi Research Institute 2020  

ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Badawī, who authored, Muʾallafāt al-Ghazālī.18

He presents four periods.19 I have focused on the works related
to kalām, philosophy and Aqidah.

 
18
ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Badawī, Muʾallafāt al-Ghazālī. 2nd ed. (Kuwait,
Wikalah al-Maṭbūʿāt, 1977)
19
Muʾallafāt al-Ghazālī, 10.

Salafiri.com 18
Al-Ghazālī’s Return to the Madhhab of the Salaf

First Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth

Period Period Period Period Period Period
465-478H 478-488H 488-490H 490-499H 499~503H 503-505H

Iljām al-
al-Arbaʿīn
Maqāṣid al- Risālah al- al-Munqidh ʿAwām ʿAn
Fī Uṣūl al-
Falāsifa Qudsiyyah Min al-Ḍalāl ʿIlm al-
Dīn
Kalām

Tahāfut al- Iḥyāʾ ʿUlūm al-Dīn  

Falāsifa20

Fayṣal al-
Miʿyār al- Tafriqa
Qawāʿid al-
ʿIlm Fī Fann Baynal
Aqāʾid
al-Manṭiq Islam waʿ
Zanādiqah

Miḥak an- Al-Qanūn

Naẓar Fī al- al-Kullī Fī
Manṭiq al-Taʾwīl

Al-Iqtiṣād Fī al-Iʿtiqād  

We find from this tabulation that after reading and researching

on Kalam and Philosophy during his early period this led to al-
Ghazālī having a breakdown. He went onto write the Iḥyāʾ, the
al-Arbāʿīn, the Fayṣal and the more important works of al-

 
20
This was complete in the Muharram of 488H, just 6 months before
al-Ghazālī had a nervous breakdown.

Salafiri.com 19
salafi Research Institute 2020  

Munqiḍh and the Iljām, both of which refute and repudiate the
ideas of Kalām and any other approaches.

Al-Ghazālī’s Views on Kalām

Al-Ghazālī described ʿIlm al-Kalām (Kalām for short) or
commonly known as the Mutakallimūn21 as those who claim to
follow theory and speculation. He uses the words Ahl al-Raʾyy
waʾl Naẓar, meaning the people of opinion and speculation.22
We therefore, find even the definition of kalām poses a serious
problem to the orthodoxy of Islamic Creed.
One of the key factors in why al-Ghazālī perhaps rejected
and denounced the way of theological rhetoric was due to the
harms associated with it. He believed the kalām approach had
both benefits and harms coupled with both advantages and
disadvantages. He says,

 
21
In modern writings some people have translated Mutakallimūn, the
people of kalām as theologians which is questionable at best. What is
more appropriately correct for them is scholastic, speculative
theologians or the people of theological rhetoric.
22
Al-Ghazālī, Munqidh Min al-Ḍalāl, 38. Annotated and introduced
by Maḥmūd Bayjo, reviewed by Dr. Muḥammad Saʿīd Ramaḍān al-
Būṭī and Shaykh ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Arnāʾūṭ. (Syria, Dār al-Taqwā, ?,
Dār al-Fatḥ, Jordan, ?) 2nd edition. Edition Munqiḍh part of Majmūʿa
Rasāʾil al-Imām al-Ghazzālī, 581. Ed. Ibrāhīm Āmīn Muḥammad
(Cairo, al-Maktabah al-Tawfikia, ?). Edition Munqidh, annotated and
introduced by Dr. Jamīl Ṣalībā and Dr. Kāmil ʿAyyāḍ, (Beirut: Dār al-
Andalus, 2003) 89.

Salafiri.com 20
Al-Ghazālī’s Return to the Madhhab of the Salaf

We refer to ʿIlm al-Kalām and say it has

advantages and disadvantages, usefulness and
harm, commendable and obligatory as the need
arises. When it is harmful it is unlawful and from
its harm is that it raises doubts and undermines
the pillars of Imān and strips them of their
certainty and definiteness. These points are
confused at first and then reestablishing them
through evidences is uncertain and varies among
individuals.23

Al-Ghazālī further outlined a nominal system in utilizing his

writings to correct any wavering issues of belief. He advised
those who were of a single theological background and were
not subjected to the polemics of theological discourse, that
such people should rely on his foundation of beliefs in his Iḥyāʾ.
That children and those exposed to theological polemics read
and learn al-Risālah al-Qudsiyyah Fī Qawāʾid al-ʿAqāʾid. If further,
an adolescent was astute and aware of doubts or he was
skeptical, this then indicated uncertainties and the beginning
of disbelief has started, in such a case he should be reading al-
Iqtiṣād Fī al-Iʿtiqād.
Al-Ghazālī then, which is the most crucial part, he says if
doubt, uncertainty and disbelief persist, then kalām is useless

 
23
Al-Ghazzālī, Iḥyāʿ ʿUlūm al-Dīn, 1:116.

Salafiri.com 21
salafi Research Institute 2020  

and redundant in attempting to establish belief in the

fundamental aspects of ʿAqīdah and Imān.24
This approach is contrary to the modern day apprentice
Ashʿarī, who misleadingly endeavors to bolsters support for
Ashʿarism – claiming, salvation or redemption from ‘atheism’
lies through the approach of kalām. Al-Ghazālī disproves this
notion or theory from the onset, showing the falsehood of the
modern self styled novice Ashʿarī. We find the Ashʿarī
neophyte’s propagating ʿIlm al-Kalām and philosophy as the
only and essential resolution to most theisms, during the
process of which they embark on a scathing attack on the
Salafīs for the allegedly simplistic approach to complex
matters of theology.
Al-Ghazālī further expresses his view regarding kalām,
wherein he conveys its objectives but is conversely critical of
its methodology. He says in general conclusion regarding
kalām,

I carefully studied and pondered over it. I

consulted the treatises of the experts of this
science and I also composed a few treatises on the
subject. I learnt that this science, although it
fulfilled its aim, it did not attain my aim. Where its
aim and intent should be to preserve the ʿAqīdah
of Ahl al-Sunnah and defend it from the

 
24
Iḥyāʿ ʿUlūm al-Dīn, 1:116.

Salafiri.com 22
Al-Ghazālī’s Return to the Madhhab of the Salaf

corruption of the people of innovation (Ahl al-

Bidʿah).25

In order to emphasise his point – kalām being redundant to

ascertain tenets of ʿAqīdah, he affirms the existence of the true,
pristine and divine ʿAqīdah. He says,

Allah sent to his servants through the message of

his Messenger, an ʿAqīdah which is the truth and
a means of rectification for his Din and the affairs
of this world and all of this (i.e. ʿAqīdah) have been
set by knowing the Quran and reports (hadith).
Then Shayṭān misguided the innovators with his
evil whisperings with principles that opposed the
Sunnah. So the people adopted these plots and
almost corrupted the true ʿAqīdah for the
people.26

Al-Ghazālī does not invalidate kalām in totality, he mentions

its advantages and some token benefits but is also swift in
mentioning its major disadvantages and harms. He says,

Allah then brought forward a group of

mutakallimūn to defend the Sunnah with the

 
25
Munqidh Min al-Ḍalāl, 32.
26
Munqidh Min al-Ḍalāl, 32.

Salafiri.com 23
salafi Research Institute 2020  

system of theological rhetoric (i.e. kalām) to

expose the heresies of the reprehensive
innovators which opposed the documented
established Sunnah. This is therefore, the origin of
theological rhetoric and its people.27

Al-Ghazālī’s Ashʿarism
Al-Ghazālī has various statements concerning the Ashʿaris and
the the Ashʿarism which can only be interpreted as him
departing from the theological school, in whatever capacity
while retaining certain aspects of it. This in line with his al-
Iljām and other works makes perfect sense, more so when we
have established when they roughly authored. He says for
example,

Perhaps you might say, your words (ie. Al-

Ghazāli’s) in this book are divided into those
which conform to the school of the Ṣūfīs and those
which conform to the school of the Ashʿarites and
some Mutakallimūn. So, the words are to be only
understood according to a particular school,
which one of these schools is correct.28

 
27
Munqidh Min al-Ḍalāl, 39.
28
Mizān al-ʿAmal, 405.

Salafiri.com 24
Al-Ghazālī’s Return to the Madhhab of the Salaf

Here al-Ghazālī and based on the views of others, makes a

distinction between the school of the Ṣūfīs and the Ashʿarites
and some of the Kalamiyyah. He concludes by making the
premise that only one school is correct. If he was a fully fledged
Ashʿarī, al-Ghazāli had no need to address this dilemma in this
way, this therefore suggests the contrary with his ardent
Ashʿarism, as claimed by the later adherents of the theological
school, mores on in our era on the various social media
platforms. In another statement al-Ghazālī is again seem to
take a middle path between the Ashʿaris and the Ḥanābillah ie
the Salafī creed. In retrospect, they don’t seem like the words
of an established Ashʿari elder. He says,

Because each group of people declare the

detractors to be disbelievers and connect with
them the denial of the Messenger of Allāḥ
Sallalahu alayhi Wasallam. The Ḥanābillah declare
the Ashʿarites as unbelievers, alleging that they
deny the Messenger when he talked about the
Faqwa i.e. aboveness of Allāh and His sitting on
the throne. The Ash’arites declare the Ḥanābillah
to be disbelievers, alleging that they are
anthropomorphist.29

 
29
Al-Ghazālī, Fayṣal al-Tafrīqah Bayna al-Islam Waʾl Zanādaqah.
Ed, s. Dunyā. (Cairo: ʿIsā al-Bābī al-Ḥalabī, 1961), 175.

Salafiri.com 25
salafi Research Institute 2020  

He further answers a rhetorical question:

Question: Should the names and attributes of

Allah be applied as they are or should ta’wil be
made of them using reason (i.e logic)? Qadi Abu
Bakr’s (al-Baqillani) view is that its possible to
make ta’wil of them provided the Shari’ah does
not prohibit or restricts it or if it (i.e. the Shari’ah)
shows the literal (Zahir) meaning does not apply
to Allah. Al-Ash’ari’s (Abul Hasan) view is they
should be taken as they are because it is
impossible to apply metaphorical (majaz)
meanings to the description (i.e. wasf/kayfiyyah),
accept when it permissible (according to the
Nusus). Our view is to separate the issue and say,
what is simplified to the Name should be readily
accepted. As for what can be simplified to the
description and does not require permission for
interpretation and also be readily accepted.30

Furthermore, at another instance he talks about Ashʿarīs in the

third person, making a distinction that he was not part of them
with designation. He says:

 
30
Al-Ghazaʿī, al-Maqsad al-Asnaʾ Fī Sharḥ Maʿnī Asmāʾ Allāh al-
Ḥusnā. Ed. F. A. Shehadi. (Beirut: Dār al-Mashriq, 1971) 192.

Salafiri.com 26
Al-Ghazālī’s Return to the Madhhab of the Salaf

The Ashʿarīs and Muʿtazilah went on to adopt

taʿwil because of excessive investigation. They
went onto admit the taʿwīl of many literal senses.
Those closest to the Hanabillah in matters of the
Hereafter are the Ashʿaris. They affirm most of the
literal senses except a few. The Muʿtazilah have
gone further in the taʿwīl than the Ashʿarīs. With
this, they (i.e. the Ashʿarīs) are compelled to use
taʿwīl in matters.31

We essentially find from these statements a level of

incoherence and confusion from al-Ghazālī in following
traditional Ashʿarism. This is perhaps an important premise to
establish his resignation from Ashʿarī doctrines.

A person who looks at the central beliefs of the Ashʿarī

theological school will come to know al-Ghazālī failed to
adhere to them. For instance, the issue of al-Aṣlaḥ (optimism),
Jawhar al-Farḍh (atomism) and the soul, his views were
different. This is what led Ibn Khaldūn to conclude that logic,
although it was a science used by other civilisations, it was
denounced by early Muslim scholars and theologians. It later
developed credence due efforts of al-Ghazāli and others like al-
Razī. Ibn Khaldūn said:

 
31
Fayṣal, 185.

Salafiri.com 27
salafi Research Institute 2020  

It should be known early Muslims and early

speculative theologians (i.e. ʿIlm al-Kalām) greatly
disapproved of the study of this discipline. They
vehemently attacked it and warned against it.
They forbade the study and teaching of it. Later
on, ever since al-Ghazālī and al-Rāzī, scholars
have been somewhat more lenient in this respect.
Since that time, they have gone on to study logic,
except for a few who have recourse to the opinion
of the ancients concerning it and shun it and
vehemently disapproved of it.32

Al-Ghazālī was concerned about the common people (the

awwām) and this is what perhaps led him to depart from
orthodox Ashʿarism in order to help them.
Although we don’t find any direct statements from al-
Ghazālī denying he was an Ashʿarī, we do find his opposition to
traditional Ashʿarite theology and views, which was possibly
the onset of him returning to the true creed.

Al-Ghazālī’s Iljām al-ʿAwām ʿAn ʿIlm al-Kalām

I have already introduced the Iljām. He authored it two weeks
before he died. The Iljām is authentically established from al-
Ghazālī and several authors have attributed it to him. Al-

 
32
Ibn Khaldūn, al-Muqaddimah, 3:113.

Salafiri.com 28
Al-Ghazālī’s Return to the Madhhab of the Salaf

Subkī33 (d.771H), al-Ḥusaynī al-Wāsiṭī34 (d.776h), Ibn Qāḍhī

Shuhba35 (d.779H) and al-Zabidī36 (d.1205H). Contemporary
authors have also attributed it to him like, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān
Badawi37, ʿAbd al-Karīm al-ʿUthmān38, ʿAbdul al-Amīr al-
Aʿsam39 and Mashhad al-Allāf.40
Most researchers are also agreed al-Ghazāli authored the
Iljām two weeks before he died. One manuscript is dated the
1st of Jumāda al-Thānī, 505H whereas he died on the 14th of the
same month. Mashhad al-Allāf said:

A book on the Way of the Salaf and is the last book

that al Ghazālī wrote at the beginning of Jumāda
al-Akhir, 505H, that is, shortly before his death on
 
33
Al-Subkī, Ṭabaqāt al-Shāfiʿyyah al-Kubrā, 5th ed. (Cairo: Dār Iḥyāʾ
al-Kutub al-ʿArabī, ?), 6:225.
34
al-Ḥusaynī al-Wāsiṭī, al-Ṭabaqāt al-ʿUliyyah cited from al-Faylasūf
al-Ghazzālī, 181.
35
Ibn Qāḍhī Shuhba, Ṭabaqāt al-Shāfiʿiyyah (Hyderabad: Dāʾira
Maʿārif al-ʿUthmāniyyah, 1978), 1:328.
36
Murtaẓa al-Zabīdī, Itḥāf al-Sādah al-Muttaqīn Bi-Sharḥ īḥyāʾ
ʿUlūm al-Dīn (Beirut: Dār al-Fikr, ?), 1:41.
37
Mūʾallafāt al-Ghazālī, 15, 231.
38
Sīrah al-Ghazālī, 205.
39
ʿAbdul al-Amīr al-Aʿsam, al-Faylasūf al-Ghazzālī, 2nd ed. (Beirut:
Dār al-Andalus, 1981), 181.
40
Mashhad al-Allāf, Kutub al-Imām al-Ghazālī al-Thābit Minhā wal-
Manhūl (2002),
http://www.ghazali.org/biblio/AuthenticityofGhazaliWorks-
AR.htm. Accessed April 21st, 2020.

Salafiri.com 29
salafi Research Institute 2020  

Monday, Jumāda al-Akhir 14, 505H by no more

than two weeks.41

He goes onto say:

It is considered a very important work of Imam al-

Ghazālī because you can clearly read in it that his
method was the same as that of the righteous
predecessors (al-Salaf al-Ṣāliḥ), so much so that
Iljām is named in some manuscripts as Risāla fī
Madhhab Ahl al-Salaf (A Treatise on the Way of the
Salaf) in which he emphasized Imam Mālik’s
statement as the foundation of his subject sticking
to it, and repeating it in a number of places.42

ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Badawī confirmed the aforementioned entries

on Iljām, giving additional listings of it in Brockelmann, the
British Museum, and several other sources.43

Manuscripts of the Iljām

 
41
Mashhad al-Allāf, Kutub al-Imām al-Ghazālī al-Thābit Minhā
wal-Manhūl.
42
Mashhad al-Allāf, Kutub al-Imām al-Ghazālī al-Thābit Minhā
wal-Manhūl.
43
Mūʾallafāt al-Ghazālī, 231-233.

Salafiri.com 30
Al-Ghazālī’s Return to the Madhhab of the Salaf

In the introduction of the Dār al-Minhāj edition it is accepted

as the book of al-Ghazālī44. It further mentions his student Abū
Saʿīd al-Jāwalī al-ʿIrāqī transmitted it from him in Baghdad and
many major scholars have attributed it to him.45
The introduction mentions 6 different manuscripts of the
Iljām and offer details of each one.46 From them, the most relied
upon is that of Shahīd ʿAlī Pasha and is housed in Istanbul
no.1712. It is a complete manuscript and the closest to in time
to the author. It mentions the manuscript is dated just 3 years
after the death of the author.47 The manuscript is dated as the
middle of Shaʿbān 507H, which makes it just 2 years, this is a
mistake in the introduction. The confusion is over when the
original book was written and when it was further copied. A
colophon on the manuscript clearly says it was completed on
the 1st of Jumāda al-Akhar, 505H while the manuscript was
copied in 507H.48 The Iljām has been published many times in
Cairo, Istanbul and Beirut.

Contents of the Iljām

 
44
Introduction to the Ijām, 19.
45
Tārīkh al-Islam, 38:361, Ṭabaqāt al-Shāfʿiyyah, 6:153 cited from
Introduction to the Ijām, 19.
46
Introduction to the Ijām, 22-25. The reader may refer to these
pages for details.
47
Introduction to the Ijām, 22.
48
Fiazuddin Shuʿayb, al-Ghazzālī’s Final Word on Kalām. Islam &
Science, Vol. 9 (Winter 2011) No. 2, 153.

Salafiri.com 31
salafi Research Institute 2020  

I have already mention al-Ghazālī’s view on the contradictions

and disadvantages of kalām and says that it is only useful in
some matters. In the Iljām he presents his views of
disapproving of Kalām and that it did not lead to the standard
of knowledge in belief in Allāh. He said,

Acquired by the speculative proofs of Kalām

based on propositions that are acceptable only
because of their popularity with leading
scholars, the ignominy involved in repudiating
them, and the people’s aversion to any
dissemination of doubt in them. In this manner,
the science of Kalām is useful in some
theological matters, constituting a justified
belief (Taṣdīq Jāzim) for the few who do not
perceive the possibility of its contradictions.49

He was of the view that beyond this, he saw little or no benefit

in Kalām advocating instead of teaching of Qurʾanic proofs to
the common people.50 al-Ghazālī in the Iljām distances himself
from the Ashʿarī approach to divine attributes, which was to
make taʿwīl – figurative interpretation and rather aligns
himself with the Salafi approach of abandoning taʿwīl. He says,

 
49
Iljām, 112, al-Ghazzālī’s Final Word on Kalām, 157.
50
Iljām, 115-116, al-Ghazzālī’s Final Word on Kalām, 157.

Salafiri.com 32
Al-Ghazālī’s Return to the Madhhab of the Salaf

I say that it is unlawful (harām) for preachers on

the pulpits to answer questions that delve into
taʾwīl and elaborates (on sifāt); rather the
preacher’s duty is to confine themselves to what
we have mentioned here as well as the Salaf,
strongly emphasizing Allah’s sanctity and
negating anthropomorphism.51

Al-Ghazālī opens the Iljām with the following words,

Know that the truth with the people of insight, in

which there is no doubt, is the Madhhab al-Salaf.
By that I mean the way of the companions and the
followers (Tabiʿīn).52

He further says,

The way of the Salaf is true and is opposite to

bidʿah, which is blameworthy…..The common
people delving into interpretation (taʾwīl) of Sifāt
is a blameworthy bidʿah……Therefore, opposition
to it-abstinence from speculative inquiry into
sifat (i.e. Kalām) is recommended and
praiseworthy.53
 
51
Iljām, 64, al-Ghazzālī’s Final Word on Kalām, 158.
52
Iljām, 53, al-Ghazzālī’s Final Word on Kalām, 160.
53
Iljām, 87-95, al-Ghazzālī’s Final Word on Kalām, 161.

Salafiri.com 33
salafi Research Institute 2020  

Reception of al-Ghazālī’s View and the Iljām

Mashaad al-Allāf said,

This book (Iljām) is one of the most authentic

books attributed to [al-Ghazzālī], yet Orientalists
eschewed it because of its commitment to the
Sunna, maxims, and lessons pertaining to the
unification of Muslim ranks and their guidance to
the straight path. Orientalists tried to disregard it
and misdirect students of knowledge away from
it.54

Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ (d.643H) said,

In several places, al-Ghazālī eloquently

articulated fleeing from everything besides this
path (of kalām and taʾwīl), and ultimately reined
in every scholar and lay person to it with his
bridle – i.e., his book Iljām al-ʿAwām ʿAn ʿIlm al-
Kalām. It is definitely the last book of al-Ghazālī, in
which he urged them to adhere to the way of the
Salaf and those who followed them.55

 
54
Mashhad al-Allāf, Kutub al-Imām al-Ghazālī al-Thābit Minhā
wal-Manhūl.
55
Al-Shawkānī, Irshād al-Fuḥūl, 2:47.

Salafiri.com 34
Al-Ghazālī’s Return to the Madhhab of the Salaf

Mullā ʿAlī al-Qārī quotes the view of the Ḥanafī scholar, Sirāj al-
Dīn al-Qazwinī (d.750H) who said,

Al-Ghazālī came around to accepting that taʾwīl

was unlawful after he had praised it.56

Some later Ashʿarites apologists like Saʿīd Foudah and Ḥussayn

Athāys tried with great endeavor in pushing al-Ghazāli used
kalām.57 Fiazuddin Shuʿayb said,

The reactions of Ashʿarīs to al-Ghazzālī’s apparent

adoption of the Way of the Salaf varied: they
either belittled his knowledge of kalām or
persisted in typecasting him as a proponent of
Ashʿarī thought. The latter is obvious in the works
of Ibn ʿAsākir (d. 1176), al-Subkī (d. 1370), and Ibn
Khaldūn (d.808/1406), to name a few.58

The Mālikī scholar al-Māzarī (d.530), for example, when asked

about al-Ghazālī’s theology, said,

As for ʿilm al-kalām, which constitutes the

foundations of the religion (uṣūl al-dīn), al-
 
56
Mullā ʿAli al-Qārī, Sharḥ al-Fiqh al-Akbar, 30.
57
See their works, Mawqif al-Imām al-Ghazālī Min ʿIlm al-Kalām
and Mawqif al-Ghazāli Min ʿIlm al-Kalām, respectively.
58
al-Ghazzālī’s Final Word on Kalām, 166.

Salafiri.com 35
salafi Research Institute 2020  

Ghazālī also wrote on it but did not expatiate it or

attain mastery (mustabḥir) of it. I investigated the
reason, discovering that it was due to his study of
philosophy (falsafa) before achieving mastery in
uṣūl al-dīn; consequently, his reading of falsafa
caused him to take an audacious approach on
semantics but was lax toward realities. That is
because falsafa proceeds on its own thoughts
ungoverned by rulings of sharīʿa or without fear
of contradicting the leaders who follow it.59

Al-Subkī responds to his and says:

I concur with al-Māzarī’s statement that he was

not proficient (mustabḥir) in kalām, but I argue
that his feet were firmly rooted in it, though not
to the same extent as they were in the other
sciences; so his opinion is speculative. As for his
statement that al-Ghazālī was preoccupied with
falsafa before he engaged uṣūl al-dīn, it is not so;
rather, he did not study falsafa until after he had
delved into uṣūl al-dīn, as he himself clearly
explained in al-Munqidh Min al-Ḍalāl. Furthermore,
al-Māzarī’s claim that al-Ghazālī read falsafa

 
59
al-Subkī, al-Ṭabaqāt al-Shafiʿiyyah, 6:240–41, from al-Ghazzālī’s
Final Word on Kalām, 167.

Salafiri.com 36
Al-Ghazālī’s Return to the Madhhab of the Salaf

before becoming proficient (mustabḥir) in uṣūl al-

dīn, which comes after his previous statement
that he was not proficient (mustabḥir) in uṣūl al-
dīn, is contradictory.60

Makdisi wrote,

His work entitled Iljām al-ʿAwām ʿAn ʿIlm al-

Kalām was a source of embarrassment to the
Ashʿarite propagandists who reacted to it in
various ways…the Ashʿarite apologists (in
general) do not mention Ghazzālī’s Iljām itself,
though their concern about it and his reference to
Shāfiʿī in the Iḥyāʾ as prohibiting Kalām is
evident….61

Fiazuddin Shuʿayb said,

al-Ghazzālī had his fair share of critics among

Shiʿīs, Muʿtazilīs, Zanādiqa, and Sunnīs, such as al-
Māzarī, al-Ṭarṭūshī (d. 520/1127), Ibn Ṣalāḥ (d.
643/1245), Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728/1327), Ibn
Qayyim (d. 751/1350), and others who differed
 
60
al-Subkī, al-Ṭabaqāt al-Shafiʿiyyah, 6:247; al-Zabīdī, Ithāf, 29,
from al-Ghazzālī’s Final Word on Kalām, 167.
61
George Makdisi, Ashʿarī and the Ashʿarites in Islamic Religious
History II, Studia Islamica 18 (1963):32–33.

Salafiri.com 37
salafi Research Institute 2020  

with him on a wide range of issues, including

Arabic grammar, philosophy, Sufism (taṣawwuf),
Ḥadīth, and Kalām62

Written by the one who is in need of Allah’s forgiveness

Abū Khuzaimah Anṣārī
Dhul Qa’dah 1441H/ July 2020
Birmingham
England

 
62
al-Ghazzālī’s Final Word on Kalām, 167.

Salafiri.com 38