Sacred Knowledge: Reviving Traditional Islamic Sciences

The phrase “reviving the Islamic sciences” is intended to be reminiscent of Imam Ghazali’s (d. 1111) magnum opus, Revival of the Religious Sciences (ihya’ `ulum al-din). This work is widely credited with reconciling the two most influential religious trends of his time: the intellectualism of the madhhab jurists and the

spirituality of the Sufis, an imprecise category including Muslim mystics, ascetics, and metaphysicians. Ghazali was one of the most influential and respected Muslim scholars in history, but his affirmation of concepts and practices which later came to be associated with Sufism have recently made him a contentious figure; a

contemporary Muslim's attitude towards Ghazali may signal affiliation with one or another Islamic mode. Neotraditionalists embrace Ghazali as the “Proof of Islam” (hujjah al-Islam), the title by which he is widely known in Islamic scholarly circles. On the other hand, Salafis view him with skepticism.

The polarization of Muslims based on their position vis-à-vis Ghazali is one example of the many ways Neotraditionalists articulate their own identity in

opposition to Salafism. With few exceptions, premodern Muslim scholars, particularly those living after Ghazali's time, approved generally of Sufism as providing an indispensable system for cultivating inner virtue and seeking to draw spiritually nearer to Allah through intensive focus on the Prophet's prescriptions for attaining both of these ends. The scholars' only condition was that one not depart

from the orthodox theological positions of ahl al-sunna wa'l-jama`ah (i.e. the Ash`ari or Maturidi theological schools) nor diverge from the orthoprax legal positions of the four madhhabs (viz. the Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi`i, and Hanbali madhhabs). Doing so would constitute heresy or an illegitimate abandonment of normative practice. This position has been preserved in Neotraditionalism.

On the other hand, Salafis denounce Sufism as an egregious innovation (bid`a) that departs from the pure sunnah (custom or habitus) of the Prophet and his earliest companions. They readily reject most of the classical scholars who are celebrated in Neotraditional discourse for promoting Ash`ari theology, taqlid (adherence to) madhhabs, or affiliating with sufi tariqas (spiritual orders).178

Recently, some Salafis have suggested that Ghazali publicly repented on his deathbed from Sufism as well as the Ash`ari school of aqidah (systematic theology), hence whatever books he previously authored that support either of those religious positions should be disregarded as heretical mistakes. Shaykh Gibril Haddad summarizes this phenomenon:

Today's "Salafis" have revived a particularly bad trait of some naysayers of the past, which consists in attacking Imam Ghazali and belittling those who read his works and cite them to illustrate their opinions. This

concerns especially his major book Ihya' `Ulum al-Din, because it is a landmark of tasawwuf [Sufism] whose immense success and readership the enemies of tasawwuf find particularly galling. Some go so far as to claim that Ghazali was mad when he wrote it, others misconstrue Ghazali's deathbed reading of Imam Bukhari as a renunciation of

178. The Salafis follow the Wahhabis in opposing “any form of Sufism and any kind of reliance on taqlid, the adherence of a person to a doctrine because of the authority of others.” Newby, “Ibn `Abd Al-Wahhab, Muhammad,” 88.

tasawwuf...179

This revisionist account makes it possible for Salafis to reject whatever they disagree with in the content of Ghazali's works without needing to disavow the most famous and respected of the later scholars of Islam. Instead, the story of his supposed deathbed repentance provides a mechanism for replacing what Ghazali actually recorded as his opinions on religious matters with whatever opinion they claim he affirmed in his final moments.

This claim is intended to neutralize the threat Salafism sees in Ghazali's celebrity endorsement of Sufism and Traditionalism. Shaykh Abdullah bin Hamid Ali offers a lengthy rebuttal of the Salafi narrative of deathbed repentance in his translator's introduction to Ghazali's final work, A Return to Purity in Creed, noting, for example, that the book was written sometime within the last two years of

Ghazali's life, and its content is entirely comprised of Ghazali's reaffirmation of his previously published support for Ash`ari theology.180

It is worth noting, however, that the recent Salafi discourse asserting that Ghazali repented from earlier views on his deathbed may be the result of a careless Salafi researcher failing to differentiate between the famous Imam Ghazali (d. 1111) and the modern Egyptian scholar Muhammad al-Ghazali al-Saqqa (d. 1996). Dr. Khaled Abou el Fadl, a prolific author of academic works on Islamic Law, relates a

179. Gibril Fouad Haddad, “Those Who Attack Imam Ghazali,” Living Islam : Islamic Tradition, September 7, 1996, http://www.livingislam.org/n/atgz_e.html.

180. Abdullah bin Hamid Ali, “Translator’s Introduction,” in A Return to Purity in Creed (Iljam Al-`awamm `an `ilm Al-Kalam) (Philadelphia, PA: Lamppost Productions, 2008), 3–14.

story about the modern al-Ghazali al-Saqqa:

When al-Ghazali died the Saudi government magnanimously announced that it would accommodate his dying wish to be buried in the Hijaz. When al-Ghazali's family accepted this generous offer, Saudi Arabia, typical of its mode of operation, effectively circulated a rumor that on his deathbed al-Ghazali realized the error of his ways, repented, and

disavowed his works.181

The striking similarity between these two narratives suggests that the story about Imam Ghazali could be explained as a misguided reading of the more recent account about al-Ghazali al-Saqqa. It is also possible that the uncanny similarity between these two accounts has another explanation; according to Abou El Fadl, “Wahhabi authors have made the same claim about every Muslim jurist who challenged the legitimacy of their ideas.”182 _{This practice in Wahhabi/Salafi discourse of casually} rewriting history as a way to deny or obscure the opinions of scholars who held opinions conflicting with their own represents a particularly lackadaisical approach to the devaluation of tradition, but, more importantly, it is also a case of academic dishonesty.