Who was al-Ghazzaali?
Question

                Could you shed some light on who Imam al Ghazzali was?
Praise be to Allah.
    Al-Ghazzaali was Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn Ahmad 
    al-Toosi, who was known as al-Ghazzaali. He was born in Toos in 450 AH. His 
    father used to spin wool and sell it in his shop in Toos. 

    The life of al-Ghazzaali needs to be discussed at length 
    because he went through a number of stages. He indulged in philosophy, then 
    he recanted and rejected that. After that he indulged in what is known as 
    ‘ilm al-kalaam (Islamic philosophy) and gained a sound grasp of its basic 
    principles; then he rejected that after it became clear to him that it was 
    corrupt and filled with contradictions. He was focusing on ‘ilm al-kalaam 
    during the period when he refuted philosophy, and at that time he was given 
    the title of Hujjat al-Islam, after he had refuted the arguments of the 
    philosophers. Then he recanted ‘ilm al-kalaam and turned away from it. He 
    followed the path of the Baatiniyyah (esotericists) and learned their 
    knowledge, but then he rejected that and showed the beliefs of the 
    Baatiniyyah to be false, and exposed the manner in which they tamper with 
    the texts and rulings. Then he followed the path of Sufism. These are the 
    four stages that al-Ghazzaali went through. Shaykh Abu ‘Umar ibn al-Salaah 
    (may Allaah have mercy on him) spoke well of him when he said: “A lot has 
    been said about Abu Haamid and a lot has been narrated from him. As for 
    these books – meaning al-Ghazzaali’s books which contradict the truth – no 
    attention should be paid to them. As for the man himself, we should keep 
    quiet about him, and refer his case to Allaah.” See Abu Haamid 
    al-Ghazzaali wa’l-Tasawwuf by ‘Abd al-Rahmaan Dimashqiyyah. 

    No fair-minded person would deny the rare level of 
    intelligence, ingenuity and cleverness that Abu Haamid al-Ghazzaali 
    attained. Al-Dhahabi said of him: “Al-Ghazzaali, the imaam and shaykh, the 
    prominent scholar, Hujjat al-Islam, the wonder of his time, Zayn al-Deem Abu 
    Haamid Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Toosi al-Shaafa’i 
    al-Ghazzaali, the author of many books and one possessed of utter 
    intelligence. He studied fiqh in his own town, then he moved to Nisapur in 
    the company of a group of students. He stayed with the Imaam al-Haramayn and 
    gained a deep knowledge of fiqh within a short period. He became well-versed 
    in ‘ilm al-kalaam and debate, until he became the best of debaters…” (Siyar 
    A’laam al-Nubala’, part 9, p. 323) 

    You will find that even though Abu Haamid al-Ghazzaali had 
    such a deep knowledge of fiqh, Sufism, ‘ilm al-kalaam, usool al-fiqh, etc., 
    and even though he was such an ascetic and devoted worshipper, and had such 
    a good intention and vast knowledge of Islamic sciences, he still had an 
    inclination towards philosophy. But his philosophy emerged in the form of 
    Sufism and was expressed through Islamic ideas. Hence the Muslim scholars, 
    including his closest companion Abu Bakr ibn al-‘Arabi, refuted his ideas. 
    Abu Bakr ibn al-‘Arabi said: Our shaykh Abu Haamid went deep into 
    philosophy, then he wanted to come out of it but he was unable to. There 
    were narrated from him opinions which sound like the Baatini way of 
    speaking, and that may be verified by looking in al-Ghazzaali’s books. See
    Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, part 4, p. 66. 

    Even though al-Ghazzaali was very advanced in knowledge, he 
    had little knowledge of hadeeth and its sciences, and he could not 
    distinguish between sound ahaadeeth and weak ones. Shaykh al-Islam Ibn 
    Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: “If we assume that someone 
    narrated the view of the salaf but what he narrated is far removed from what 
    the view of the salaf actually is, then he has little knowledge of the view 
    of the salaf, such as Abu’l-Ma’aali, Abu Haamid al-Ghazzaali, Ibn al-Khateeb 
    and the like, who did not have enough knowledge of hadeeth to qualify them 
    as ordinary scholars of hadeeth, let alone as prominent scholars in that 
    field. For none of these people had any knowledge of al-Bukhaari and Muslim 
    and their ahaadeeth, apart from what they heard, which is similar to the 
    situation of the ordinary Muslim, who cannot distinguish between a hadeeth 
    which is regarded as saheeh and mutawaatir according to the scholars of 
    hadeeth, and a hadeeth which is fabricated and false. Their books bear 
    witness to that, for they contain strange things and most of these scholars 
    of ‘ilm al-kalaam and Sufis who have drifted away from the path of the salaf 
    admit that, either at the time of death or before death. There are many such 
    well-known stories. This Abu Haamid al-Ghazzaali, despite his brilliance, 
    his devotion to Allaah, his knowledge of kalaam and philosophy, his 
    asceticism and spiritual practices and his Sufism, ended up in a state of 
    confusion and resorted to the path of those who claim to find out things 
    through dreams and spiritual methods. (Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, part 4, p. 
    71). 

    He also said: Hence, even though Abu Haamid refuted the 
    philosophers and classed them as kaafirs, and expressed veneration of 
    Prophethood [as opposed to philosophy], etc., and even though some of what 
    he says is true and good, and indeed of great benefit, nevertheless some of 
    his writings contain philosophical material and matters where he followed 
    the corrupt principles of philosophy that contradict Prophethood and even 
    contradict sound common sense. Hence a group of scholars from Khurasaan, 
    Iraq and the Maghreb criticized him, such as his friend Abu Ishaaq 
    al-Margheenaani, Abu’l-Wafa’ ibn ‘Aqeel, al-Qushayri, al-Tartooshi, Ibn 
    Rushd, al-Maaziri and a group of earlier scholars. This was even mentioned 
    by Shaykh Abu ‘Amr ibn al-Salaah in his book Tabaqaat Ashaab al-Shaafa’i, 
    and was confirmed by Shaykh Abu Zakariya al-Nawawi, who said in his book: 
    “Chapter explaining some important things for which Imaam al-Ghazzaali was 
    denounced in his books which were unacceptable to the scholars of his 
    madhhab and others, namely his odd statements such as what he said in 
    Muqaddimat al-Mantiq at the beginning of al-Mustasfa: ‘This is the 
    introduction to all knowledge, and whoever does not learn this, his 
    knowledge cannot be trusted at all.’” 

    Shaykh Abu ‘Amr said: “I heard Shaykh al-‘Imaad ibn Yoonus 
    narrating from Yoosuf al-Dimashqi, the teacher of al-Nizaamiyyah in Baghdad, 
    who was one of the famous deans of the school, that he used to denounce 
    these words and say, “Abu Bakr and ‘Umar and So-and-so and So-and-so…” 
    meaning that these great leaders had a great deal of certainty and faith 
    even though they had no knowledge of this Muqaddimah and of any of 
    the ideas contained in it.” (al-‘Aqeedah al-Isfahaaniyyah, part 1, p. 
    169). 

    Al-Dhahabi narrated in his book Siyar A’laam al-Nubala’ 
    that Muhammad ibn al-Waleed al-Tartooshi said in a letter which he sent to 
    Ibn Muzaffar: As for what you mentioned about Abu Haamid, I have seen him 
    and spoken to him, and I think that he is a man of great knowledge, he is 
    intelligent and capable, and has been studying all of his life, spending 
    most of his time in study, but then he drifted away from the path of the 
    scholars and entered the crowd of worshippers. Then he became a Sufi and 
    forsook knowledge and its people, then he got involved with “inspiration”, 
    those who claim to have spiritual knowledge, and the insinuating whispers of 
    the Shaytaan. Then he mixed that with the views of the philosophers and the 
    symbolic phrases of al-Hallaaj, and he started to criticize the fuqaha’ and 
    the scholars of ‘ilm al-kalaam. He almost went astray from the religion 
    altogether. When he wrote al-Ihya’ [i.e., Ihya’ ‘Uloom al-Deen], 
    he started to speak of the inspiration and symbolic words of the Sufis, 
    although he was not qualified to do that and had no deep knowledge of such 
    matters. Hence he failed, and filled his book with fabricated reports. 

    I (al-Dhahabi) say: as for al-Ihya’, it contains many 
    false ahaadeeth, and it contains much that is good. I wish that it did not 
    contain etiquette, rituals and asceticism that are in accordance with the 
    ways of the philosophers and deviant Sufis. We ask Allaah for beneficial 
    knowledge. Do you know what is beneficial knowledge? It is that which Allaah 
    revealed in the Qur’aan, which was explained by the Messenger  (peace 
    and blessings of Allaah be upon him) in word and deed, and the type of 
    knowledge which we are not forbidden to acquire. The Prophet  (peace and 
    blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Whoever turns away from my Sunnah 
    does not belong to me.” So, my brother, you must ponder the words of Allaah 
    and persist in studying al-Saheehayn, Sunan al-Nasaa’i, 
    Riyaadh al-Nawawi and al-Adhkaar by al-Nawawi, then you will 
    succeed and prosper. 
Beware of the opinions of 
    the philosophers, the practice of spiritual exercises, the starvation of 
    monks, and the nonsense talk of those who stay alone for long periods in 
    their monasteries. All goodness is to be found in following the pure and 
    tolerant way of the haneefs. And seek the help of Allaah. O Allaah, guide us 
    to Your straight path. 

    Al-Maaziri praised Abu Haamid with regard to fiqh, and said 
    that he had more knowledge of fiqh than of usool al-fiqh (the basic 
    principles of fiqh). With regard to ‘ilm al-kalaam which is usool al-deen, 
    he wrote books in this field, but he did not have deep knowledge of it. I 
    realized that he was lacking in experience in this field, because he studied 
    the branches of philosophy before he studied usool al-fiqh, so philosophy 
    made him audacious in criticizing ideas and attacking facts, because 
    philosophy goes along with one’s train of thought, without any shar’i 
    guidelines. 

    A friend of his told me that he spent a lot of time studying
    Rasaa’il Ikhwaan al-Safa, which contains fifty-one essays. It was 
    written by someone who has studied sharee’ah and philosophy, then had mixed 
    the two. He was a man who was known as Ibn Seena, who filled the world with 
    his books. He had a good knowledge of philosophy, which led him to try to 
    refer all the basic principles of ‘aqeedah to philosophy. He strove hard and 
    achieved what others had failed to do. I have seen some of his books and I 
    noticed that Abu Haamid quotes him a great deal when he speaks of 
    philosophy. With regard to Sufi views, I do not know where he got them from, 
    but I have seen that some of his companions mention the books of Ibn Seena 
    and their contents, and he also mentioned the books of Abu Hayyaan 
    al-Tawheedi. As far as I am concerned, he picked up his Sufi ideas from him. 
    I was told that Abu Hayyaan wrote a huge book about these Sufi ideas, and 
    al-Ihya’ contains a lot of baseless ideas… then he said: In al-Ihya’ 
    he mentioned ideas that have no basis, such as starting with the index 
    finger when cutting the nails because it is superior to the other fingers, 
    as it is the finger used in tasbeeh; then moving on to the middle finger 
    because it is to the right of the index finger, and ending with the thumb of 
    the right hand. He narrated a report concerning that. 

    I (al-Dhahabi) say: this is a fabricated report. Abu’l-Faraj 
    al-Jawzi said: Abu Haamid wrote al-Ihya’ and filled it with 
    fabricated ahaadeeth which he did not know were fabricated. He spoke of 
    inspiration and deviated from the framework of fiqh. He said that what is 
    meant by the stars, moon and sun that Ibraaheem saw was the barriers of 
    light that keep a person from Allaah, not the things that are well known. 
    This is like the words of the Baatiniyyah.

    (Siyar A’laam al-Nubala’, part 19, p. 340). 

    Then at the end of his life, al-Ghazzaali (may Allaah have 
    mercy on him) came back to the belief of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah. He 
    focused on the Qur’aan and Sunnah and condemned ‘ilm al-kalaam and its 
    proponents. He advised the ummah to come back to the Book of Allaah and the 
    Sunnah of His Messenger  (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), 
    and to act in accordance with them, as was the way of the Sahaabah (may 
    Allaah be pleased with them and those who follow them in truth until the Day 
    of Judgement). Shaykh al-Islam (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: After 
    that he came back to the path of the scholars of hadeeth, and wrote 
    Iljaam al-‘Awwaam ‘an ‘Ilm al-Kalaam.

    (Majmoo Fataawa, part 4, p. 72) 

    A glance at Iljaam al-‘Awwaam ‘an ‘Ilm al-Kalaam will 
    prove to us that he had indeed changed in many ways: 
1 – In this book he 
    advocated the belief of the salaf, and pointed out that the way of the salaf 
    was the truth, and that whoever went against them was an innovator or 
    follower of bid’ah. 

    2 – He emphatically denounced ta’weel (interpretation of the 
    attributes of Allaah in a manner that differs from their apparent meaning). 
    He advocated affirming the attributes of Allaah and not misinterpreting them 
    in a manner that would lead to denying the attributes of Allaah. 

    3 – He emphatically denounced the scholars of ‘ilm al-kalaam 
    and described all their principles and standards as “reprehensible 
    innovations” which had harmed a great number of people and created trouble 
    for the Muslims. He said: “The harm caused to a great number of people is 
    something that has been seen, witnessed and experienced. The evil that has 
    resulted since ‘ilm al-kalaam began has become widespread even though people 
    at the time of the Sahaabah forbade that. This is also indicated by the fact 
    that the Messenger  (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and the 
    Sahaabah, by consensus, did not follow the way of the scholars of ‘ilm 
    al-kalaam when they produced arguments and evidence and analysis. That was 
    not because they were incapable of doing so; if they had thought that was 
    something good, they would have done it in the best manner, and they would 
    have studied the matter hard, more than they did with regard to the division 
    of the estate among the heirs (al-faraa’id).”

     He also said: “The Sahaabah (may Allaah be pleased with 
    them) needed to prove the Prophethood of Muhammad  (peace and blessings 
    of Allaah be upon him) to the Jews and Christians, but they did not add 
    anything to the evidence of the Qur’aan; they did not resort to arguments or 
    lay down philosophical principles. That was because they knew that doing so 
    would provoke trouble and cause confusion. Whoever is not convinced by the 
    evidence of the Qur’aan will not be convinced by anything other than the 
    sword, for there is no proof after the proof of Allaah.”

     See Abu Haamid al-Ghazzaali wa’l-Tasawwuf.

     These are a few of the comments that trustworthy scholars 
    have made about al-Ghazzaali (may Allaah have mercy on him). Perhaps this is 
    enough for those who wish to be guided. And Allaah is the Guide to the 
    straight path.