Answered by Shaykh Amjad Rasheed
Is it true that al-Ghazali left following madhabs towards the end of his life? Is the fiqh discussion in al-Ihya considered reliable by the Shafi`is?
There is no disagreement that al-Ghazali, Allah have mercy on him, is not just an adherent of the Shafii school of fiqh, but one of the greatest imams of the madhab, with several well known works for which he is still known by the great scholars of biography and history. As to leaving the madhab, no one would know that but al-Ghazali himself, so the one claiming this would have to show this through the words of Imam al-Ghazali. His differing with the madhab which has been established through the two sheikhs, Imam Nawawi and Imam Rafii, does not show that he has left the following of a madhab as some have imagined. The most that can be deduced from this is that he is a mujtahid[1][1] within the (usul of the) madhab and one whose opinions are highly considered, as has been stated explicitly by the imams of our madhab, or that he is at least a mujtahid of fatwa (see footnote 1). The mujtahid madhab and the mujtahid fatwa have the right to make ijtihad or prefer certain positions above others even if the strong proofs that appear to them lead them to positions outside the madhab. This occurred in a number of fiqh issues with Imam Nawawi, but this does not mean that he has left the following of madhabs.
Also, the imams of our madhhab of the past and present still pass on the opinions and words of al-Ghazali and research into them as an imam of the madhab and whose words and opinions are a position within it, not as a separate mujtahid who has left following the Shafii madhab.
Additionally, the authorities of the Muslim biographers and historiographers like Imam al-Taj Subki and others who preceded or followed him mentioned Imam al-Ghazali as a Shafii, not as an independent mujtahid who left adherence to Imam Shafiis madhab (Allah be well pleased with him and show him mercy), and Allah knows best.
As to the words of Imam al-Ghazali (Allah show him mercy) in the ‘Ihya,’ the assumption is that they are according to the principles of the madhab. However, as is well known, the madhabs all went through stages of revision and refinement through the scholars coming after their founders to determine the relied upon position of the madhab, strong opposing opinions, and weak opposing opinions. This was the way of our madhab until being determined by the two sheikhs (Imam Nawawi and Imam Rafii (Allah show them both mercy), the refiners of the madhab and the fatwa or position of the madhab) according to their position and preference, and in places of disagreement between, according to Imam Nawawi’s position and preference. Because of this, we cannot rely on books of the imams before them (as in the ‘Ihya’) and be sure that they are relied upon in the madhab, but this does not mean that every position in them is weak, but that they may contain positions which are not the preferred positions of the two sheikhs which we can trust and depend on. And thus the majority of what is in the ‘Ihya’ is the mu`tamad (relied upon position in the madhab), but it contains positions which were not the preferred of the two sheikhs. Someone without comprehensive knowledge and sound footing in the madhab might not recognize this and so should read a book which went through this process rendered by the two sheikhs or Imam Nawawi himself such as ‘Umdat al-Salik’ or ‘al-Muqaddimat al-Hadramiyah’ and similar (books which came after the two sheikhs). This is especially true in regards to knowledge incumbent on one (fard ayn knowledge). Reading the ‘Ihya’ alongside such books would then give the best of both worlds: the secrets of worship, etc. mentioned in the Ihya and complete assurance that ones worship and dealings are according to the mu`tamad of the madhab.
The great scholar Ibn Hajar (al-Haitami), among others, states this explicitly near the beginning of the Tuhfa saying:
Nothing from the books preceding the two sheikhs is to be relied upon without additional care and investigation until one is confident that it is the (position of the) madhhab. One should not be mislead by a number of books following a single position as they may all spring from one source. Note that the companions of al-Qaffal or Sheikh Abu Hamid (al-Ghazali), in spite of their numbers, branch off into more paths, usually following the two and where they differ from the rest of the companions, we must examine their books. All this refers to rulings not addressed by the two sheikhs or one of them.
As to rulings addressed by either of them, all of the late authorities agree and our sheikhs continue to counsel by and report from their sheikhs and they on those before them and so on that the mu`tamad is (1) what the two sheikhs agreed upon, meaning that which their successors did not concur upon as being a slip of inattention (and how could that be). Don’t you see that their successors formed near consensus that the two had slipped in making dependant support (nafaqa) wajib by order of the Qadi. In spite of that great lengths have been gone to to refute them by, for instance, some of the authorities in ‘Sharh al-Irshad’- (2) and if they disagree, then al-Nawawi, (3) and if Rafii alone has a position then Rafii, and I have explained the reason for their preference, even if they differ with the majority, in the introduction to ‘Sharh al-`Ubab’, in a section which is indispensable.
– Amjad
(Translated by Sidi Mustafa Styer)
——————————————————————————–
——————————————————————————–
[1][1] Three categories in our madhab: 1. Mujtahid Mutlaq: the imams capable of ijtihad directly from the Quran and Sunnah who develop their own usul. For our madhab, this is Imam Shafii. 2. Mujtahid Madhab: the scholars who came after the imams of the madhabs and checked the imam’s positions against their own usul, basically editing and refining. 3. Mujtahid fatwa: those who take the positions of the mujtahid madhab and compare and determine soundest positions.