Post by Zameel on Jun 14, 2017 19:50:01 GMT
Refutation of Abu Layth on Imam al-Ghazali's Views on the Caliphate
In a typically intellectually dishonest fashion, Abu Layth [1] recently wrote:
"Quoting Ghazali is interesting since his book نصيحة الملوك He addresses how the Caliphate has been long dead, since he himself lived in the Buyid era بني بويه a Shia Dynastic rule which had very little interest in Islamic matters. Imam Ghazali doesn't call to any revival or obligation to set up a global Caliphate (which never existed every regardless) rather Imam Ghazali addresses what the function of rule is and its instrumental nature. He highlights how the important thing really is law and order and as long as thar has some reasonable manifestation all is well. Once again this is why its important to actually study the Islamic Sciences. #ReclaimIslam #CallEmOut."
He repeated in another message: "I'd advise such people to read Ghazali's Naseeha tul Mulook, whereby he declares any Caliphate to have been long dead. He calls to no revival."
Abu Layth further claims that the belief in the obligation of appointing a single Muslim ruler for all Islamic territories is an extremist ideology espoused only by "neo-Kharijites" who must therefore be "called out" for their belief.
Response
Imam al-Ghazali's Nasihat al-Muluk is a work that is available in Arabic and English*. Abu Layth claims that in this book al-Ghazali "addresses how the Caliphate has been long dead" and "declares any Caliphate to have been long dead". One can have a look at the book and see that al-Ghazali does no such thing. Nasihat al-Muluk is not addressed to the Caliph but to the Seljuk sultan of his time, who was given the title "malik al-sharq wa l-gharb" (Nasihat al-Muluk, p. 6). The Seljuk kings would pay nominal homage to the Abbasid caliphs, and thus al-Ghazali saw them as authorized representatives of the caliphs. Al-Ghazali advises the Seljuk king in this work, calling him to justice, averting injustice, following the Shari'ah, listening to 'Ulama, being humble, gentle and patient, fulfilling the needs of the Muslims, preparing for the Akhirah, and so on, interspersed with many stories and anecdotes. So the question to ask Abu Layth is: Where does al-Ghazali "address how the Caliphate has been long dead" or "declare any Caliphate to have been long dead" in this book, as he has claimed?
Further, Abu Layth claims, al-Ghazali "lived in the Buyid era". This is another inaccuracy. By al-Ghazali's time, the Shi'ah Buyids had been defeated by the Seljuks.
In fact, in another of his works, Fada'ih al-Batiniyyah, al-Ghazali argues, contrary to what Abu Layth claims, that the Caliphate is alive and well, and reiterates his belief that a Caliphate is necessary. The work is also known as "al-Mustazhiri" because it was written at the request of the Abbasid Caliph of his time, al-Mustazhir Billah.
Chapter 9 of Fada'ih al-Batiniyyah is devoted to proving that al-Mustazhir Billah is the true caliph. Al-Ghazali wrote: "The objective of this chapter is to explain [al-Mustazhir Billah] being the Imam [Khaleefah] according to the Shari'ah, and that it is necessary for all the 'Ulama of the age to give fatwa with certainty and absoluteness on the creation's obligation to follow him, and the validity of his decrees in the way of truth, and the validity of his appointments of governors and Qadis, and the obligation of legally liable persons being discharged by paying the dues of Allah (e.g. Zakat) to him, and that he is Allah's Khaleefah on the earth and that following him is obligatory on all creation." (Fada'ih al-Batiniyyah, P 169) He goes on the explain that he does not accept the notion that the Khilafah has not been around for some time. (ibid.)
He rejects the position that a Caliph is not necessary, stating: "If it is asked: How do you counter one who does not concede that an Imam [Khaleefah] is necessary, but says we have no need for him? We will reply: This is a question that we, and the Batinites and all groups of Muslims agree on it being invalid, because they agree and have reached unanimity on an Imam being necessary. They differ only over the identification [of the Imam] not on the principle [of the necessity of having an Imam]. No one has adopted the view that it is not necessary to appoint an Imam and that he can be done without besides a [Mu'tazili] man known as Abdur Rahman b Kaysan (al-Asamm), and a scholar will not doubt the invalidity of his position and the corruptness of his belief...Ibn Kaysan was preceded in what he claimed by the total consensus of the Ummah, and thus by adopting the view he did he has fallen into violation of Ijma...One ought to consider the first period, how the Sahabah rushed after the demise of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) to appoint an Imam and give Bay'ah, and how they believed that to be an immediate and absolute obligation and a necessary demand and how they avoided delaying this..." (Fada'ih al-Batiniyyah, P 170-1) He further argues that al-Mustazhir Billah had the qualities of caliph, including the power (shawkah) needed to enforce his decrees. Despite all this, Abu Layth claims: "Imam Ghazali doesn't call to any...obligation to set up a global Caliphate"!
So, in fact, al-Ghazali believed the Caliphate was necessary, that it had existed and continued to exist right until his time, and that it was necessary for all people to submit to the Abbasid Caliph of his time. Will it now be necessary, according to Abu Layth, to "call out" Imam al-Ghazali as a "neo-Kharijite" extremist?
* Arabic: ia600208.us.archive.org/7/items/waq71414/71414.pdf
English: www.ghazali.org/books/kingcouncel.pdf
[1] Previous responses to Abu Layth none of which he has responded to:
Detailed Refutations
ahlussunnah.boards.net/thread/564/age-ishah-response-mufti-layth [Response to his fallacious arguments on the age of 'A'ishah (RA)]
theislamiclens.wordpress.com/2015/12/10/comments-on-classical-islamic-views-on-the-punishment-for-apostasy/ [Response to false claims that certain imams from the Salaf disagreed with the punishment for apostasy in an Islamic state]
ahlussunnah.boards.net/thread/561/abu-layth-derogatory-remarks-al [Response to false claims made about Imam al-Shafi'i]
ahlussunnah.boards.net/thread/549/abu-layth-magic-performed-prophet [Response to his baseless rejection of an authentic narration on magic]
ahlussunnah.boards.net/thread/436/reply-abu-layth-joining-excuse [Response to his misrepresentation of Ashhab's view on joining salah and his misuse of a hadith]
Brief Refutations
ahlussunnah.boards.net/thread/497/avoid-abu-layth (List of some of his aberrant views and the dangers of following one who advocates such opinions)
ahlussunnah.boards.net/thread/533/abu-layth-adith-resembles-people [Response to his false claim that al-Sakhawi did not accept a particular hadith as being authentic]
In a typically intellectually dishonest fashion, Abu Layth [1] recently wrote:
"Quoting Ghazali is interesting since his book نصيحة الملوك He addresses how the Caliphate has been long dead, since he himself lived in the Buyid era بني بويه a Shia Dynastic rule which had very little interest in Islamic matters. Imam Ghazali doesn't call to any revival or obligation to set up a global Caliphate (which never existed every regardless) rather Imam Ghazali addresses what the function of rule is and its instrumental nature. He highlights how the important thing really is law and order and as long as thar has some reasonable manifestation all is well. Once again this is why its important to actually study the Islamic Sciences. #ReclaimIslam #CallEmOut."
He repeated in another message: "I'd advise such people to read Ghazali's Naseeha tul Mulook, whereby he declares any Caliphate to have been long dead. He calls to no revival."
Abu Layth further claims that the belief in the obligation of appointing a single Muslim ruler for all Islamic territories is an extremist ideology espoused only by "neo-Kharijites" who must therefore be "called out" for their belief.
Response
Imam al-Ghazali's Nasihat al-Muluk is a work that is available in Arabic and English*. Abu Layth claims that in this book al-Ghazali "addresses how the Caliphate has been long dead" and "declares any Caliphate to have been long dead". One can have a look at the book and see that al-Ghazali does no such thing. Nasihat al-Muluk is not addressed to the Caliph but to the Seljuk sultan of his time, who was given the title "malik al-sharq wa l-gharb" (Nasihat al-Muluk, p. 6). The Seljuk kings would pay nominal homage to the Abbasid caliphs, and thus al-Ghazali saw them as authorized representatives of the caliphs. Al-Ghazali advises the Seljuk king in this work, calling him to justice, averting injustice, following the Shari'ah, listening to 'Ulama, being humble, gentle and patient, fulfilling the needs of the Muslims, preparing for the Akhirah, and so on, interspersed with many stories and anecdotes. So the question to ask Abu Layth is: Where does al-Ghazali "address how the Caliphate has been long dead" or "declare any Caliphate to have been long dead" in this book, as he has claimed?
Further, Abu Layth claims, al-Ghazali "lived in the Buyid era". This is another inaccuracy. By al-Ghazali's time, the Shi'ah Buyids had been defeated by the Seljuks.
In fact, in another of his works, Fada'ih al-Batiniyyah, al-Ghazali argues, contrary to what Abu Layth claims, that the Caliphate is alive and well, and reiterates his belief that a Caliphate is necessary. The work is also known as "al-Mustazhiri" because it was written at the request of the Abbasid Caliph of his time, al-Mustazhir Billah.
Chapter 9 of Fada'ih al-Batiniyyah is devoted to proving that al-Mustazhir Billah is the true caliph. Al-Ghazali wrote: "The objective of this chapter is to explain [al-Mustazhir Billah] being the Imam [Khaleefah] according to the Shari'ah, and that it is necessary for all the 'Ulama of the age to give fatwa with certainty and absoluteness on the creation's obligation to follow him, and the validity of his decrees in the way of truth, and the validity of his appointments of governors and Qadis, and the obligation of legally liable persons being discharged by paying the dues of Allah (e.g. Zakat) to him, and that he is Allah's Khaleefah on the earth and that following him is obligatory on all creation." (Fada'ih al-Batiniyyah, P 169) He goes on the explain that he does not accept the notion that the Khilafah has not been around for some time. (ibid.)
He rejects the position that a Caliph is not necessary, stating: "If it is asked: How do you counter one who does not concede that an Imam [Khaleefah] is necessary, but says we have no need for him? We will reply: This is a question that we, and the Batinites and all groups of Muslims agree on it being invalid, because they agree and have reached unanimity on an Imam being necessary. They differ only over the identification [of the Imam] not on the principle [of the necessity of having an Imam]. No one has adopted the view that it is not necessary to appoint an Imam and that he can be done without besides a [Mu'tazili] man known as Abdur Rahman b Kaysan (al-Asamm), and a scholar will not doubt the invalidity of his position and the corruptness of his belief...Ibn Kaysan was preceded in what he claimed by the total consensus of the Ummah, and thus by adopting the view he did he has fallen into violation of Ijma...One ought to consider the first period, how the Sahabah rushed after the demise of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) to appoint an Imam and give Bay'ah, and how they believed that to be an immediate and absolute obligation and a necessary demand and how they avoided delaying this..." (Fada'ih al-Batiniyyah, P 170-1) He further argues that al-Mustazhir Billah had the qualities of caliph, including the power (shawkah) needed to enforce his decrees. Despite all this, Abu Layth claims: "Imam Ghazali doesn't call to any...obligation to set up a global Caliphate"!
So, in fact, al-Ghazali believed the Caliphate was necessary, that it had existed and continued to exist right until his time, and that it was necessary for all people to submit to the Abbasid Caliph of his time. Will it now be necessary, according to Abu Layth, to "call out" Imam al-Ghazali as a "neo-Kharijite" extremist?
* Arabic: ia600208.us.archive.org/7/items/waq71414/71414.pdf
English: www.ghazali.org/books/kingcouncel.pdf
[1] Previous responses to Abu Layth none of which he has responded to:
Detailed Refutations
ahlussunnah.boards.net/thread/564/age-ishah-response-mufti-layth [Response to his fallacious arguments on the age of 'A'ishah (RA)]
theislamiclens.wordpress.com/2015/12/10/comments-on-classical-islamic-views-on-the-punishment-for-apostasy/ [Response to false claims that certain imams from the Salaf disagreed with the punishment for apostasy in an Islamic state]
ahlussunnah.boards.net/thread/561/abu-layth-derogatory-remarks-al [Response to false claims made about Imam al-Shafi'i]
ahlussunnah.boards.net/thread/549/abu-layth-magic-performed-prophet [Response to his baseless rejection of an authentic narration on magic]
ahlussunnah.boards.net/thread/436/reply-abu-layth-joining-excuse [Response to his misrepresentation of Ashhab's view on joining salah and his misuse of a hadith]
Brief Refutations
ahlussunnah.boards.net/thread/497/avoid-abu-layth (List of some of his aberrant views and the dangers of following one who advocates such opinions)
ahlussunnah.boards.net/thread/533/abu-layth-adith-resembles-people [Response to his false claim that al-Sakhawi did not accept a particular hadith as being authentic]