In part 1 of this article, we concluded that normative/orthodox Islam required adherence to the Qur’an and Sunnah as understood by the classical scholars, who were described by the Messenger ﷺ as “heirs of the Prophets”. We also brought attention to the fact that many modern-day scholars were supporters of tyrannical regimes in the Muslim world, and that both the Prophet ﷺ and scholars of the Salaf (early Muslims) warned us about following such ‘teachers of falsehood’ (‘ulamā’ al-sū’) or ‘corrupt scholars’ (‘ulamā’ fussāq).

In part two of this article, we will examine how Imam al-Ghazali defined orthodox/normative Islam in his essay Fayṣal al-Tafriqa bayn al-Islam wa al-Zandaqa (‘The Criterion of Distinction between Belief and Unbelief in Islam’).

Orthodoxy and Heresy

In the introduction to his translation of Fayṣal al-Tafriqa, Sherman Abdul Hakim Jackson writes that in this essay, Imam al-Ghazali is “advocating a criterion on the basis of which some people be admitted to the Faith and others will be excluded; he is talking about right (or, more properly, acceptable) versus wrong (or unacceptable) doctrine. In short, al-Ghazali is talking about orthodoxy and heresy.” (On the Boundaries of Theological Tolerance in Islam, Oxford University Press, Karachi, 2002, p. 31)

Imam al-Ghazali divides matters of doctrine into uṣūl al qawā‘id (fundamental principles of creed) and furū‘ (secondary matters or branches). “There are three fundamentals of faith” he states. These are belief in Allah, in His Messenger ﷺ and the Last Day. Everything else is secondary according to Imam al-Ghazali. To deny any of the fundamentals of doctrine is unbelief, but as for secondary matters, only denial of those matters which are “known from the Messenger ﷺ by mass transmission [tawātur]” take one outside the fold of Islam. However, even here it may be a case not of unbelief, but of heretical innovation (bid‘ah) “such as issues relating to the Caliphate or the status of the Companions” [cf. Treatises of Imam al-Ghazali, translated by Khalid Williams, Ihya Publishing, Turkiye, 2024/1445, Vol. IV, pp. 243-244]

The Caliphate and Heresy

Imam al-Ghazali writes: “Errors concerning the Caliphate … do not justify accusations of unbelief. Ibn Kaysan [i.e. the infamous Mu‘tazilite al-Asamm] denied that the Caliphate is obligatory at all, but that does not mean he ought to be called an unbeliever.”

What constitutes unbelief is “accusing the Messenger ﷺ of deceit… If someone were to say, for example, that the Holy House in Mecca is not the Ka‘ba to which Allah Most High enjoins the pilgrimage be made, this would be unbelief, since the contrary is established by mass transmission (tawātur) from the Messenber of Allah ﷺ.”[ibid. p.244]

The example of the Caliphate is an important one as elsewhere Imam al-Ghazali states that  ‘the obligation of appointing an Imam is among the essential requirements [ḍarūriyyāt] of the law – a requirement that by no means can be ignored, so take heed of that!’ He also refers to the fact that the Companions (May Allah be Pleased with them all) delayed the burial of our beloved Prophet ﷺ as they were deciding who should rule after him as Caliph, concluding “Thus it is conclusive (qāṭi‘) that the appointing of the Imam is a necessary matter for the preservation of Islam.”

[To see the references for these quotes, see this article about Imam al-Ghazali’s views on the importance of the Caliphate].

Al-Asamm’s heresy is, therefore, not a small matter and so we can see why Imam al-Ghazali chose his bid‘ah in denying the obligation of the Caliphate as an example of this kind of error.

Imam al-Ghazali then points out that denying anything established by akhbār al-aḥād (reports from the Prophet ﷺ that are not mass transmitted) “is not unbelief”. [ibid. p. 245]

Figurative Interpretation

There are also matters which constitute bid‘ah and not unbelief due to a figurative interpretation (ta’wīl) of the texts. The fact that Allah will be seen by believers is established by the Orthodox, but the Mu‘tazilites deny it by figuratively intrepreting the verses of the Qur’an which mention the vision of Allah. This is a heresy, but does not take them out of the fold of Islam.

There are things according to Imam al-Ghazali, however, which are established by mass transmission and “do not countenance figurative interpretation, nor are they conceivably refutable by rational proof – to contradict them is simply to give the lie to them.”

He continues that “examples of these include the bodily Resurrection, Paradise, and Hell, and Allah’s knowledge of particulars…” [ibid. p. 245-246]

Imam al-Ghazali then gives a serious example of interpretations which cause harm:

“An example of this is the claim made by some self-styled Sufis that they have reached such a high standing with Allah Most High that they are no longer obliged to pray and are permitted to drink wine, engage in sin, and accept money from a ruler… It is a matter of debate as to whether they are destined for an eternity in Hell or not.” Imam al-Ghazali insists that such a person causes more harm “than someone who simply preaches licentiousness, since most people would not listen to the latter because of his patent unbelief. The false Sufi destroys the religion from within…” [ibid. p. 246]

In part 3 of this article, we will examine normative/orthodox Islam as outlined by Imam Abu Mansur al-Baghdadi in his book Al-Farq bayn al-Firaq.