Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi: An Authority in the Field of Comparative Religion

Among the towering intellectual figures of Islamic Spain, few stand out like Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi (994–1064 CE). A prolific scholar, theologian, philosopher, jurist, poet, and historian, Ibn Hazm is widely recognized as one of the earliest and most rigorous scholars in the field of comparative religion. Living during the cultural and political turbulence of Al-Andalus, he left behind a body of work that was both deeply rooted in Islamic tradition and astonishingly open to studying and critiquing other religious systems. His legacy continues to influence religious studies, interfaith discourse, and critical textual scholarship to this day.

A Life Shaped by Andalusia

Ibn Hazm was born in Córdoba, then one of the intellectual capitals of the Muslim world. This was a time when Al-Andalus (Islamic Spain) was at its cultural zenith—a society known for its remarkable coexistence of Muslims, Christians, and Jews. His full name was Abu Muhammad Ali ibn Ahmad ibn Sa‘id ibn Hazm, and he came from a wealthy and noble family, with his father serving as a high official in the Umayyad court.

However, Ibn Hazm's life was marked by significant political upheaval. The collapse of the Caliphate of Córdoba in the early 11th century brought instability, civil war, and shifting allegiances. These events deeply affected his worldview and often made him a controversial and outspoken figure. He was imprisoned multiple times and spent much of his later life in scholarly seclusion.

Despite political turmoil, Ibn Hazm became one of the most original thinkers of his age. He mastered various disciplines, but he is most remembered today for his work in theology, jurisprudence, logic, ethics, and particularly comparative religion.

A Unique Approach to Religion

Ibn Hazm's most significant contribution to the field of comparative religion is his monumental work:

"Al-Fasl fi al-Milal wa al-Ahwa' wa al-Nihal"

(The Book of Distinction Regarding Religions, Heresies, and Sects)

In this encyclopedic text, Ibn Hazm offers a systematic, critical, and scholarly analysis of the major religious traditions of his time, including Judaism, Christianity, Zoroastrianism, and various Islamic sects. It stands out as one of the earliest Muslim attempts at comparative religious study using a rational and critical framework.

Unlike many polemicists of his era, Ibn Hazm approached other religions not merely to refute them, but to understand their foundations, internal logic, and texts. He examined sacred scriptures, theological claims, and historical developments with a combination of intellectual rigor and unapologetic Islamic orthodoxy.

Methodology: Rationalism and Textual Critique

Ibn Hazm's methodology was bold for his time. His work displays a rationalist approach, often grounded in logic (mantiq) and close textual analysis. He believed that reason and revelation were not in conflict and that understanding religious truth required both scripture and critical reasoning.

When studying other religions, Ibn Hazm:

1. Quoted primary texts extensively, especially from the Bible, which he read in Arabic translation.

2. Compared doctrines with one another, highlighting internal contradictions or inconsistencies.

3. Analyzed historical transmission, questioning the authenticity and reliability of texts based on manuscript variation and historical context.

4. Refuted sectarian innovations within Islam with the same critical eye he used for other religions.

For example, in his analysis of Christianity, he argued that the doctrine of the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus were later theological developments, not found in the teachings of early prophets or even the words of Jesus himself. He scrutinized the Gospels, pointing out contradictions and textual interpolations, arguing they could not all be divinely inspired if they disagreed.

In his treatment of Judaism, Ibn Hazm studied the Torah and questioned the chain of transmission from Moses to the later scribes. He accused some of its contents of having been altered or corrupted (a concept known in Islamic theology as tahrif), particularly where they conflicted with Islamic teachings.

Despite his critiques, Ibn Hazm acknowledged the moral and ethical teachings found in other religions, and he never descended into blind bigotry. His scholarship was harsh, but grounded in intellectual analysis rather than emotional rhetoric.

Islamic Orthodoxy and Internal Critique

Ibn Hazm was a committed Zahiri—a literalist school of Islamic jurisprudence that emphasized the literal (zahir) meaning of the Qur’an and Hadith, rejecting analogical reasoning (qiyas) and speculative theology (kalam). This position placed him at odds with dominant Sunni schools like the Malikis and Ash‘aris, particularly in Al-Andalus.

But his critical lens was also turned inward. In Al-Fasl, he critiqued not only non-Muslim religions, but also Islamic sects he believed had deviated from authentic teachings, including Shi‘a, Mu‘tazilites, and others. He believed truth must be pursued even if it challenged popular opinion, and this earned him both respect and enmity.

Contributions to the Discipline of Comparative Religion

Ibn Hazm’s contributions to comparative religion were groundbreaking in several ways:

1. Textual Engagement

Unlike many of his contemporaries, Ibn Hazm engaged with actual scriptures of other religions rather than relying on hearsay or secondary sources. His use of biblical texts showed a deep commitment to understanding opponents on their own terms.

2. Systematic Structure

He approached each religion or sect systematically, outlining their beliefs, sources of authority, internal divisions, and logical flaws. This was rare in his time and anticipates modern academic methods.

3. Objective Framework

While certainly polemical, Ibn Hazm aimed for rational consistency. He challenged ideas using logic, ethics, and historical method, making him a forerunner of modern religious critique and comparative theology.

4. Preserving Knowledge

His writings preserved a great deal of information about sects, beliefs, and interpretations that might have otherwise been lost to history. For scholars today, his work is a precious source for understanding religious thought in the medieval Islamic world.

Legacy and Influence

Although controversial in his own lifetime, Ibn Hazm’s influence has grown over the centuries. His works were foundational for later scholars in Islamic theology, jurisprudence, and philosophy. He inspired theologians like Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim, who admired his defense of orthodoxy and rational argumentation.

In the modern era, his works have received renewed attention from historians of religion, Islamic scholars, and comparative theologians. His method of engaging other faiths through their texts and logic has become a model for serious academic study of religion.

In today’s world of pluralism and interfaith dialogue, Ibn Hazm's rigorous but informed approach offers valuable lessons: understanding another religion deeply is a prerequisite to critique, and knowledge—not ignorance—is the proper basis for disagreement.

Conclusion

Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi was far more than a jurist or theologian. He was a pioneer of comparative religion, setting a standard for critical, text-based analysis of religious beliefs in a time when polemics often relied on ignorance or distortion. His work, Al-Fasl fi al-Milal wa al-Ahwa’ wa al-Nihal, remains a landmark in religious studies, combining deep Islamic scholarship with intellectual honesty and analytical rigor.

Living in a multicultural society, Ibn Hazm demonstrated that one could engage other faiths seriously without compromising one’s own convictions. His life and work are a testament to the power of reasoned faith, scholarly integrity, and the enduring value of cross-religious understanding.

Al-Albani on the Mistakes of Ibn Taymiyyah: A Critical Salafi Engagement

In the world of Islamic scholarship, few figures are as influential and controversial as Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 1328 CE) and Muhammad Nasir al-Din al-Albani (d. 1999 CE). Both are widely recognized within Salafi circles as revivers of the Islamic tradition, yet their relationship across centuries is not one of blind endorsement. While al-Albani admired Ibn Taymiyyah and considered him among the greatest scholars of Islam, he was not uncritical. In fact, al-Albani openly acknowledged that Ibn Taymiyyah made certain errors, and that these should be recognized, not ignored.

This article explores al-Albani’s position on the mistakes of Ibn Taymiyyah, the intellectual honesty he employed in his critiques, and what this reveals about methodological rigor in Salafi thought.

---

Ibn Taymiyyah: A Towering Intellectual Force

Taqi al-Din Ahmad ibn Taymiyyah was a 13th–14th century Hanbali scholar who lived during a time of political instability and spiritual deviation, as he saw it. Known for his deep knowledge of the Qur’an, Hadith, theology, and jurisprudence, Ibn Taymiyyah challenged many dominant theological trends of his day—particularly those of the Ash‘arites, Sufis, and philosophers.

He called for a return to the foundational texts of Islam (Qur’an and Sunnah), and emphasized tawhid (monotheism) in its purest form, rejecting what he viewed as innovations (bid‘ah) and anthropomorphic misinterpretations of divine attributes.

---

Al-Albani: The Hadith Scholar and Reformist

Muhammad Nasir al-Din al-Albani was a 20th-century Syrian-Albanian scholar best known for his rigorous work in Hadith authentication and his role in shaping modern Salafi methodology. He was a vocal advocate for returning to the authentic Sunnah and clearing Islamic practice from cultural accretions and weak narrations.

Al-Albani saw himself as part of a revivalist project that included earlier figures such as Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn al-Qayyim, and Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab. Yet, he also saw the necessity of critically analyzing their positions when evidence dictated it.

---

Al-Albani’s Praise of Ibn Taymiyyah

Al-Albani held Ibn Taymiyyah in high regard and frequently cited him in his own writings and lectures. In fact, he credited Ibn Taymiyyah and his student Ibn al-Qayyim with reviving the Salafi creed at a time when it was threatened by theological distortion.

Al-Albani once remarked:

“If not for Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim, the true Salafi creed may have been lost to time.”

He viewed Ibn Taymiyyah as a mujtahid (independent jurist) whose contributions were essential in understanding the correct Islamic belief and methodology. Yet, this admiration never blinded him to human fallibility.

---

Recognizing the Mistakes of Ibn Taymiyyah

Al-Albani was clear that no scholar—no matter how great—is immune to error. He repeatedly emphasized that the only source of infallibility in Islam is the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, and that every other human is subject to mistakes. This principle was at the heart of his methodology in dealing with the legacy of past scholars, including Ibn Taymiyyah.

Here are some key areas where al-Albani disagreed with or corrected Ibn Taymiyyah:

---

1. The Issue of Divorce Pronounced Three Times in One Sitting

One of the well-known positions of Ibn Taymiyyah was that pronouncing divorce (talaq) three times in one sitting counts as one divorce, not three. This went against the majority opinion of the four Sunni schools of thought.

Al-Albani agreed with Ibn Taymiyyah on this ruling, based on Hadith evidence, but he also criticized how Ibn Taymiyyah approached taqlid (blind following) in other issues. He argued that Ibn Taymiyyah, while a major mujtahid, sometimes fell back on Hanbali usul (legal theory) in ways that were inconsistent with his otherwise evidence-based methodology.

---

2. Issue of the Earth Being Stationary

Ibn Taymiyyah was reported to have believed in a geocentric universe and the immobility of the Earth. While this view was understandable in his time, al-Albani did not consider it binding and stated that it should not be held as a theological principle. He emphasized that scientific discoveries, when not in conflict with clear revelation, are acceptable, and that Islam is not anti-science.

Al-Albani considered those who took Ibn Taymiyyah's cosmological views as aqeedah to be misapplying his legacy.

---

3. Position on Visiting the Grave of the Prophet ﷺ

Ibn Taymiyyah held the controversial view that traveling specifically to visit the grave of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ was not legislated and could fall under bid‘ah (innovation). While many scholars rejected this view, al-Albani cautiously defended it from a juridical perspective, but clarified that it should not be misunderstood or used as a basis to disrespect the Prophet ﷺ.

However, in some writings, al-Albani admitted that Ibn Taymiyyah’s expression on the issue may have been too forceful and misunderstood by the general public.

---

4. Some Statements on Hellfire Being Eternal

Ibn Taymiyyah is reported (though with debate among scholars) to have entertained the possibility that Hellfire may not be eternal for all people, and that it could eventually cease, based on certain interpretations of Qur’anic verses. His student, Ibn al-Qayyim, expanded on this view in Hadi al-Arwah and other works.

Al-Albani disagreed with this view and was very clear that the texts proving the eternality of Hell for disbelievers are explicit and decisive (qat‘i). He considered this view a rare and serious error from Ibn Taymiyyah, though he refrained from declaring it deviant due to the scholarly weight behind it.

---

Methodology Over Personality

What stands out in al-Albani’s treatment of Ibn Taymiyyah is his commitment to methodology over personality. Al-Albani believed that the truth is not known through men, but men are known through the truth—a principle he repeated often.

He stated:

“We do not blindly follow Ibn Taymiyyah, nor do we elevate him above the station of the Prophet ﷺ. We respect him, we learn from him, but when he errs, we say: he is excused or mistaken.”

This attitude reflects the broader Salafi principle of avoiding taqlid and emphasizing dalil (evidence). It also distinguishes al-Albani from sectarian partisanship, showing his willingness to acknowledge flaws even in figures he deeply admired.

---

The Value of Intellectual Honesty

Al-Albani’s approach to Ibn Taymiyyah’s mistakes is an important lesson in intellectual humility and integrity. He upheld a balance between respect for the scholars of the past and adherence to evidence. Rather than sanitizing history or deifying scholars, he called for honest engagement.

In a time when many ideological movements weaponize the names of classical scholars to support rigid narratives, al-Albani’s example reminds us that even giants like Ibn Taymiyyah were fallible, and their legacies are best honored by treating their words with critical thought, not blind devotion.

---

Conclusion

While Muhammad Nasir al-Din al-Albani was one of the strongest defenders of Ibn Taymiyyah in the modern era, he was also among the most honest in acknowledging his mistakes. From matters of theology to legal rulings, al-Albani was willing to diverge from Ibn Taymiyyah where the evidence compelled him. This illustrates a key Salafi principle: that the Qur’an and Sunnah, not personalities, are the ultimate sources of guidance.

Through his respectful but critical engagement with Ibn Taymiyyah’s legacy, al-Albani offers a model for navigating the balance between tradition and textual evidence—one that remains relevant for students and scholars of Islam today.

Al‑Albānī’s Critique of Al‑Qaradhāwī: Methodology, Ijtihād & Juristic Principles

Muhammad Nasiruddīn al‑Albānī (1914–1999), a prominent modern Salafī‑ḥadīth scholar, holds a reputation for rigorous takhrīj (hadith authentication) and rejection of blind adherence to classical schools. He engaged extensively in identifying weak or fabricated narrations long accepted in major compilations. His methodology—eschewing taqlīd to classical madhāhib and favoring evidence from Qur’an & Sunnah—sometimes put him at odds with mainstream scholars and practitioners Reddit+15Wikipedia+15az-zaha.com+15.

Yūsuf al‑Qaradhāwī, by contrast, emerged from the Al‑Azhār tradition and became a well‑known global mufti, writer, and public intellectual with substantial reach via Al‑Jazeera and other platforms Wikipediafatwapedia.com. While respected by many—including Salafi scholars—for books like Al‑Ḥalāl wa al‑Ḥarām, al‑Qaradhāwī also drew sharp critique from Salafī circles, especially al‑Albānī. Yet al‑Albānī did acknowledge Qaradhāwī’s humility and sincerity in authorizing hadith verification of his book’s contents fatwapedia.comSalafi Research Institute.

---

1. Methodological Critique: Azhar vs. Salafī Prescriptivism

Al‑Albānī critiqued al‑Qaradhāwī’s intellectual pedigree as rooted in Al‑Azhār rather than the direct methodology of Qur’an and Sunnah—he described Qaradhāwī’s approach as “dangerous” for departing from the Salafī standards of explicit scriptural reliance Precious Gems from the Quran and Sunnah+3Ustaz Idris Sulaiman+3Jalan Selamat & Sesat+3.

His central allegation: when faced with practices considered illicit in Sharīʿah, Qaradhāwī would dismiss them by asserting “there is no clear-cut, definitive evidence (naṣṣ qatʿī)” forbidding them. In doing so, he effectively legalizes such acts, including music and singing, without any binding prohibition. Al‑Albānī asserted that Qaradhāwī applied this principle to permit music—even for a noted English singer who converted to Islam—arguing absence of definitive verse equated to permissibility. This contradicts the consensus (ijmāʿ) of classical scholars, which holds that prohibition does not require naṣṣ qatʿī only, and scholars can issue rulings based on less-than-certain evidence Ustaz Idris SulaimanPrecious Gems from the Quran and Sunnah.

---

2. Zakat on Salary: Legal ijtihād or Innovation?

Another focus of Al‑Albānī’s critique was Qaradhāwī’s stance on zakāt: Qaradhāwī argued that modern salaried income should be zakat‑liable annually, even without meeting classical criteria of ḥawl (one solar year retention) and niṣāb threshold. Al‑Albānī rejected this, arguing there is no naṣṣ—definitive evidence—for such obligation. The only acceptable zakāt rules are those established by Qur’an, Sunnah, and consensus, i.e. property that meets haul and niṣāb. Al‑Albānī complained that Qaradhāwī’s rationale—framed as welfare for the poor—resembles communist ideology rather than Sharīʿī principle, because it overrides legal norms in favor of perceived social benefit Ustaz Idris Sulaiman.

He went further, stating candidly: “Eliminate Qaradhāwī from your attention and avoid him”, emphasizing that such ijtihād is merely personal opinion and not grounded in authoritative evidence. He insisted that the view holds no legal weight, regardless of the charitable intention behind it MEMRI+8Wikipedia+8Precious Gems from the Quran and Sunnah+8.

---

3. Mixed Reception: Praise and Distance

Despite these substantive criticisms, al‑Albānī did recognize some merits in Qaradhāwī as a man of decorum—especially in his willingness to request hadith authentication. When Qaradhāwī sought al‑Albānī’s help in takhrīj for his book Al‑Ḥalāl wa al‑Ḥarām, al‑Albānī complied, praising Qaradhāwī’s humility: each time they met, al‑Qaradhāwī allegedly asked al‑Albānī questions about hadith and jurisprudence, demonstrating respectful scholarly engagement fatwapedia.com+1Salafi Research Institute+1.

He also stated that Qaradhāwī would bear personal responsibility for his ijtihād—which would be rewarded if correct, and at least earn some merit if incorrect—affirming that Qaradhāwī was sincere, if mistaken on some details fatwapedia.com.

---

4. Broader Context: Salafī vs. Traditionalist Tensions

Al‑Albānī’s critique of Qaradhāwī must be understood within the broader Salafī–traditionalist intellectual tension. Al‑Albānī rejected taqlīd (automatic adherence to madhāhib) and emphasized scholarly independence in hadith evaluation. Traditional scholars, by contrast, valued continuity in jurisprudence and consensus across schools—even when texts or rulings were questioned Reddit+1Wikipedia+1.

Meanwhile Qaradhāwī, while progressive at times, especially on issues like relations with non-Muslims, societal governance, and modern fiqh, came from a mainstream and pluralistic training at Al‑Azhār. Al‑Albānī viewed this tradition as insufficiently anchored to the Salafī ideal of direct scriptural derivation—thus he framed Qaradhāwī’s approach as weakened by institutional convention and consensus that al‑Albānī distrusted Masudlivingislam.org.

---

5. Substance of Their Differences: Summary Table

Issue	Al‑Albānī’s View	Qaradhāwī’s Position
Methodology	Salafī: direct Qur’an & Sunnah, rejects Al‑Azhār approach	Al‑Azhār-based training, mainstream scholarly tradition
Ruling on music/singing	Opposed—even if no “clear text”	Permits singing/music when no naṣṣ qatʿī forbids it
Zakat on salary	Not obligated without haul & niṣāb	Obligatory on salaried income for welfare of poor
Attitude toward errors	Qaradhāwī’s opinions are personal; should be avoided	Responded by seeking takhrīj and dialogue with al‑Albānī
Overall tone	Critical, wary of Qaradhāwī’s methodology & rulings	Open to correction, displays humility in seeking feedback

---

6. Why This Matters

The clash between al‑Albānī and al‑Qaradhāwī reflects deeper questions facing modern Muslim scholarship:

• Methodology vs. Convention: Should rulings be strictly text-based, or can institutional consensus and traditional training be relied upon?

• iḥtījād & Modernity: How should new economic and social circumstances—like salaried employment—be addressed within Islamic law? Can maslahah (public benefit) override classical precedent?

• Tone of Engagement: Is respectful scholarly debate possible, or will disagreement descend into dismissal or alienation?

Al‑Albānī’s critique—though strong—came within a disciplinary framework that valued textual purity above social harmony. Qaradhāwī’s framework sought a balanced middle path between tradition and adapting Islam to contemporary challenges.

---

7. Legacy and Continued Relevance

Al‑Albānī remains a polarizing figure: revered in Salafī revivalist circles for his hadith scholarship, disparaged by traditionalists for bypassing classical authorities and at times issuing harsh verdicts on others’ methodology Ustaz Idris SulaimanPrecious Gems from the Quran and SunnahJalan Selamat & Sesat+1Ustaz Idris Sulaiman+1. Qaradhāwī, similarly, retains massive influence as a public intellectual and legal authority—but also faces criticism from more purist voices for compromising or liberalizing Sharīʿah rulings Wikipedia+10Reddit+10Precious Gems from the Quran and Sunnah+10.

Their interaction—especially al‑Qaradhāwī’s willingness to engage with al‑Albānī via takhrīj—demonstrates that even profound methodological disagreement need not preclude respectful scholarly exchange.

---

Conclusion

Muhammad Nasiruddīn al‑Albānī’s criticisms of Yūsuf al‑Qaradhāwī highlight fundamental differences in methodology, interpretive standards, and juristic philosophy. Al‑Albānī accused Qaradhāwī of relying on Al‑Azhār training rather than rigorous textual derivation, and of issuing rulings based on absence of definitive prohibition—especially regarding music and zakāt on salaries. Yet al‑Albānī also acknowledged Qaradhāwī’s humility, sincerity, and willingness to seek correction by allowing hadith authentication of his major book.

This episode underscores a key tension in modern Islamic thought: how to balance fidelity to scripture, coherence with tradition, and responsiveness to contemporary realities. While al‑Albānī took a purist, Salafī position, Qaradhāwī leaned more toward applied jurisprudence serving evolving social contexts. Their interchange remains a valuable case study for students of Islamic jurisprudence and modern religious discourse alike.

Criticisms of Al-Qaradhawi towards Al-Ghazali

Sheikh Yusuf al‑Qaradhawi, one of the most influential modern Muslim scholars, consistently praised Imam Abu Hamid al‑Ghazali as an early inspiration. He often cited al‑Ghazali as a major influence, describing Iḥyāʾ ʿUlūm al‑Dīn as the first book he read in childhood ikhwanweb.com+15fadzilah69.blogspot.com+15al-adaab.org+15Reddit. However, despite this deep admiration, al‑Qaradhawi did not shy away from offering critical reflections on certain interpretations and emphases found in al‑Ghazali’s writing.

---

Main Criticism: Idealized “Ascetic Mystic” vs. Balanced Islamic Model

In his book al‑Imam al‑Ghazali: Bayna Mādhihīh wa Nāqidīh, al‑Qaradhawi highlights a key point of critique. He argues that al‑Ghazali’s depiction of the “ideal Muslim” often reflects an ascetic mysticism far removed from the example of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ and his Companions:

“The exemplar man in al‑Ghazali’s vision… is not the person recognized by the Companions, understood through the Qur’an, Sunna, and Sirah.”
Instead, the model should combine worldly engagement with spiritual purpose: working, serving society, and seeking sustenance while worshipping and preparing for the hereafter Malaysiakini.

Thus, al‑Qaradhawi criticizes al‑Ghazali for offering a mystic ideal that may discourage ordinary Muslims from engaging with the world productively and serving society.

---

Critique of Excessive Zuhd (Asceticism)

Al‑Qaradhawi views aspects of al‑Ghazali’s strong emphasis on zuhd (seclusion and renunciation) with caution. While he respects spirituality, he argues that for the broader ummah, adopting an overly ascetic lifestyle may create an impression that Islam is unreachable for everyday Muslims. Instead, he promotes moderation, asserting that Islam encourages both engagement with worldly duties and spiritual development Malaysiakini.

This perspective aligns with al‑Qaradhawi's broader scholarship: combining jurisprudent understanding (fiqh) with real‑world relevancy and community engagement Wikipedia+15tokoh.blogspot.com+15tamanulama.blogspot.com+15.

---

Al‑Qaradhawi’s Tolerance and Diversity of Opinion

Al‑Qaradhawi emphasizes tolerance and positive recognition of diverse scholarly views. He argues that fissures over minor issues should not create disunity. His style opposes polemicism—choosing instead to engage on issues that truly affect the ummah and avoiding time-consuming disputes over less critical matters, even when responding to critics Reddit+2Fiqh Islamonlone+2Reddit+2.

From this standpoint, even when critiquing al‑Ghazali, al‑Qaradhawi does so with respect, distinction, and an overarching aim of promoting a balanced religious path.

---

Root of Al‑Qaradhawi’s Critique

Influence of the Prophet and the Sahaba

Al‑Qaradhawi stresses that the Prophetic model combined spirituality with societal engagement, economic productivity, family life, and community service. He warns that al‑Ghazali’s ideal—focused on spiritual purity and withdrawal—deviates from the lived example of the Companions, who balanced faith and worldliness. For al‑Qaradhawi, that balance represents the proper model for Muslims today tamanulama.blogspot.com+11Reddit+11Wikipedia+11.

Concern Over Ordinary Believers

He observes that many lay Muslims may find al‑Ghazali’s spiritual ideals unattainable or discouraging—so much so that they may undervalue practical acts of worship and community service. Thus, his critique is not of al‑Ghazali’s sincerity or scholarship, but rather of élite models that risk alienating the broader Muslim population.

---

Areas of Convergence and Divergence

Convergence

• Deep Respect: Al‑Qaradhawi repeatedly acknowledged his admiration for al‑Ghazali and credited him with shaping his early spiritual and intellectual formation Reddit+4Reddit+4Countercurrents+4fadzilah69.blogspot.com.

• Shared Emphasis on Spiritual Ethics: Both emphasize moral transformation and deepening personal worship—but al‑Qaradhawi insists these must be tempered with pragmatic community-oriented action.

Divergence

Theme	Al‑Ghazali’s Approach	Al‑Qaradhawi’s Critique
Ideal Muslim model	Mystical ascetic (zuhd, seclusion)	Balanced: spirituality + worldly engagement
Accessibility for laypeople	Emphasis on elite spiritual disciplines	Practices must be practicable for everyday believers
Role of world & society	De-emphasized, secondary to inner spiritual life	Central: faith must intersect with economic and social life

---

Broader Scholarly Context

Tensions with Salafi‑Wahhabi Thought

Unlike al‑Ghazali, who is firmly rooted in Ashʿarī theology and Sufi spirituality, contemporary Salafi critics often distrust his Sufi leanings. Al‑Qaradhawi, while sympathetic to reformist Salafism, does not align fully with Salafi rigidity and remains more tolerant of diverse jurisprudential traditions ikhwanweb.comfiqhsemasa.blogspot.com.

Historic Disputes with Ibn Taymiyyah

While not directly related to al‑Qaradhawi’s critique, it's noteworthy that earlier scholars like Ibn Taymiyyah criticized al‑Ghazali for what they saw as excessive reliance on Sufism and esotericism. That historic critique differs: al‑Qaradhawi’s criticism emerges not from sectarian conflict but from concern for realistic, communal religious life Wikipediaal-adaab.org.

---

Implications of Al‑Qaradhawi’s Critique

On Religious Education

He calls for religious instruction that balances deep spirituality with practical ethics and civic responsibility. Muslim education, in his view, should empower individuals to worship, serve, innovate, and work—all while holding firm to Islamic values.

On Islamic Revival and Reform

Al‑Qaradhawi’s perspective supports ijtihād and relevancy. He favours a fiqh that responds to changing realities (fiqh al‑wāqiʿ) and priorities (fiqh al‑awlawiyyāt), steering clear of rigid dogmatism and promoting adaptability within Islamic law to suit modern communities tokoh.blogspot.com.

On Spiritual Approaches

While upholding the importance of Sufism and inner purification, he cautions against models that disconnect Muslim believers from productive worldly life. For him, true iman combines inner faith with outward action.

---

Conclusion: Thoughtful Critique Rooted in Admiration

Yusuf al‑Qaradhawi’s critique of Imam al‑Ghazali stems from genuine admiration, accompanied by thoughtful concern over the applicability of al‑Ghazali’s ideals to the mass of Muslims today. Al‑Qaradhawi did not reject al‑Ghazali’s scholarship; rather, he called for a balanced model of Islam—one that preserves spirituality without sacrificing sociocultural engagement.

By encouraging moderation and accessibility, al‑Qaradhawi offers a path that seeks to integrate ethics, worship, and worldly contribution, drawing lessons from al‑Ghazali while adapting them to the realities of the modern Muslim ummah.