-
SpiritualRoadmapbyGhazali, page : 69
In a way this criticism is justified. Ahmad Ibn Hanbal once criticized al-Harith al-
Muhasibi, may Allah have mercy on them, for his book, The Refutation of the
Mu`tazilah. “It is a duty to refute heresy”, al-Harith replied. “Certainly”, said
Ahmad, “but first you give an account of their false doctrines and afterwards a
refutation of them. How can you be sure what men will do? A man might read the
false doctrines and grasp them with his understanding without afterwards reading
24
the refutation; or he might peruse the refutation without understanding its full
import‟.
Ahmad‟s observation is justified, but it applies to false doctrines that are not
widely and generally known. Where such doctrine is widely known, it ought to be
refuted, and refutation necessitates a statement of the original doctrine. Certainly,
no one should undertake to elaborate on behalf of a false doctrine where its
author does not elaborate. I personally did not do that. I had already heard the
Muhasibi, may Allah have mercy on them, for his book, The Refutation of the
Mu`tazilah. “It is a duty to refute heresy”, al-Harith replied. “Certainly”, said
Ahmad, “but first you give an account of their false doctrines and afterwards a
refutation of them. How can you be sure what men will do? A man might read the
false doctrines and grasp them with his understanding without afterwards reading
24
the refutation; or he might peruse the refutation without understanding its full
import‟.
Ahmad‟s observation is justified, but it applies to false doctrines that are not
widely and generally known. Where such doctrine is widely known, it ought to be
refuted, and refutation necessitates a statement of the original doctrine. Certainly,
no one should undertake to elaborate on behalf of a false doctrine where its
author does not elaborate. I personally did not do that. I had already heard the