-
SpiritualRoadmapbyGhazali, page : 70
false doctrine from someone who frequented my company after contacting them
and adopting their faith. He related how they used to laugh at the works
composed to refute their views, since the authors had not comprehended their
proof; he mentioned that proof and gave a summary of it. As I could not be
satisfied with the possibility of neglecting the essential basis of their proof, or of
having heard it and failed to understand it, I repeated it in my book. My aim was
to repeat their false doctrine as far as possible, and then to bring out its weak
points.
The result was that there was nothing done on the part of the opponents and
no force in their argument. Had it not been for the mistaken help given by honest
but ignorant men, the heresy would have been too weak to reach its present
degree of success. Violent fanaticism provoked the supporters of the truth to
prolong the debate about the premise of their argument and to deny all they
assert. In particular they denied both their claim that “there is need of
„authoritative instruction‟ (ta’lim) and an instructor (mu`allim)”, and their claim that
“not every instructor is adequate, there must be an infallible instructor”.
and adopting their faith. He related how they used to laugh at the works
composed to refute their views, since the authors had not comprehended their
proof; he mentioned that proof and gave a summary of it. As I could not be
satisfied with the possibility of neglecting the essential basis of their proof, or of
having heard it and failed to understand it, I repeated it in my book. My aim was
to repeat their false doctrine as far as possible, and then to bring out its weak
points.
The result was that there was nothing done on the part of the opponents and
no force in their argument. Had it not been for the mistaken help given by honest
but ignorant men, the heresy would have been too weak to reach its present
degree of success. Violent fanaticism provoked the supporters of the truth to
prolong the debate about the premise of their argument and to deny all they
assert. In particular they denied both their claim that “there is need of
„authoritative instruction‟ (ta’lim) and an instructor (mu`allim)”, and their claim that
“not every instructor is adequate, there must be an infallible instructor”.