( (

The Role of the Ulamā’ in the Thoughts of Abd

al-Fattāh: Abū Ghudda

Emad Hamdeh
Embry Riddle University

Despite his influence and contribution to scholarship in the modern Muslim

(
world, the life and works of Abd al-Fattāh: Abū Ghudda are underrepresented
in Western academic literature. This article is a first initiative at a broader
assessment and contextualization of Abū Ghudda’s life and thoughts. I present
a picture of a scholar who sought to represent traditional Islam in its most
unpopular moments. In particular, I examine Abū Ghudda’s prevailing
thoughts and opinions concerning “proper” scholarship and demonstrate how
(
the role of the ulamā’ in the thoughts of Abu Ghudda is primarily a continua-
tion of a scholarly tradition rather than starting anew. I analyze Abū Ghud-
(
da’s understanding of the role of the ulamā’ in light of his disagreements with
his strongest detractor, the Salafi Muhammad
: Nās: ir al-Dı̄n al-Albānı̄.
(
Whoever says, “The previous ulamā’ were men just like we are men” is mis-
(
taken and ignorant of who they were. - Abd al-Fattāh: Abū Ghudda

Introduction

O
ne scarcely encounters a book on the science of hadı̄th: without coming
(
across the name of Abd al-Fattāh: Abū Ghudda (d. 1997). Abū Ghudda was
one of the most prolific hadı̄th
: scholars of the twentieth century. He consid-
(
ered the role of the ulamā’ to be essential in understanding and interpreting Islam. His
works impacted many scholars during their formative years who would also propagate
(
an understanding of Islam in which the ulamā’ play a decisive role.1 This article will
(
shed light on the life and works of Abd al-Fattāh: Abū Ghudda and his perception of the
(
role of the ulamā’.

Abū Ghudda’s Life

On February 16, 1997, the Muslim world went into mourning with news of the death
(
of one its most respected scholars, Abd al-Fattāh: Abū Ghudda. His passing was widely

1 ( (
His most famous students include Muhammad
: Awwāma, Muhammad
: b. Abd Allāh Āl Rashı̄d,
(
Salmān al- Awda, and others.
C 2017 Hartford Seminary.
V
DOI: 10.1111/muwo.12199
359
 THE MUSLIM WORLD  VOLUME 107  JULY 2017

mourned by scholars, activists, and politicians.2 He was born in 1917 in Aleppo, Syria
and was raised in a religious household. He traced his family lineage to the Prophet’s
Companion, Khālid b. Walı̄d, who had the designated title of God’s sword on earth.3 His
father and grandfather were leading fabric businessmen in Aleppo and both exerted
themselves to provide Abū Ghudda with a well-rounded education.
(
His grandfather enrolled him in Al-Madrasa al- Arabiyya al-Islāmı̄ya, an exorbitant
elite private elementary school. There he learned how to read and write, and developed
a fixation for detail. Abū Ghudda stood out among his peers for his excellent reading
skills and was summoned to read religious texts in the weekly classes of local scholars.
(
By age ten, he repeatedly found himself in the company of ulamā’. After completing
elementary school, he enrolled in a school that primarily concentrated on the study of
)
fiqh, Qur ān, and handwriting. The deliberation on excellent penmanship instilled a
sense of meticulousness in Abū Ghudda’s personality which later became evident in his
editing of books and publications.4
From 1936–42 he studied in a secondary Islamic school. Subsequently, he enrolled in
Al-Azhar University where he studied from 1944–48. Following his commencement from
Al-Azhar’s sharia college, he enrolled in the Arabic language college of Al-Azhar where
he studied for two years prior to returning to Aleppo.5 While residing in Cairo, Abū
Ghudda met Hasan: al-Banna (d. 1949), the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood and he
joined the movement. In 1961, he ran for parliamentary elections and was appointed as
the mufti of Aleppo. His candidacy seems to have been based on his reputation as a
leader in the scholarly community. Abū Ghudda was appointed as the superintendent of
the Muslim Brotherhood on three different occasions (1955, 1973, 1986), but always dur-
ing periods of internal crisis where his moral authority was called for to strengthen one
faction against another. He apparently assumed these positions with reluctance, since he
only completed the last of his three terms.6
After returning to Syria, Abū Ghudda joined the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood and rose
to prominence within religious circles in Aleppo. In 1966 Abū Ghudda criticized the
coup that brought Salā h Jadı̄d (d. 1993), Baath party strongman to power. Abū Ghudda
( : :
mobilized local ulamā’ and called for a boycott of the government to protest Jadı̄d’s
dictatorship. He preached and wrote extensively summoning for Jadı̄d’s removal from
power. Consequently, Abū Ghudda was imprisoned for eleven months. In 1967, Jadı̄d

2 (
Muhammad
: b. Abd Allāh Āl Rāshı̄d, Imdād al-Fattāh: bi-Asānı̄d wa-Marwı̄yāt al-Shaykh ‘Abd
al-Fattāh: (Riyadh: Maktabat al-Imām al-Shāfi‘ı̄, 1999), 166.
3
M. Āl Rashı̄d, Imdād, 141.
4
His students noted that he was obsessively concerned with the appearance of his penmanship. See
( ( (
“Hadı̄th
: Dr. Salmān Al- Awda an al-Shaykh Abd al-Fattāh: Abū Ghudda,” video clip, accessed Novem-
ber 9, 2013, YouTube, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v5hXJYhgb0ldE.
5
M. Āl Rashı̄d, Imdād, 147–148.
6
Thomas Pierret, Religion and State in Syria: The Sunni Ulama from Coup to Revolution (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2013), 169.
360 C 2017 Hartford Seminary.
V
 (
T HE R OLE OF THE U LAMĀ ’

released all political prisoners and Abū Ghudda was exiled to Saudi Arabia. Afterwards,
Abū Ghudda avoided politics and devoted himself to education. He moved on to teach
(
at Imam Muhammad: ibn Sa ūd University in Riyadh for more than two decades and
served as a visiting lecturer in Umm Durmān Institute in Sudan. In 1995, Bashar al-Asad
welcomed Abū Ghudda back to Syria under the condition that he refrain from political
activity.7 In 1996, he returned to Riyadh where he passed away and was buried in the
(
Baqı̄ cemetery in Medina.
Initially, Abu Ghudda attempted to generate positive change through political
involvement, but after that proved ineffective he consigned his life to education and
scholarship. He sought to popularize traditional scholarship and revive its ideals in an
atmosphere of religious confusion in the Muslim world. He was not exclusively a hadı̄th
:
scholar, but also an expert in Hanafı̄
: jurisprudence, comparative fiqh, as well as Arabic
language. Concurrently, his spiritual devotions and notable mannerisms garnered him
great reverence among his students and associates. His reverence of scholarly heritage
left an ample impression on his pupils, and he designated his life to the restoration of a
scholarly tradition that had become marginalized by the political situation in the Muslim
world. While several Western works highlight Abū Ghudda’s political career, few pay
heed to his status as a religious scholar. His prominence in the Muslim world was almost
entirely due to his scholarly input. In honor of his scholarly achievements, Abū Ghudda
was nominated for the Prize of Sultan Brunei for Islamic Studies in 1995 which was
awarded to him by the Oxford Centre for Islamic studies.

(
The Disenfranchisement of the Ulamā’
Prior to the fall of the Ottoman empire the scholarly class held prestigious positions
in government because their legal expertise was needed. When secular law replaced
( )
Islamic law, the ulamā found themselves out of work and sidelined. This rendered
them irrelevant and they lost their monopoly over educational institutions and as spokes-
( )
persons for Islam. Since the ulamā were supported by the Ottoman Empire, their insti-
tutions lost support with the Empire’s decline. Essentially, traditional scholarship and
instruction weakened when the state stopped supporting them.8 Abū Ghudda was the
student of Mus: tafā Sabrı̄
: (d. 1954), the last Shaykh al-Islam of the Ottoman Empire, and
Muhammad
: Zāhid al-Kawtharı̄ (d. 1951), Sabrı̄’s
: ex-deputy. Therefore, he experienced
(
first-hand the frustration of decline of the authority of traditional ulamā’.
With the world quickly changing, from technological and scientific perspectives,
many in the Muslim world aspired to catch up with the West and abandoned the study of
Islam because it did not provide financial results. Having a prestigious career in

7
Sami Moubayed, Steel & Silk: Men and Women Who Shaped Syria 1900–2000 (Seattle: Cune Press,
2006), 130.
8
See Rudolph Peters, “Religious Attitudes towards Modernization in the Ottoman Empire. A Nine-
teenth Century Pious Text on Steamships, Factories and the Telegraph,” Die Welt des Islams 1:4 (1986).
C 2017 Hartford Seminary.
V 361
 THE MUSLIM WORLD  VOLUME 107  JULY 2017

government was a motivating factor for many young people to become experts in
Islamic law. However, today, sharia sciences are considered the domain of the underach-
iever. A degree in sharia, generally speaking, does not lead to a well-paid career. The
state, which was the major funder of education and employer, no longer needed experts
in Islamic law because the entire legal system was revamped and founded on Western
substantive law.9 Colonial governments control of education further marginalized tradi-
tional Islamic education. Along with a shift in education, Muslim legal systems were
largely replaced by the introduction of European codes. David Waines notes that “In
( )
both cases it meant that those trained in traditional Islamic knowledge, the ulama ,
were disenfranchised and replaced socially by a new secularized Muslim elite.”10
(
New educational systems paralyzed the institutions of the ulamā’. Scholars and stu-
dents who studied in the traditional system for years were out of work and not recog-
nized by the state. Most students entering college sought to become doctors, engineers,
teachers, or lawyers. It was students who could not get into any of these schools due to
poor grades that would study Islamic sciences. The state and public accepted them as
religious authorities because they had degrees from modern universities. However, this
outraged scholars like Abū Ghudda, who went through a more rigorous curriculum and
educational system, and now had little authority outside of traditional study circles.11
Abū Ghudda laments that in the past the brightest children were expected to dedicate
themselves to Islamic studies and religious leadership. However, in modern times, intelli-
gent children are expected to dedicate themselves to medicine, engineering, or physics.
Those who are not as intellectually inclined are expected to become shaykhs, religious
figures, and so-called jurists. Abū Ghudda considers this problematic because the unqua-
lified now speak for Islam. The basis for the decline in Islamic education was that most
young people chose higher paying fields. Mediocre students who were not accepted in
engineering or medical colleges ultimately entered the only field that was left, which was
fiqh.12 The new educational system and loss of governmental positions paralyzed the
institutional authority of the ‘ulamā’.
The implementation of the European educational system in place of traditional edu-
( (
cation assisted in diminishing the authority of the ulamā . It also paved the way for
those who studied outside the traditional system to become religious authorities. Dale
Eickelman explains that the introduction of mass higher education in the Muslim world
(
eroded the positions of the ulamā’. He writes, “Religious authority in earlier generations

9
Cardinal Monique, “Islamic Legal Theory Curriculum: Are the Classics Taught Today?,” Islamic Law
and Society 12:2 (2005), 268–269.
10
David Waines, “Islam,” Religion in the Modern World: Traditions and Transformations, ed. Linda
Woodhead (New York: Routledge, 2002), 194.
11
‘Abd al-Fattāh: Abū Ghudda, Lecture in Turkey https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dobft16fNe8,
2008. (accessed February 19, 2017).
12 )
‘Abd al-Fattāh: Abū Ghudda, “Hājat
: al-Umma ilā al-fuqahā 2,” video clip, accessed December 5,
2013, YouTube, www.youtube.com/watch?v57X31bsm3kFQ.
362 C 2017 Hartford Seminary.
V
 (
T HE R OLE OF THE U LAMĀ ’

derived from the mastery of authoritative texts studied under recognized scholars. Mass
education fosters a direct, albeit selective, access to the printed word and a break with
earlier traditions of authority.”13
Eickelman contends that the style of religious education through university system
represents a substantial break with the previous emphasis on the written word, mediated
by an oral tradition and geared to a mastery of recognized religious texts obtained
through studying with accepted religious scholars. The university structure delineates
subjects and approved texts are taught by a changing array of teachers, and competence
is measured by examination.14 Even the prestigious Al-Azhar university was forced to
)
abandon its age-old policy of requiring complete memorization of the Qur ān as a pre-
requisite for admission.15
Abū Ghudda’s scholarship must be understood in light of the challenges traditional
(
ulamā’ were facing. Traditional ‘ulamā’ were also challenged by the rise and growth of
Salafism. In this regard, Abū Ghudda’s strongest detractor was the Salafi hadı̄th : scholar
16
Muhammad
: Nās: ir al-Dı̄n al-Albānı̄ (d. 1999). A watch-repairer by profession, Albānı̄ was a
self-made hadı̄th
: expert who attempted to reexamine the canonical hadı̄th: corpus. Albānı̄
attempted to reform Islam by purging Islam of what he considered to be foreign teachings.
(
Although Salafis consider Albānı̄ to be a reviver of authentic Islam, traditional ulamā’ like
Abū Ghudda consider him to be misled due to his bypassing of the Islamic legal schools
and dismissing centuries of scholarly tradition. Albānı̄’s primary purpose was to establish
)
the “authentic” and “pure” Islam according to the Qur ān and Sunna. His understanding of
what was “authentic” often stood in stark contrast to traditional scholars like Abū Ghudda.
(
What distinguishes traditional ulamā’ from Salafis is not necessarily the content of
what it means to be an observant Muslim, but the proper modes by which religious

13
Dale Eickelman, “Mass Higher Education and the Religious Imagination in Contemporary Arab
Societies,” American Ethnologist 19:4 (1992), 646.
14
D. Eickelman, Mass Higher Education, 650.
15
G€
oran Larsson, Muslims and the New Media: Historical and Contemporary Debates (Vermont:
Ashgate, 2011) 37. On New Media’s impact on Islamic education see Jon Anderson, “The Internet and
Islam’s New Interpreters,” in New Media in the Muslim World, ed. Dale F. Eickelman and Jon W.
Anderson (Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1999); Charles Hirschkind, The Ethical Soundscape:
Cassette Sermons and Islamic Counterpublics (New York: Columbia University Press 2009); Idem
)
Charles Hirschkind, “Media and the Qur ān,” in The Encyclopedia of the Quran ed. Jane McAuliffe
(Leiden: Brill, 2003); Jan Scholz, Are Selge, Max Stille, and Johannes Zimmermann, “Listening Com-
munities? Some Remarks on the Construction of Religious Authority in Islamic Podcasts” Die Welt Des
Islams, 3/4 (2008); Reinhard Schulze, “The Birth of Tradition and Modernity in the 18th and 19th Cen-
tury Islamic Culture-The Case of Printing,” Culture and History 16 (1997); Vit Sisler, “The Internet and
the Construction of Islamic Knowledge in Europe” Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology
1:2 (2007); Gary Bunt, Islam in the Digital Age: E-Jihad, Online Fatwas and Cyber Islamic Environ-
ments (London: Pluto Press, 2003); Idem, Virtually Islamic: Computer-Mediated Communication and
Cyber Islamic Environments (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2000).
16
On Albānı̄ see Emad Hamdeh, “The Formative Years of an Iconoclastic Salafi Scholar,” The Muslim
World 106, no. 3, (2016): 411–432.
C 2017 Hartford Seminary.
V 363
 THE MUSLIM WORLD  VOLUME 107  JULY 2017

(
knowledge is acquired. For traditional ulamā’ it is not sufficient for one to hold the cor-
rect beliefs and practice the rituals of Islam. One must also acquire knowledge from a
teacher who is well-grounded in the tradition through an established chain of teachers
going all the way back to the Prophet.17 Muhammad Fadel explains that there is a pro-
(
cess of acculturation that traditional ulamā’ consider essential. Fadel writes:
Mastery of religious values emerges through a process of acculturation that
enables novices to embody those values. This process of acculturation is dis-
(
tinct from, and transcends intellectual cognition ( ilm) of, religious truth. While
(
religious truth may be a proper subject of instruction (ta lı̄m), mere instruction,
without reliable teachers who properly embody Islamic teachings, cannot pro-
duce properly acculturated religious subjects.18

Reverence or Blind Imitation?

During his formative years Abū Ghudda met several scholars and teachers that
impacted his view of scholarship. These scholars mostly belonged to a tradition that
accentuated the teacher-student relationship, and thus Abū Ghudda held scholars in
high regard. He belonged to a current within Islam that adhered to what is considered
authentically rooted in revelation, has crystallized under the banners of scholarly consen-
( (
sus (ijmā ) and been passed on as Islamic knowledge ( ilm naqlı̄ ) in chains of scholarly
authority (isnād). It is a current that is didactic and instructional, which stands in opposi-
tion to Salafism and autodidactic “do it yourself” Islam.19 He believed that students were
indebted to their teachers more than their parents, this deference for one’s religious edu-
cators is evident in his following statement:
If one looks at his teachers, he will discover that they are the cause of his exis-
tence. One’s father is the cause of his existence at the biological level, but the
teacher to the student and seeker of knowledge is the means of his advance-
ment, elevation and high status in the sight of God and then people. Hence,
the right of the scholar over his student is preferred over the right of his father.
Abū Yūsuf al-Qādı̄
: used to supplicate daily for Abū Hanı̄fa
: before his father,
because Abū Hanı̄fa
: is the one who chose him and made him a leader.20

Abū Ghudda belonged to a tradition that demanded reverence and respect for the
(
ulamā’. Before becoming experts, students had to study through the traditional system

17
Mohammad Fadel, “Islamic Law and Constitution-Making: The Authoritarian Temptation and the
Arab Spring,” Osgoode Hall Law Journal 53/2 (2016), 474–75.
18
M. Fadel, Islamic Law, 474–75.
19 )
Kasper Mathiesen, “Anglo-American ‘Traditional Islam and its Discourse of Orthodoxy.” Journal of
Arabic and Islamic Studies 13, (2013), 191–219.
20
Abū Yūsuf al-Qādı̄
: (d.182/798) he student of Abū Hanı̄fa
: and one of the founders of the Hanafı̄
:
school. See J. Schacht, Encyclopedia of Islam Second Edition, art. Abū Yūsuf. Also, see Muhammad
:
Akram Nadwi, Abu Hanifa (London: I.B. Tauris, 2007), 41–44. Also, see M. Āl Rashı̄d, Imdād, 149.
364 C 2017 Hartford Seminary.
V
 (
T HE R OLE OF THE U LAMĀ ’

and obtain ijāzas from numerous scholars. In traditional Islamic education, the teacher
served as a supervisor to ensure that students understood texts properly. A teacher was
also a mentor who played the role of a spiritual guide for his students. In this regard, Suf-
ism was very important to the study of Islam in traditional learning circles. It was not
strictly an academic study of religion, but one that expected students to adhere to the eti-
quette of a student of knowledge.
The etiquette of knowledge not only required students to have respect for the
(
ulamā’ class, but also ensured that knowledge was passed down with this etiquette.
This reverence was not only due to their scholarly achievements, but to their piety as
(
well. Among his earliest teachers was Isā al-Bayānūnı̄ (d. 1943), who lived in the same
neighborhood as Abū Ghudda.21 Abū Ghudda remembers him as one who had an
immense amount of love for the Prophet Muhammad. Abū Ghudda states: “He used to
teach us etiquette, but teaching it is different than giving a taste of it. Teaching concerns
the hearing of the ear, but tasting is the gratification of the heart.”22 In tradition educa-
tional settings, learning directly from a teacher is essential because one “tastes” knowl-
edge. It is not solely an academic endeavor, but it is more akin to the mentoring
relationship a master has with his student. This is evident from how Abū Ghudda
describes his teachers. For instance, he describes another one of his teachers was Ibrā-
hı̄m al-Salqı̄nı̄ (d. 2011), as being a friend of God (walı̄), who although taught grammar,
used to regularly weep out of fear of God. Abū Ghudda notes that he prospered more
from his state of being than his admonishments.23 Kasper Mathiesen explains that being
a student in traditional learning circles “implies suhba,
: studying with and being in the
presence of ijāza-holding scholars in order to absorb their spiritual hāl : (state of heart
and being).”24
The process of acculturation that is part of traditional educational is an essential
pre-condition for the proper understanding of Islam. Albānı̄ considers this process of
acculturation to often manifest itself in excessive reverence for scholars and uncritical
acceptance of the legal schools. This resulted in strict madhhabism and the adherents of
each madhhab viewed the other madhhabs as almost belonging to different religions.
He proposed to solve this division by returning to the Prophet’s true and pure teachings.
Albānı̄’s project to purge Islam from impure teachings often resulted in him holding
unconventional views which contradicted the positions of the majority of ‘ulamā’.
(
Abū Ghudda was a staunch proponent of understanding Islam through the ulamā
and the schools of law. Albānı̄, a towering figure in Salafi circles, attempted to bypass
)
scholars and go directly to the Qur ān and Sunna. Their differences stem from their

21 (
He died in the city of Medina and was buried in Al-Baqı̄ cemetery, his student Abū Ghudda would
die more than 50 years later and be buried in the same cemetery.
22
M. Āl Rashı̄d, Imdād, 150.
23
M. Āl Rashı̄d, Imdād, 150.
24
K. Mathiesen, Anglo-American, 204.
C 2017 Hartford Seminary.
V 365
 THE MUSLIM WORLD  VOLUME 107  JULY 2017

opposing attitudes toward the place of the ‘ulamā’. The reverence of scholars was a
point of contention between Abū Ghudda and Albānı̄. Albānı̄ often accused Abū
Ghudda of revering scholars to the extent that he blindly followed them. Albānı̄ views
this reverence as blind following and Abū Ghudda considers Albānı̄’s reexamination of
well-established scholarly opinions to be arrogant and irreverent. Abū Ghudda notes
(
that unlike some Muslims who belittle the scholarly achievements of the ulamā’, even
some Orientalists, despite their apparent aversion for Islam, have reverence for scholars
due to their scholarly feats.25 For Abū Ghudda, Salafism was problematic because it
bypassed previous scholarship and approached to the texts anew.
)
The crux of Abū Ghudda s protest against Albānı̄’s reexamination and bypassing the
madhhabs was that it causes common Muslims to doubt the accomplishments of the
(
ulamā’.
Furthermore, Abū Ghudda did not deem Albānı̄ to be adequately qualified to disap-
prove previous scholars. However, Albānı̄ believed Abū Ghudda to be blinding follow-
(
ing the ulamā’ and intentionally ignoring their mistakes. Albānı̄ states:
The umma should not be deceived by what some of the agitators write against
us, from among the ignorant muqallids and madhhabists who babble about
that which they do not know. They say that which they do not know, and pur-
posely make themselves ignorant about what they know. Examples of these
individuals are the biased Abū Ghudda from Aleppo, the junior Kawtharı̄, and
(
his like that Egyptian loser Mahmūd
: Sa ı̄d and those who are like them.26

Albānı̄ castigated Abū Ghudda for being a blind follower (muqallid) of his teacher
Kawtharı̄ and the Hanafı̄
: school.27 Albānı̄ portrayed Abū Ghudda as an unbending and
blind loyalist to his teachers or madhhab, preferring them over the hadı̄th : of the
Prophet. Abū Ghudda repudiated this allegation, he stated:
I am the student of Kawtharı̄, may God have mercy on him, just as I am a
student of many scholars other than him, may God have mercy on them. I
acquired knowledge from approximately one hundred scholars in my home
town of Aleppo and other countries in Greater Syria, as well as the holy city
of Mecca, Medina, Egypt, India, Pakistan, Morocco and more, all praise is
due to God. I have nearly one hundred teachers who I acquired and learned
knowledge from, each had his unique methodology. I never adhered to the
sayings of any one of them simply because he was my shaykh and teacher.
Instead, I adhere to what I consider to be correct and believe to be true or
preponderant. I may make mistakes or be correct just like every student of

25
A. F. Abū Ghudda, Lecture in Turkey.
26 (
Muhammad
: Nās: ir al-Dı̄n al-Albānı̄, Mukhtas: ar Sa : h: al-Bukhārı̄ (Riyadh: Maktabat al-Ma ārif,
: hı̄
2002), 2:8.
27
For Abū Ghudda’s perspective on how the differences between himself and Albānı̄ see Abd al-Fattāh:
( (
Abū Ghudda, Kalimāt, fı̄ Kashf Abātı̄l : wa Iftirā āt (Aleppo: Maktabat al-Matbū
: āt al-Islāmiyya, 1990),
1–5.
366 C 2017 Hartford Seminary.
V
 (
T HE R OLE OF THE U LAMĀ ’

knowledge. So, the claim that I adhere to everything that Kawtharı̄ says is
false.28

Abu Ghudda lists his teachers as an implicit criticism of Albānı̄ who is an autodi-
dact.29 He uses his considerable number of teachers, colleagues, and students from
throughout the Muslim world to explicate that he was exposed to many ideas and meth-
odologies, which he uses to refute Albānı̄’s allegations against him. Through his teachers
and wide exposure Abū Ghudda was acquainted with the most current ideas and trends
in the Muslim world. For knowledge to be authentic, Abū Ghudda believes it must come
through a link of continuation of scholarship.
When this link is absent, individuals who claim scholarship lose the true meaning of
scripture and adopt harsh manners. When individuals bypass scholars they not only mis-
understand texts, but they also become harsh and lose the adab of knowledge. Abū
Ghudda writes:
Rarely do you find a group that is astray, or an individual who goes against
the Sunna, except that he has abandoned this characteristic [of learning from
scholars]. On this point, Ibn Hazm
: al-Zāhirı̄
: has been accused of callousness,
because he did not follow the path of acquiring knowledge from scholars, and
he did not implement their mannerisms. The great scholars, such as the four
Imams and their likes, were the opposite of that.30

Like Ibn Hazm

: (d. 456/1064), Albānı̄ was often taken to task for his sharp tongue
and few of his opponents were spared from his verbal attacks. In 1975 Albānı̄ wrote a
( )
book titled Kashf al-Niqāb Ammā fı̄ Kalimāt Abı̄ Ghudda Min al-Abāt: ı̄l wa l-Iftirā āt
(Removing the Veil from the Falsehood and Fabrications in Abū Ghudda’s Words), in
which he accused Abū Ghudda of attacking him and Salafis. Albānı̄ chastises Abū
Ghudda for being an unbending follower of the Hanafı̄ : madhhab and called Abū

28 (
A.F. Abū Ghudda, Kalimāt 38. Abū Ghudda had a special relationship with scholars of the Indian
Subcontinent and frequented the region numerous times, traveling once by sea from Iraq. There he
(
met many respected scholars of the region such as Muhammad : Zakarı̄yā al-Kāndahlawı̄, Atı̄q al-
Rahmān,
: ( Muhammad
: Yūsuf al-Kāndahlawı̄, Abū al-Hasan
: al-Nadwı̄, the mufti of Pakistan Muhammad:
Shafı̄ , and others. Abū Ghudda maintained close relations with the scholars of the Indian Subcontinent
throughout his life because of their convergence on the adherence to the Hanafı̄ : madhhab, a spiritual-
ity rooted in scripture, and most importantly due to their similar approach toward Islamic sciences.
Additionally, Abū Ghudda played an instrumental role in the publication of works by several scholars
from the Indian subcontinent and introducing them to the Arab world. These works would have other-
wise remained unfamiliar to many in the Arab world. Of his approximately 70 works, Abū Ghudda pub-
lished more than 10 edited works of scholars from the Indian Subcontinent. See M. Āl Rashı̄d, Imdād,
(
155–158. Also, see Shāh, Anwar Muhammad,
: Al-Tas: rı̄h: Bimā Tawātara fı̄ Nuzūl al-Ması̄h: ed. Abd al-
(
Fattāh: Abū Ghudda (Aleppo: Maktab al-Mat:bū āt al-Islāmiyya 1992), 4–5.
29 ( )
Abd Allāh al-Shamrānı̄, Thabat Mu alifāt al-Muhadith
: al-Kabı̄r al-Imam Muhammad
: Nās: ir al-Dı̄n
al-Albānı̄ www.dorar.net 17.
30 ( ( (
Abd al-Fattāh: Abū Ghudda, Saf: ha : Mushriqa Min Tarı̄kh Samā al-H: adı̄th Ind al-Muhadithı̄n :
(
(Aleppo: Maktabat al-Matbū : āt al-Islāmiyya, 1996), 152–153.
C 2017 Hartford Seminary.
V 367
 THE MUSLIM WORLD  VOLUME 107  JULY 2017

Ghudda ignorant, an intentional liar, transgressor, and fabricator, an enemy to Ibn Tay-
(
miyya (d. 728/1328), Ibn Qayyim (751/1350), Muhammad
: b. Abd al-Wahhāb (d. 1792).
Albānı̄’s disparagements against Abū Ghudda were not only academic, but very perso-
nal. To manifest how much he eschews and antagonizes Abū Ghudda, Albānı̄ made the
(
supplication: Ashal Allāhu yada-ka wa qat: a a lisāna-ka “May God paralyze your hand
and cut off your tongue!”31 Additionally, while addressing a group of students, Albānı̄
said:
In my view, students of knowledge like yourselves know very well that Abū
Ghudda is in relation to knowledge like the gland of a camel. You know that
he does not have a sound creed, neither does he have knowledge of the
Qur’ān and Sunna.32

Abū Ghudda’s views on the adab of scholarship prevented him from reciprocating
in a similar fashion. The idiosyncrasies of scholarly character were important to Abū
Ghudda, therefore he would often criticize Albānı̄ without mentioning his name. Despite
Albānı̄’s open criticism, Abū Ghudda did not immediately respond by publishing a work
directly reciprocating against Albānı̄. He states that he was forced to publicize a book
explicitly mentioning Albānı̄ by name because of Albānı̄’s many accusations. Abū
(
Ghudda wrote a book titled Kalimāt fı̄ Kashf Abāt: ı̄l wa Iftirā āt (Thoughts that Expose
Falsehood and Fabrications). This work was written in 1974 and did not mention Albānı̄
or anyone else by name in compliance with what Abū Ghudda believed to be proper eti-
quette in refutation.33 Abū Ghudda initially only disseminated the book to those who
requested it to make them aware of his perspective. However, Abū Ghudda published
the second edition in 1991 and mentioned Albānı̄ and his ex-friend Zuhayr al-Shawı̄sh

31 (
Muhammad
:) Nās: ir al-Dı̄n al-Albānı̄, Kashf al-Niqāb Ammā fı̄ Kalimāt Abı̄ Ghudda Min al-Abāt: ı̄l wa
l-Iftirā āt (Damascus: [n.p.], 1978), 103.
32 (
“T: āmāt wa Munkirāt al-Jahūl al-Albānı̄ al-Wahhābı̄ Mudda ı̄ al-Salafiyya Rahima-hu : Allāh.”
2008. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v5yRpKoWWUECU&feature5player_embedded#! (accessed
December 12, 2011).
33
See A.F. Abū Ghudda, Jawāb; Idem Kalimāt. Abū Ghudda wrote another book where he directly
)
addresses Albānı̄ Khut: bat al-H: āja Laysat Sunna fı̄ Mustahal al-Kutub wa l-Mu allafāt This work was
written in response to Albānı̄’s book titled Khut: bat al-H: āja in which he had argued that all books
should begin with the sermon of need, which is usually recited in the beginning of a sermon or lecture.
By arguing this, Albānı̄ was correcting hundreds of scholars, early and late, who did not begin their
books with the sermon of need. Abū Ghudda’s book compiles the long list of scholars who did not use
(
this sermon of need, and refutes Albānı̄’s claims while refraining from insults. See Abd al-Fattāh: Abū
) )
Ghudda, Khut: bat al-H: āja Laysat Sunna fı̄ Mustahal al-Kutub wa l-Mu allafāt. (Beirut: Dār al-Bashā ir
(
al-Islāmiyya, 2008). Abū Ghudda also edited a work of the Pakistani scholar Muhammad : al-Nu mānı̄
(d. 1999) that refutes Albānı̄’s consideration of Abū Hanı̄fa: as weak in the science of hadı̄th.
: It is likely
(
that Abū Ghudda chose to edit this book to introduce Nu mānı̄’s criticisms of Albānı̄ to the Arab world.
( (
See Muhammad: al-Nu mānı̄, Makānat al-Imām Abı̄ H: anı̄fa fı̄ l-H: adı̄th ed. Abd al-Fattāh: Abū Ghudda
(
(Beirut: Maktabat al- Matbū : āt al-Islāmiyya, 2007).
368 C 2017 Hartford Seminary.
V
 (
T HE R OLE OF THE U LAMĀ ’

by name. Abū Ghudda noted that his students encouraged him to publish it in order that
people not trust Albānı̄’s denunciations.

(
The Necessity of Following Ulamā’
Albānı̄ attempted to purge Islam of differences and division and unite the Muslims
on what he considered authentic Islam. He ridiculed the idea that two contradicting
opinions could be equally valid. He criticized Abū Ghudda for holding this opinion.
Albānı̄ states:
Abū Ghudda considers that two contradicting opinions, and there are so many
in his madhhab, can all be part of the sharia and that it is permissible to act
upon any of them. . .is the religion according to you [Abū Ghudda], two reli-
gions; one of them easy and the other difficult?34
)
Albānı̄ sought to review all fiqh opinions in light of the Qur ān and Sunna. He did
not consider any opinion valid unless it was supported by scripture. In other words, a
scholar could give a fatwa based on a madhhab or previous scholarly opinion under the
condition that it is supported by Qur’ān and Sunna, not based on the opinion of his
madhhab alone, thus returning authority to scripture itself rather than the scholar.35 Con-
versely, Abū Ghudda believed that if a group of traditional scholars hold an opinion it
has the possibility of being valid and therefore cannot be disregarded as falsehood. In
this regard, the teacher-student relationship was critical because it was understood to be
uninterruptedly linked back the Prophet. When understood in this light, Abū Ghudda’s
respect for teachers reflected reverence for the Prophet. Since the teacher-student rela-
tionship meant that there was a process of “passing down” or “inheriting” that originated
with the Prophet, all those in the chain must be revered for being heirs of the Prophet.
Abū Ghudda’s stance on the importance of the teacher-student relationship reflects his
concern with the preservation of Islamic knowledge.
In Abū Ghudda’s view, Albānı̄ and Salafis are an example of how the departure from
the traditional educational model to a more autodidactic mode of education results in
disrespect and division. In his Risālat al-Ulfa Bayn al-Muslimı̄n (Epistle on Unity Among
Muslims), Abū Ghudda notes that instead of trying to create unity, some groups have
risen who: “View themselves as the people of truth in everything. They perceive those
who disagree with them as being on falsehood.”36 In this book, Abū Ghudda uses a long
excerpt from Ibn Taymiyya which address the differences among the scholars of madh-
habs and concurred that unity must always be adhered to despite differences. While we
will never know what Abū Ghudda’s intention of selecting Ibn Taymiyya to deliver this

34
M. Albānı̄, Kashf, 100–01.
35 )
Muhammad
: Nās: ir al-Dı̄n al-Albānı̄, “Al-Taqlı̄d wa l-ittibā ,“lecture from www.alalbany.net, last
accessed 4/5/2012.
36 ( )
Abd al-Fattāh: Abū Ghudda, Risālat al-Ulfa Bayn al-Muslimı̄n (Beirut: Dār al-Bashā ir al-Islāmiyya,
1996), 5.
C 2017 Hartford Seminary.
V 369
 THE MUSLIM WORLD  VOLUME 107  JULY 2017

message, we can speculate that he did so to address Salafis like Albānı̄ who hold Ibn
Taymiyya in high esteem.
Abū Ghudda’s style of writing was such that he often referred to people or groups
implicitly, without mentioning names. This work addresses the religious divides that
were taking place at the time. He follows this by a commentary on another epistle writ-
ten by Ibn Hazm
: in response to a question from Mālikı̄ scholar on the ruling concerning
praying behind someone of a different madhhab. Abū Ghudda notes that Ibn Hazm : was
known for his bitter attitude toward those who disagree with him. Like Albānı̄, Ibn Hazm :
often accused his opponents of going against the hadı̄th.: Abū Ghudda notes that in this
case, even Ibn Hazm
: defends the legitimacy of their differences of opinion. Abū Ghudda
explains that perhaps the Mālikı̄ questioner asked Ibn Hazm, : who was known for his
strictness, expecting he would get the response: that it is not permissible to pray behind
someone of a different madhhab.37 Abū Ghudda was addressing Salafis as well as
uncompromising madhhabists to the extent that they would not want to pray behind
someone of a different madhhab. Abū Ghudda chose two iconoclastic scholars Albānı̄
admired, Ibn Hazm : and Ibn Taymiyya, to illustrate that even they had a tolerant
approach toward differences of opinion on secondary issues. He was attempting to
bridge the gap between uncompromising Salafism and strict madhhabism. For Abū
Ghudda, proper scholarship fell between these two extremes of following only literal
decontextualized texts and uncompromising adherence to previous scholars.
Reformists like Albānı̄ responded to strict madhhabism by insisting on a hadı̄th
: based
fiqh or fiqh al-hadı̄th.
: This posed a threat the traditional system because it often resulted in
shallow, but appealing scholarship that presented itself as “authentic” Islam. Abū Ghudda
recognized the potential threat and criticized Salafis and autodidacts who considered ijtihād
to be easy. Abū Ghudda points out that not everyone who narrates or memorizes a hadı̄th :
immediately becomes an expert in extracting its rulings. He appears to address Albānı̄
when he wrote:
)
If the likes of Yahyā
: al-Qat:tān
: (d. 198/813), Wakı̄ b. al-Jarrāh: (d. 196/811),
( (
Abd al-Razzāq (d. 211/826), Yahyā
: b. Ma ı̄n (d. 233/847), and those of their
stature did not dare indulge in ijtihād and fiqh, then how imprudent are the
fake mujtahids of our time?! On top of it, they call the pious predecessors
ignorant without the least shame nor modesty! God is our refuge from
deception.38

Abū Ghudda notes that some people think they can surpass previous scholars using
(
only books, the Qur ān, Sunna, and their reason. He depicts the phenomenon of inter-
preting religion without proper qualifications as “the affliction of modern times”

37 ( )
Muhammad
: Ibn Hazm,
: Risāla fi l-Imāma ed. Abd al-Fattāh: Abū Ghudda (Beirut: Dār al-Bashā ir
al-Islāmiyya, 1996), 120.
38 ( (
Abd al-Fattāh: Abū Ghudda, Al-Isnād Min al-Dı̄n (Aleppo: Maktabat al-Matbū
: āt al-Islāmiyya, 1996), 68.
370 C 2017 Hartford Seminary.
V
 (
T HE R OLE OF THE U LAMĀ ’

(
(mus: ı̄bat al- as: r).39 Reformers like Albānı̄ justify their reexamining the opinions of previ-
ous scholars by explaining that today through print and technology we have access to
sources that were not available to scholars in the past. Abū Ghudda argues that there are
things beyond texts, such as the interpretation of the scholarly community, that are lost
when one studies alone. Books in and of themselves do not provide “authentic” knowl-
edge. One must approach those books with context, deep understanding, as well as an
accurate and consistent methodology. In his view, anyone who learns only from books
is bound to misunderstand them. When an opinion comes through a madhhab it has
already been put through a rigorous process of verification and reexamination.40
Put differently, for Abū Ghudda understanding Islam is not as easy as Albānı̄ makes
(
it appear because not all scripture is self-evident.41 Abū Ghudda and traditional ulamā’
distinguish between the law and its sources and this distinction assumes that the law,
which is a collection of divinely ordained rules, is not entirely self-evident from the
sacred texts. If it were, the scripture would not be the source of law, but the law itself.
Law is the result of juristic interpretation and therefore stands at the end of the interpre-
tive process, not the beginning. What a jurist says is not authoritative because he says it,
but his authority rests in the validity of what he declares. The question is whether the
jurist has properly or validly performed ijtihād.42
Studying Islam using only books results in untrained scholars giving religious verdicts
through methodologies unestablished and unrecognized by the schools of law. Abū
(
Ghudda mockingly refers to the computer as hāfi : z: al- as: r (the greatest scholar of modern
times), where people leave real-life teachers and resort to a machine for information.43
This undermines traditional institutions because autodidacts use texts found on the inter-
net to overshadow thousands of scholars trained within the traditional system.
He notes that ijtihād cannot be accomplished by only reading texts. It is a challeng-
ing endeavor for which most people are unqualified. Abū Ghudda responds to autodi-
dacts who bypass scholarly institutions in an effort to follow only scripture, “So does that
(
mean that Abū Hanı̄fa,
: Mālik, Ahmad,
: and Shāfi ı̄ follow the Bible?! Some people think if
44
they read a few books on hadı̄th : they become muhaddiths!”
: In other words, by claim-
( )
ing to use only their reason and scripture autodidacts insinuate that ulamā followed
scholarly institutions rather than texts.45 Abū Ghudda considered such a charge arrogant
(
and profane because it was the very ulamā’ who preserved scripture.

39
A.F. Abū Ghudda, Hājat.
40
A.F. Abū Ghudda, Lecture in Turkey.
41
See Jonathan Brown, “Is Islam Easy to Understand or Not?: Salafis, the Democratization of Interpreta-
tion and the Need for the Ulema,” Journal of Islamic Studies, (2014), 1–28.
42
Bernard Weiss, “Interpretation in Islamic Law: The Theory of Ijtihād,” The American Journal of Com-
parative Law, 2:26 (1978), 199–200.
43
A.F. Abū Ghudda, Lecture in Turkey.
44
A.F. Abū Ghudda, Lecture in Turkey.
45 )
See Emad Hamdeh, “Qur ān and Sunna or the Madhhabs?: A Salafi Polemic Against Islamic Legal
Tradition,” Islamic Law and Society 24:3 (June 2017): 1–43.
C 2017 Hartford Seminary.
V 371
 THE MUSLIM WORLD  VOLUME 107  JULY 2017

Continuation of Scholarship
(
Over the last century the ulamā’ faced unprecedented challenges. The religious author-
ity and support of the state they enjoyed before the fall of the Ottoman empire disappeared.
Additionally, they lost authority due to the change in the religious educational system, emer-
gence of the printing press, as well as the rise of secular governments and other competing
Islamic movements. Abū Ghudda attempted to revive traditional Islamic education through
(
the teacher-student relationship and highlighting the achievements of traditional ulamā’.
He did not write books in a vacuum, but his works reflect his own actions and concerns. He
believed that there was a lack of awareness and appreciation of the knowledge and contri-
(
butions of traditional ulamā’ and Islamic sciences. At the time, there was a general disinter-
est in Islamic sciences and many regarded the science of hadı̄: th with wariness. Thus, Abū
Ghudda devoted much of his scholarly energy to revive the science of hadı̄
: th.
In this regard, Abū Ghudda’s books were written with the intention of reviving interest
in these sciences and demonstrating their importance. For instance, he published two
books in one volume due to there being closely related. The first is Al-Isnād Min al-Dı̄n
(The Chain of Narration is Part of the Religion) highlights the importance of the isnād in
the preservation of knowledge, and how it is unique to the Muslim community. It was also
a refutation of those who criticize the isnād as being a fabrication of later Muslim genera-
tions as was claimed by some Orientalists. He also wrote Saf : ha: Mushriqa min Tarı̄kh
( (
Samā al-H: adı̄th Ind al-Muhadithı̄n
: (An Illuminating Narrative of the History of Oral
Transmission According to the Scholars of H: adı̄th). In this work, Abū Ghudda accentuates
the importance of the teacher-student relationship. This was a reaction to those who had
autodidactic tendencies and tried bypass scholars and learn directly from books.
Abū Ghudda not only considered it important to learn from scholars, but even his
contributions to Islamic sciences were mainly commentaries and elucidations on previ-
ous scholarship. Some might consider Abū Ghudda to have been more of an editor
rather than an author. However, his additions to books could have rightfully been pub-
lished as separate books due the excess of commentaries, corrections, and cross referen-
ces between variant manuscripts. At times a work would be about 20–30 pages in length,
but it would amount to over 100 pages after Abū Ghudda edits, comments, and builds
(
on it.46 For example, when Abū Ghudda finished editing Muhammad : Abd al-Hayy
: al-
(
Laknāwı̄’s Al-Raf wa l-Takmı̄l, some scholars recommended that he publish his com-
mentaries as an independent and separate book because they were much longer than
the original book, and that he attribute the book to himself instead of it being an editing
book of an earlier scholar’s work. He responded: “Completing the building of fathers is a
hundred times better than children initiating their own building. Furthermore, this is part
of the right and fulfillment the ‘ulamā’ have upon us.”47

46
M. Āl Rashı̄d, Imdād, 179.
47 ( ( (
Muhammad
: Abd al-Hayy
: al-Laknawı̄ (d. 1304/1886–7), Al-Raf wa l-Takmı̄l fı̄ l-Jarh: wa l-Ta dı̄l ed.
( (
Abd al-Fattāh: Abū Ghudda. (Beirut: Maktab al-Ma:tbū āt al-Islāmiyya, 2004), 6.
372 C 2017 Hartford Seminary.
V
 (
T HE R OLE OF THE U LAMĀ ’

(
One notices that, unlike Salafis, the scholarship of traditional ulamā’ like Abū
Guhdda is primarily a commentary tradition. It is less common to write independent
works, hence Abū Ghudda’s discourse is mainly done through explaining, commenting,
and editing classical works. For instance, approximately 55 of Abū Ghudda’s 73 publica-
tions are commentaries on the works of previous scholars.48 Even his few independent
works gravitate toward articulating the great works or accomplishments of previous
scholars. Similarly, Abū Ghudda would not produce his own lectures, but insisted that
his teaching be directly from books. His classes comprised of his students reading a
book, to which he would add his comments, corrections, reflections, and insights.49 This
is in contrast with Albānı̄ who mostly wrote independent books. Albānı̄ wrote over 200
books, and approximately 30 are commentaries on previous books.50 In his Sifat : Salat
:
al-Nabı̄ Albānı̄ explains that his works dispense of the need to refer to any other madh-
hab since his work is only based on authentic and pure Sunna.51 Abū Ghudda consid-
ered this to be problematic because Albānı̄ dismissed previous scholarship and sought to
make himself the final authority on what was considered authentic Islam.
Abū Ghudda’s reverence to the works of previous scholars extended to even how
(
the physical copies of their books were treated. His student Salmān al- Awda notes that
Abū Ghudda refused to even allow students to fold the corner of pages in books out of
respect for the knowledge they contained.52 This reverence is demonstrated in how he
(
meticulously edited and commented on the works of previous ulamā’. He did this by
introducing the author and his life, citing the hadı̄ths
: in the work, commenting on impor-
tant points, and providing appendixes, and a detailed index. Abū Ghudda notes that
about sixty years ago, books published in the Arab world were in extremely disorgan-
ized compared to works published in the West. Many Muslims admired the works of Ori-
entalists, particularly after the Muslims fell behind other civilizations, which they were
once the leaders of when the Caliphate existed. Ahmad : Shākir wrote a book titled Edit-
ing Books, Producing Indexes, How to Correct a Book, and the Muslims Superseding the
Europeans in That. Abū Ghudda decided to edit and comment on this book to demon-
strate that Muslims surpassed Orientalists in this regard and that Muslims not be fond of
the works of Orientalists.53
In an attempt to make the achievements of the ‘ulamā’ more appealing, Abū Ghudda
also authored several works which highlight the sacrifice scholars took upon themselves

48
See M. Āl Rashı̄d, Imdād, 180–215.
49 ) (
See “Samā al-Dhākira: Al-Shaykh Abd al-Fattāh: Abū Ghudda 1,” [n/d/], video clip, accessed Novem-
ber 9, 2013, YouTube, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v54qBTIidtcs8. Also, see Hadı̄th : Dr. Salmān.
50 ( ( ) (
At:iyya Awda, Safa : hāt
: Bay dā
: Min H: ayāt al-Imām Mu hammad
: Nās: ir al-Dı̄n al-Albānı̄ (Al-Sana a:
Maktaba al-Islāmiyya, 2001), 63–92.
51 (
Muhammad
: Nās: ir al-Dı̄n al-Albānı̄, As: l Sifat
: Salāt
: al-Nabı̄ Salla
: ( Allāhu Alay-hi wa Sallam Min al-
)
Takbı̄r ilā al-Taslı̄m Ka anaka Tarā-hā (Riyadh: Maktabat al-Ma ārif, 2006), 15–18.
52
See Hadı̄th
: Dr. Salmān.
53 (
Ahmad
: Shākir, Tas: hı̄
: h: al-Kutub wa Sun : u al-Fahāris wa Kayfı̄yat Dab : t: al-Kitāb wa Sabq al-
(
Muslimı̄n al-Afranj fı̄ Dhālik ed. Abd al-Fattāh: Abū Ghudda (Cairo: Maktabat al-Sunna, 1994), 6–7.
C 2017 Hartford Seminary.
V 373
 THE MUSLIM WORLD  VOLUME 107  JULY 2017

in order to seek knowledge. These books call attention to the importance of knowledge
over everything else. They were geared toward the new and young students of Islamic
scholarship who might have belittled Islamic scholarly heritage in the face of Western
influence and technological advancements. The most famous of these compendia are:
( )( ) (
Safa
: hāt
: Min Sabr: al- Ulamā Alā Shadā id al- Ilm wa l-Tah: s: ı̄l (Narratives on the Stead-
fastness of Scholars in Face of Hardships in Education and Learning). Qı̄mat al-Zaman
( ( ) ( ) (
Inda al- Ulamā (The Value of Time to the Scholars) and Al- Ulamā al- Uzzāb Alladhı̄n
( (
Ātharū al- Ilm Alā al-Zawāj (The Unmarried Scholars Who Preferred Knowledge over
(
Marriage). In these works, Abū Ghudda highlights how the ulamā’ walked hundreds of
miles in search of knowledge, experienced poverty, thirst, hunger, and other hardships in
(
search for knowledge. In Abū Ghudda’s view, the efforts of knowledge of these ulamā’
cannot be equated to someone who learned Islam by merely reading books, attending a
few classes, or doing some research on a computer.

Conclusion
Abū Ghudda was a scholar who was troubled with the negative religious, political,
and social circumstances in the Muslim world. He initially attempted to save the dimin-
ishing authority and place of traditional ‘ulamā’ through political involvement, but was
unsuccessful. Abū Ghudda ultimately devoted his life to knowledge and reviving the tra-
(
dition of the ulamā’. Being the student of the last Shaykh al-Islam of the Ottoman
Empire, he experienced first-hand the frustration and decline of the authority of the
(
ulamā’. In addition to being unable to keep up with the fast changes of modernity and
(
technology, the ulamā’ failed in providing relevant solutions to the problems found in
the Muslim world. Abū Ghudda responded to the challenges of modernity and other
rivaling Islamic movements like Salafism, by attempting to revive a tradition that many
felt was dying.

374 C 2017 Hartford Seminary.

V