His meaning is that he should not be spoken of ill, for Allah’s pardon of those who forget or err, and the sinner’s repentance, can efface every sin. Such pardon and repentance are highly likely in his case and in similar cases. Moreover, Allah’s forgiveness through good deeds—his own and those of others—and His expiation of sins through afflictions extend even to cases where sins are established. Thus, one should not presume the absence (*) of such forgiveness in the case of a particular individual without clear insight, especially when he has done much good, possesses sound knowledge, performs righteous deeds, and has good intentions.

He inclined toward philosophy, but presented it in the guise of Sufism and Islamic expressions. For this reason, Muslim scholars refuted him—even his closest associate, Abū Bakr ibn al-‘Arabī, who said:

“Our shaykh Abū Hāmid became deeply immersed in the philosophers’ teachings, then wished to extricate himself, but could not.”

He has also been reported to have espoused doctrines of the Bātiniyya (esoteric sects), and corroboration of these reports can be found in his books. Abū ‘Abd Allāh al-Māzarī refuted him in a work devoted specifically to that purpose, as did Abū Bakr al-Turtūshī. His companion Abū al-Hasan al-Marghīnānī refuted his statements in The Niche of Lights and similar works. Shaykh Abū al-Bayān and Shaykh Abū ‘Amr ibn al-Salāh also refuted him. Ibn al-Salāh, Abū Zakariyyā al-Nawawī, and others warned against his statements on these matters. Ibn ‘Aqīl, Ibn al-Jawzī, Abū Muhammad al-Maqdisī, and others likewise refuted him.

This is a broad subject, for those who depart from the way of the earliest forerunners among