Imam Ghazali is considered among theological scholars. Therefore, it is unthinkable that he would – in principle – oppose the science of theology. As a matter of fact, Ghazali included the following statements under the title “Kelam Science, Purpose and Principle” in his work titled “el-Munkizu mine’d-dalal” :
“Then I started to learn the science of kalam, studied it and tried to understand it. I studied the works of muhakkik theologians. I classified the science of Kalam as I desired. As a result, I saw that this science is a science that fulfills its purpose, but it is far from satisfying my purpose.”
“As a matter of fact, the main purpose of the science of kalam is to protect the creed of the Ahl al-Sunnah by eliminating the doubts that the Ahl al-innovators want to introduce. Allah inspired His servants with the true creed – as revealed by His messenger. This is “The creed contains principles prescribed by the Quran and the Sunnah, which are very useful for the religion and world of believers.”
“On the other hand, the devil suggested to the people of heresy things that were contrary to the Ahl al-Sunnah creed, and they continued to talk back and forth in line with these suggestions in order to hesitate and encourage the people of the truth.”
“In response to their sowing these seeds of discord, Allah built the group of theologians. He mobilized all their emotions to regularly defend the creed of Ahl al-Sunnah and to reveal the fallacy of the deceptive thoughts of the people of bid’ah, thus a scientific group known as the Theologians (the Theologians) emerged. “It’s out.” (al-Munkizu mine’d-dalal, 118-121).
It is understood from these statements that Imam Ghazali – in principle – thinks that the science of kalam is a blessing that God has given to this ummah , but that it does not have much influence due to the conditions of his time.
Ghazali expressed this aspect of the theologians he criticized as follows:
“Some of the theologians very well defended the Islamic creed, which was shaped in the lines of the Quran and the Sunnah, and tried to eliminate the doubts of the heretics. However, while waging this struggle, they had to accept some of the principles and deduction methods used by their opponents and use the same ones. Over time, this struggle has become such that the theologians tried to voice the opponent’s objections and evidence instead of presenting their own accepted constants.
“Now, a theological method has emerged that deals with the organs and basic structural elements of the universe (such as physics, chemistry, geology, geography and astronomy) and is incapable of revealing it properly and channeling it in a useful direction. This has caused harm rather than benefit to many Muslims. For reasons like these, the method of the theologians could not satisfy me and could not cure my troubles.” (Ibid., p. 123-124).
To summarize, Imam Ghazali is not against the science of kalam, but against the wrong methods used over time.
As for the other question , Imam Ghazali says that it is wrong to guide the broad public with evidence in theology or philosophy. According to him, environments where such different and contradictory inference methods are used, which are very foreign to the common people/ignorant people who are deprived of the infrastructure in these matters and contradict each other, loosen, hesitate and damage their beliefs instead of strengthening them.
Issues that the common people’s simple thoughts cannot weigh, such as allegorical issues that need interpretation and interpretation , may cause them to hesitate. Since some important subjects of Kalam are mutashabih, it may be harmful for them to study the science of Kalam. If there is no such danger, of course there is no harm in it and it will also be beneficial.