The study, investigation and analysis of the scholarly heritage produced in the history of Islamic thought has many difficulties in itself. Because in the past, writing and printing techniques were not as developed as they are today, and not all works were recorded by official authorities, which has caused doubts about the authenticity of some works today. Such doubts often prevent a correct understanding of the scholarly heritage and cause major distortions that can damage scholarly traditions. One of the scholars who has been subjected to such misunderstandings and the criticisms arising from them is al-Ghazālī, one of the cornerstones of the history of Islamic thought. Due to his influential position in Islamic thought, many ideas and works have been attributed to al-Ghazālī, sometimes by his opponents and sometimes by his followers, in an attempt to find a ground of legitimacy. The fact that al-Ghazālī has written in many different scientific fields and he has gone some intellectual changes facilitated the attribution of some ideas and works to him, although they did not belong to him. One of the works that is subject to the issues we mentioned is Ma‘ārij al-quds fī madārij ma‘rifat al-nafs, which is frequently used to determine al-Ghazālī's views in contemporary studies in the fields of kalām, Sufism, and philosophy. The fact that this work is frequently used by researchers in their studies shows that there is a general acceptance about its attribution to al-Ghazālī. However, with the exception of some parts of the work, its content and basic thought differ from the most fundamental views that al-Ghazālī defended in his other books, and even contain obvious contradictions to them. In addition, the negative interaction created by this work has caused al-Ghazālī to be subjected to many unfair criticisms and has caused dilemmas in the identification of his views. As far as I have been able to determine as a result of the literature review, there has not been a comprehensive study in Turkey, the Arab world and the Western world about the attribution of the work to al-Ghazālī. This has necessitated an independent study of the work in order to analyze the scholarly heritage properly. Since the historical data of the past periods was used to determine the work's belonging, due to the difficulties involved, I have focused on the the analysis of classical works, tabakat works and manuscripts and also the analysis of the opinions and references mentioned in the work. As a result of the examinations and analyses, many authors of classical Tabaqat works have been identified who have given al-Ghazālī's biography in their works. None of these works attributed Ma‘ārij al-quds to al-Ghazālī. As a matter of fact, there is no reference to alGhazālī's Ma‘ārij al-quds from his own works, nor is there any reference to any of his works from this work. Moreover, although there are many scholars in the postGhazālī period who criticized al-Ghazālī for his works, there is no reference to Ma‘ārij al-quds in these criticisms. In Ma‘ārij al-quds, there is a different style that we have not encountered in any of al-Ghazālī's works. In this work, there are pages of verbatim quotations without any scholarly critique. As is well known, al-Ghazālī took a stand against information that was not filtered and obtained only through imitation, and severely criticized those who had such a style. In Ma‘ārij al-quds, pages of verbatim quotations from the works of Ibn Sīnā (d. 428/1037), Imam al-Ghazālī (d. 505/1111), and Rāghib al-Isfahānī (d. 502/1108) were identified. In order to better demonstrate that these quotations are verbatim, the quotations are given in comparison with the works from which the quotations are taken. In addition to all these, this work has been compared with the methodology and basic thought of al-Ghazālī’s works that are certain to belong to him, considering its content. As a result, based on the incompatibility of the content of the work with al-Ghazālī's basic thought and methodology and the presence of pages of quotations in the work, as well as other evidence obtained, it is concluded that this work does not belong to him. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]