Aslam

Praise be to Allah.

Firstly:

Ibn Rushd is a name that was shared between Ibn Rushd the

grandson (known to the West as Averroes) and Ibn Rushd the grandfather. Both

of them had the kunyah Abu’l-Waleed, and both of them had the name Muhammad

ibn Ahmad. Both were appointed as qaadi (judge) of Cordoba.

The one referred to in the question is Ibn Rushd the grandson

(Averroes), who died in 595 AH. He is famous for his focus on philosophy and

writing books in that field. As for Ibn Rushd the grandfather, he did not

get involved in philosophy; he died in 520 AH.

Al-Abbaar said:

He attained a level of perfection, knowledge and virtue that

was unsurpassed in Andalusia. He was a modest and humble man, of whom it was

said that he was never distracted from researching and studying academic

issues since he reached the age of discernment, except on two nights: the

night his father died and his wedding night. In terms of books and other

writings he filled almost ten thousand pages. He had a strong inclination

towards philosophy, and became a leading figure in that field. People would

turn to him to ask him his verdict on medical issues as much as they would

ask him about matters of fiqh. He also had a deep knowledge of the Arabic

language, and it was said that he had memorised the diwaans (collected

poems) of Abu Tammaam and al-Mutanabbi.

Among the most famous of his works were the following:

Bidaayat al-Mujtahid, on fiqh; al-Kulliyaat (Generalities) on

medicine; Mukhtasar al-Mustasfa on usool; and many other works on

philosophy, in which he summarised the thoughts of the Greek philosophers.

So he wrote Jawaami‘ Kutub Aristotalis;  a summary of al-Ilaahiyyaat

by Nicolaus of Damascus, a Greek philosopher; and a summary of Aristotle’s

Metaphysics) b Aristotle. He also summarised many other books, of

which there are too many to list here, to the point that he was known as the

one who propagated and carried the banner of Aristotelian thought. That

ultimately led to him becoming isolated, and he was shunned by the people of

his era because of the strange views that he expressed and the weird, alien

knowledge that he propagated.

Shaykh ash-Shuyookh Ibn Hamawiyyah said:

When I entered the city, I asked about Ibn Rushd and I was

told that he was under house arrest on the orders of the caliph Ya‘qoob, and

no one was allowed to visit him, because of the many strange views that were

narrated from him, and the many shunned branches of knowledge that were

attributed to him. He died under house arrest in Marrakesh.

You can see his biography in Siyar A‘laam an-Nubala’

(21/307-310)

Secondly:

There has been a lengthy debate on the real nature of the

beliefs of Ibn Rushd, and many books have been written both supporting him

and opposing him. There has been a great deal of confusion as to his real

beliefs and views.

Because here we do not have the time or space for a detailed

discussion of the beliefs of Ibn Rushd, it will suffice to point out some of

the flawed ideas in his books that are subject to controversy.

1.

Interpretation of Islamic teachings so as to be in

harmony with Aristotelian philosophy

Perhaps looking at the brief biography of Ibn Rushd referred

to above will be sufficient to highlight this inclination in the thought of

Ibn Rushd. He was infatuated with the thought of Aristotle to the extent

that Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said of him:

He is one of the most adherent of people to the views of Aristotle. End

quote from Bayaan Talbees al-Jahamiyyah (1/120). Ibn Rushd tried hard

to explain Aristotelian thought and present it to the people in a new Arabic

style. Whilst doing that, when he saw a contradiction between Aristotelian

thought and the fundamentals of Islam, he would try to find a far-fetched

interpretation that could lead to undermining and destroying Islam. It was

as if Aristotelian philosophy was the counterpart of the teachings of Islam

which came from the Lord of the Worlds and are embodied in the texts of the

Qur’an and Sunnah. It was on this basis that he wrote his famous book

Fasl al-Maqaal fi Taqreer ma bayna ash-Sharee‘ah wa’l-Hikmah min al-Ittisaal

(The Decisive Treatise, Determining the Nature of the Connection between

Religion and Philosophy).

2.

His belief that Islamic teachings have both exoteric

(apparent) and esoteric (hidden) meanings

Ibn Rushd said:

Islamic teachings are of two categories: exoteric (apparent)

and esoteric (hidden). The exoteric or apparent meanings are for the masses

to adhere to and follow, and the esoteric or hidden meanings are for the

scholars. As for the masses, what they must do is understand Islamic

teachings according to the apparent meaning, and refrain from interpreting

them in any manner other than the apparent meaning. It is not permissible

for the scholars to explain them to the masses in any way other than in

accordance with the apparent meaning. As ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with

him) said: Tell the people what they can understand; do you want the words

of Allah and His Messenger to be rejected? End quote.

Al-Kashf ‘an Manaahij al-Adillah

(p. 99); published by Markaz Diraasaat al-Wahdah al-‘Arabiyyah

Ibn Rushd discussed this esoteric idea at length in his

books, to the extent that he regarded it as one of the main characteristics

of the saved group of the ummah of Muhammad (blessings and peace of Allah be

upon him) who adhere to the exoteric aspects of the teachings of Islam, and

they do not disclose their esoteric meanings to the people. End quote.

Al-Kashf ‘an Manaahij al-Adillah

(p. 150)

Hence Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on

him) wrote at length refuting the views of Ibn Rushd in this book and

explaining that esoteric interpretation of Islamic texts is flawed. These

discussions appear in his two significant books, Bayaan Talbees al-Jahamiyyah

and Dar’u Ta‘aarud al-‘Aql wa’n-Naql.

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him)

said:

When Ibn Sina (Avicenna) and his ilk realised that the words

of the Messenger cannot be interpreted in this philosophical manner – rather

they became certain that the meaning that he intended was what the people

understood – they tried to explain that by saying: He was addressing the

masses in a manner that they could understand, even though he knew that the

truth with regard to that particular issue was not as the people understood

it. Hence what these people were effectively saying was that the Messengers

lied in order to serve a purpose. This is the way of Ibn Rushd (Averroes)

and others who follow esoteric interpretations (baatiniyyah). End quote.

Majmoo‘ al-Fataawa

(19/157)

3.

Favouring philosophical views regarding the resurrection

and requital

With regard to the issue of resurrection and requital, he

favoured the view of the philosophers that the resurrection would be of

souls only. In fact in this regard he fell into misguidance that was more

grievous than simply believing in the philosophical view that the

resurrection would be of souls only, as he regarded this issue as being one

that is subject to ijtihaad, and said that what is required of anyone who

examines the matter is to believe in the conclusion that he reaches. He

said:

The truth concerning this issue is that what every individual

must do is believe the conclusion to which his research leads him. End

quote.

Al-Kashf ‘an Manaahij al-Adillah

(p. 204)

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him)

said:

The followers of philosophy are further removed from the path

of Islam than ahl al-kalaam:

Among them are some who think that this is part of the

religion of Islam.

And among them are some who have more knowledge of religious

texts than others, so they started to reject the views of ahl al-kalaam

unless they are supported by a text. Whenever there was a text to support

their views, they would deal with that text in one of two ways: either they

would accept it completely, if it was in accordance with their understanding

and thoughts, or they would deal with it like all other similar cases, and

say that the Messengers spoke of that by way of comparison in order to help

the people understand (and it is not to be taken literally), because there

was no other way to explain it and therefore they needed to put it in these

words. Ibn Rushd and others like him followed this method, therefore they

are closer to Islamic teachings than Ibn Sina and his ilk. In terms of

practical issues, they were closer to the limits of Islam than those who

neglected Islamic duties and regarded as permissible that which Islam

forbids. However both groups are somewhat deviant, commensurate with the

extent to which they went against the Qur’an and Sunnah, and they are

correct and sound in as much as they are in harmony with them.

Hence with regard to the issue of the universe being created

(and not having existed from eternity) and the resurrection of bodies, Ibn

Rushd took a neutral stance and stated that both views were valid, although

he was more inclined in his heart to his predecessor (Aristotle). He

responded to the comments of al-Ghazaali in Tahaafut at-Tahaafut, but

many of his arguments are incorrect and al-Ghazaali was in the right. He

attributed some of his arguments to Ibn Sina and not to his predecessor

(Aristotle), and he attributed any mistakes to Ibn Sina. In some of his

arguments he spoke ill of al-Ghazaali and accused him of being unfair,

because he based his views on flawed kalaami arguments, such as the idea

that God does not have to have a reason or wisdom behind what He does, and

that the One Who is all powerful and able to choose may decide to choose one

thing over another for no reason. And some of his arguments were very

confused and unclear. End quote.

Minhaaj as-Sunnah

(1/255)

4.

Failure to pay attention to the Sunnah as a source of

legislation

One of the main characteristics of the methodology of Ibn

Rushd in his books, which at the same time was one of the main reasons for

his errors, was his failure to pay attention to the Prophetic Sunnah as a

source of legislation.

Dr Khaalid Kabeer ‘Allaal (may Allah preserve him) said:

Ibn Rushd did not pay due attention to the Prophetic Sunnah

and its status as a main source of Islamic legislation after the Holy

Qur’an, and he did not quote it widely in his books of kalaam and

philosophy. Therefore he missed out on many hadiths that are directly

connected to many of the academic topics that he discussed. Moreover, in

many cases he did not correctly understand many of the hadiths that he did

quote in his books, and he subjected them to misinterpretation in order to

support his views and his Aristotelian ideas. End quote.

Naqd Fikr al-Faylasoof Ibn Rushd

(p. 97)

This is a brief overview that highlights some of the

scholarly criticism of the beliefs of Ibn Rushd (Averroes). This criticism

may be summed up by noting that he overlooked many of the Islamic guidelines

that were clearly laid out by the Lawgiver, and he promoted the method of

interpreting the texts in a manner other than their apparent meaning and

subjecting some clear texts to ijtihaad, on the basis of some weird, alien

ideas that had come from ancient civilisations that have perished.

Because of that, he is celebrated by many of those who are

part of the liberal secular trends today, to the point that they think of

the philosopher Ibn Rushd as a pioneer of enlightenment, even though they

know that much of the knowledge in his books is regarded as extinct and

wrong by modern standards of knowledge. But their aim is to glorify all

liberal thoughts and ideas that are not in harmony with the fundamentals of

Islam and are contrary to the facts mentioned in Islamic texts, and they

resort to interpreting these texts in a very weird manner, whilst at the

same time presenting themselves as people of religious commitment and

Islamic knowledge and understanding. In Ibn Rushd they see what they are

looking for, and they regard his books as pioneering works. We think that in

his books you will find promotion of adherence to Islam and referring to it,

which we do not find in the books of these modern thinkers. He adhered to

the practical side of Islamic teachings and venerated those teachings in the

fields of fiqh, judicial rulings and issuing fatwas, that would not be

pleasing to these modern thinkers, and they would not even match up to one

tenth of his level of knowledge. “May

Allah destroy them, how they are deluded away from the truth!”[at-Tawbah

9:30].

And Allah knows best.