Some criticisms of the belief of Ibn Rushd (Averroes)
Question

                What is the belief of Imam Ibn Rushd, and what was the true nature of his difference of opinion with Imam Abu Haamid al-Ghazaali?
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.