[kertUtire]

Why do you take a despicable enemy's interpretation as a source?

I looked at that atheist site and certain common traits emerged: Egypt was the concentration of kufr secular thought among Arab thinkers while under Mubarak's rule. Mubarak fostered the prevalance of kufr in society while also repressing Islam. the Darul Ifta was formed by the British empire to counterbalance al Azhar, and Mubarak appointed his own mufti to continue that trend of secularization of Egyptian society. In this midst, atheist thinkers looked for any works to prop themselves up, like larvae feeding on the body infected by the mother parasite, seeking to grow in parasitic value. (Tapeworms function like this: mother tapeworms lay eggs and the larvae tend towards being excreted in feces. But some try to survive in the host to grow on their own. But if the mother is too big, too bloated and engorged on feeding on human host, its own offspring must die, or be evacuated. Hence, atheists in Mubarak's Egypt searching for legitimacy in Ibn Rushd misinterpretations, or vacating to Baathist Syria.)


Another commonality of this all is Ibn Rushd's work is "interpreted" by others to mean this or that. What did he say and in what context? How were his works in relation to his entire body of work? Did someone who upheld the highest standards in fiqh NOT understand riddah, or was his exercise in philosophy an excess?
An "interpretation" by this or that atheist under protection of a rapist torturer is of little meaning.

Here is one academic interpretation of the devilry of secularist interpretation of Ibn Rushd:


I should like to draw attention to a centrally important principle which is often overlooked: namely, that the foundations of the Rushdi corpus have to be properly established before we are in a position to analyse Ibn Rushd's thought. An appreciation of this will set the present study on a proper footing, and will also shed critical light on the current state of Rushdi scholarship. Present-day students of Ibn Rushd are all too ready to apply the "synthetic approach" (al-nazar al-tarkibi) to his writings, or to probe his philosophical depth and ideological intention, without realising that much more fundamental textual work still needs to be done. While not wishing to curb the legitimate aspirations of such scholars, I feel that their work is really premature; that the present state of Rushdi studies firmly precludes systematic analysis of this kind.4

Clearly, then, several difficulties have to be met. First, there is the particular difficulty of determining what, in the writings of Ibn Rushd, the problem of the intellect actually is, the barrier here being a linguistic obscurity which at times makes the author's intended meaning impossible to discover -all the more so when we are working with the translation of a lost original text, as is the case with the main textual fragment forming the basis of the theory of the intellect in his writings, i.e., Al-Sharh al-kabir (the Long Commentary) of the De Anima (Kitab al-nafs). Still more problematic is the fact that the surviving primary sources, Ibn Rushd's psychological writings themselves, exist in manuscripts which still remain unedited by recognised standards of editions-a discipline which requires the researcher first to undertake the work of the philologist. To this end the text and its manuscripts must be compared with the aim, on the one hand, of establishing a sound text and, on the other, of critically analysing the variants between the manuscripts. Such work is a prerequisite both for a general study of Ibn Rushd and for a specific examination of the problem of the intellect.
http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ir/art/ir-alawi-002.htm


Thus, who has been interpretting Ibn Rushd's work through lack of context, lack of primary sources, lack of actual linguistic certainty?

If you wrote a poem to your wife, and 100 years after your death it somehow was published in another language as your ode to all women everywhere, or even worse, to gay men, how would that obscure the original context and meaning?

This is Ibn Rushd's dilemma.