[streMunford]

Here are some quotes from biographers on Ibn Rushd (Rahimullah) which I have saved on my computer:

bn Usaybi`a in Tabaqat al-Atibba' wa Tarikh al-Hukama' (2:75) says: "He was the peerless authority of his time in the Law and knowledge of juristic differences, and he excelled in medicine... speculative theology, and philosophy."

- Ibn Farhun in al-Dibaj al-Mudhahhab (p. 379) states: "On top of all this he was of examplary modesty... he gained eminence in his life through the office of judge in Cordoba, and although kings held him in great awe and respect he never sought after honor nor material gain."

- Ibn `Imad in Shadharat al-Dhahab (4:320): "He excelled in the Law, heard hadith, mastered medicine, and embraced speculative theology and philosophy until his erudition became proverbial in the latter. He authored works together with intellectual brilliance and diligent work night and day. He authored numerous works in jurisprudence, medicine, logic, mathematics, theology. He died in Marrakesh."

"None of these sources mentioned that Ibn Rushd the grandson held the simplistic view that "reason takes precedence over religion" or that it "led to his exile in 1195 by the caliph of Morocco and Spain" as it is claimed by many Western sources. The last excerpt shows that the latter construction is deceptive and misleading."

[gymnAnemoe]

Those type of statements do not necessarily preclude criticism, especially since they are only excerpts.

Here's what Dhahabi has to say about Sibt Ibn al-Jawzi:

الشيخ العالم المتفنن الواعظ البليغ المؤرخ الأخباري واعظ الشام
شمس الدين أبو المظفر يوسف بن قزغلي بن عبد الله التركي العوني الهبيري البغدادي الحنفي سبط الإمام أبي الفرج ابن الجوزي
ولد سنة نيف وثمانين وخمسن مئة .

He only discusses his tashayyu' later on. Such excerpts, when presented as tazkiyah of individuals, are most definately misleading. This reminds me of the other Maliki on this forum who tried to claim the permissibility of instrumental music was a mu'tabar position in the Maliki madh-hab, and quoted Ibn Tahir's so-called ijma' as proof.

I havn't seen the biographies of Ibn Rushd (the grandson), but his enmity with al-Ghazali suffices for me, personally! I'll have a look later.

[ButKnillinoi]

in retrospect i think the title of this thread "the status of ibn rushd" was a poor choice. as i was not so interested in him personally or his status but rather in his ideas.

[DrJonson]

He was a Qadi and an erudite scholar. My teachers have nothing but praise for him. They do mention some lapses but they advise us to have a good opinion of him. Also many of the great biographers such as Imam Dhahabi also have nothing but praise for him [Siyar: 15:452]

And Allah Knows Best.

this plus the fact that he had problems in his beliefs and is not to be emulated in that area

are both good things to say about him

[streMunford]

I havn't seen the biographies of Ibn Rushd (the grandson), but his enmity with al-Ghazali suffices for me, personally! I'll have a look later. As I mentioned earlier there are some statements which are problematic but we should have the best opinion of him as this was mentioned by my teachers. Imam Ghazalli (Rahimullah) has also made one huge problematic statement [(laysa fil imkaan abdau mimma kaan] which many scholars gave a fatwa against but our later scholars made excuses for al-Ghazalli (Rahimullah) since having a better opinion and making ta'wil of his statement was the sunnah of our pious predecessors.

And Allah Knows Best.

[kertUtire]

in retrospect i think the title of this thread "the status of ibn rushd" was a poor choice. as i was not so interested in him personally or his status but rather in his ideas.

Brother I appreciate your retrospection and humility.

Why do you want to study his ideas on philosophy?


I do not trust any Christian academic, intellectual, or religious representation of Islam or Muslims. Allah (SWT) directly described them as misguided, and in their misguidance, they have attempted to misguide many others by misrepresenting the Truth too many times. For them, it is part of their way of life to distort the Truth to suit their aims.


I am also convinced that much of the Christian works based on Ibn Rushd are based on altered works by priests and monks over the centuries within their own ranks, as the Church was infamous at misrepresenting Islam and Muslim contributions to humanity. And I think various Muslims today cite these distortions and attribute them to Ibn Rushd which they gaather from Christian sources.

I for one studied Bidayatul Mujtahid with various ulama over the years and all recognized it as a highly valuable and acceptable achievement and contribution to Islamic culture. It's deficiency was largely omitting the Hanbali school as it was not highly recognized at that time. Many ulama built upon it. Fiqh us Sunnah was written based on it. It is one of the most valued books in my library.

As for his works on philosophy and the distortions attributed to him, I have not studied them. As well, the ulama I studied with did not raise them. I don't see the need to do so as we have so many dire problems overwhelming us at this very moment.

[Hsmrcahr]

Not to forget Ibn Rushd being associated to be the father of secularism.
http://www.spittoon.org/archives/5906

Ps: Its a atheist site, so not desirabe for lay readers.

[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.

[DrJonson]

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?

(sorry this is not relevant to the thread but this is just like what has happened with Mevlana Rumi's (ra) Mathnavi; that which he wrote in love of Allah has been resold as heresy and carnal poetry and as a result many Muslims are getting the wrong impression about him)

we may not know exactly what Ibn Rushd meant in every one of his statements,

but at the end of the day there is enough there to know that he was off track from mainstream Ahlus Sunnah wa Jamaat in Aqeedah at least at the time he was writing, wouldn't you agree?

[rouletteroulette]

Assalam o 'alaykum,

Imam Anwar Shah Kashmiri said that when I read the books of Ibn Rushd in refutation of Imam Ghazali, I became very prejudiced towards Ibn Rushd. But when I studied Bidayat al-Mujtahid, I had to repent from my earlier position. (Malfuzat Kashmiri, p.367)