View Full Version : Averroes' (Famous Philoshoper) Blasphemy?

Waqas 411
04-07-2009, 07:17 PM

I was recently reading about famous Muslim scholars, such as Ibn Khaldun and Ibn Rushd, whose latinized name is Averroes. He was very notable in Europe for many of his works, even among Christian communities.

One part of him seemed amazing. He wrote treatises on physchology and other secular matters while writing very famous books on the Maliki madhab.

However, according to his philosophy, the world is eternal. Two questions:

1. Wouldn't this be blasphemy - enough to deem him a kufar?

2. How did these apparently very knowledgable Muslims not even know the basic fundamentals of Islam?


04-07-2009, 08:37 PM

Yes it would be blasphemy. However, if you see even today, many of the famous "Islamic personalities" say things that are way out of line with Islam, have very suspicious friendships with certain groups, and also utter phrases of blasphemy.

Sometimes these personalities were strong in some aspects, but did not have enough knowledge of other matters to talk about them from an Islamically correct viewpoint.

04-07-2009, 08:53 PM

Brother, can you at least provide details as to what specific statements he stated? Could you enlighten us to the details, before anyone can call someone a kafir.

I know that Imam Ghazalli went back and forth with Averroes in books about differences they had, but I don't know if he was termed a kafir by Ghazali.

Nafs Zakiyah
04-07-2009, 09:02 PM
Assalamu Alaykum,

The trend of the Philosophers was quite big, and it only died out later.
Imam Ibn Rushd was a great scholar of Islam. Some ulama went into takfir of him and his likes. As you may know Ghazali wrote a book in refutation of Ibn Sina, which Ibn Rushd later compiled a refutation to in return.

He was inspired by Greek philosophy it seems, and he himself inspired scholars such as Maimonides the Jew and the Christian Saint Thomas Aquinas.

He was a great Jurist, and wrote a masterpiece on khilaf, Bidayat al-Mujtahid. It is said to be one of the greatest works in its field. So we can't deny the importance of his works in the field of knowledge, even though his Aqidah is controversial to say the least.


Junaid Ibn Ahmed
04-07-2009, 09:10 PM

Sidi Waqas, may you provide some references with regards to the 'eternal world' thing?

Thank you.

04-07-2009, 09:13 PM
2. How did these apparently very knowledgable Muslims not even know the basic fundamentals of Islam?



They certainly did know the basic fundamentals of Islam. They were not ignorant of them.

Ibn Rushd (better calling him his actual name instead of the latinized 'Averroes'!) was born after al Ghazali's death, so there was no back and forth between them, but he did write a response to al Ghazali's refutation of philosophy. I've read part of it, and there are many strong points he makes (usually when he rebuts straw-man arguments made against the philosophers, such as that they denied the immortality of the soul). I don't think one could deny that he was an earnest Muslim.

It is hard to overstate ibn Rushd's importance to the development of European thought. For us, he is more important as a jurist than as a theologian. He was and remains a very highly regarded faqih, and should be respected for that.

04-07-2009, 09:16 PM
2. How did these apparently very knowledgable Muslims not even know the basic fundamentals of Islam?


Eventually (I mean, if he really hold that belief) he knew the fundamentals of Islam, but according to his philosophical elaborations he arrived to another conclusion.

That's what happens when you use your `Aql against Revelation

Nafs Zakiyah
04-07-2009, 09:36 PM
The Imams refutation of Imam Ghazali, can be found in English translation here. Though i can not vouch for the accuracy of the translation etc.


Waqas 411
04-07-2009, 09:44 PM

Well, I know kafir is a very strong label, but it should be noted from Imam Tahawia's 105 theses, 2 of them were a) that nobody is like Allah SWT and b) He is eternal, without a beginning. So the fact that the universe was a creation and not eternal was apparent very early on in the Islamic days.

But Averroes/ibn Rushd wrote a book called the Incoherence of Incoherence, which is a refutation of Ghazali's Incoherence of Scholars. Averroes maintains in the book that you must be a philosopher before you condemn a philosopher. More notably, it is very evident he believed the universe as eternal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Averroism Just use Wiki for an intro. on what Averroism is

05-07-2009, 02:23 AM
Salam Alaykum,

From a previous post by brother, about both Ibn Rushd and Ibn Sina, two people who are widely lauded in the secular West but who were very problematic according to us the Ahl us Sunnah:

Ibn Rushd al-Saghir (Avverros) was not from Ahlul Sunnah in `Aqeedah.

He believed the universe existed forever as a co-sharer with Allah's begininglessness.

He did ijtihad in fiqh but in `Aqeedah he did not believe in the traditionalist Ash`ari-Maturidi creed.

Incoherence of the Incoherence is garbage because it is false beliefs of bid`ah that are propogated. It is exactly like Ibn Taymiyah's "`Aqeedah Wasita" in that it is a work full of falsehoods from a scholar.

Ibn Sina was a scholar yet as Shaykh Nuh Keller wrote in "Kalam and Islam" from IslamicaMagazine:

Ibn Sina, the "Sovereign Sage" referred to by latter-day kalam authors here, had a number of heterodox beliefs. First, he believed that the world is beginninglessly eternal, while Muslims believe that Allah created it after it was nothing; second, he believed that Allah knows what is created and destroyed only in a general way, not in its details, while Muslims believe that Allah knows everything; and third, he held that there is no bodily resurrection, while Muslims emphatically affirm in it. Taj al-Subki's above passage continues: "Is he [such a latter-day kalam author] not ashamed before Allah Most High to espouse the ideas of Ibn Sina and praise him while reciting the word of Allah "Does man not think We shall gather together his bones? Indeed, We are well able to produce even his index finger" (Qur'an 75:7) and mention in the same breath Ibn Sina's denial of bodily resurrection and gathering of bones?" (Mu'id al-ni'am, 80). Imam Ghazali, despite his magisterial breadth of perspective in `aqida issues, held it obligatory to consider Ibn Sina a non-Muslim (kafir) for these three doctrines (al-Munqidh min al-dalal, 44*45, 50).

05-07-2009, 04:13 AM

I admit to not knowing much about these issues, but I just wanted to point one thing about Ibn Sina's supposed denial of the resurrection.

As far as I know (I have seen a quote from him on this topic), he said he believed in the resurrection as a matter of faith, but couldn't explain it using his Kalam. This may have led some to think he denied the resurrection. This is what I've heard, and Allah :taala: knows best.