Ibn Rushd al-Maliki refutes deviant Ashari creed

[qadri]

as salaamu 'alaikum.

Where are the Kullabi Asharites ?


اتحفك الآن بفتوى عزيزة...المنال...لفقيه الغرب الاسلامي ابن رشد الجد..وفيها رد على المبتدعة من وجهين....

الوجه الاول...الرد على اصول الاشاعرة...
الوجه الثاني..وهو اهم ما فى المسألة...الرد على المبتدعة الذين زعموا أن العالم الاسلامى كله كان أشعربا أو ماتريديا...ويقسمون أرض أهل الاسلام وكأنها غنيمة بين أشعرية فى الغرب الاسلامى وبين ماتريدية فى شرقه ..أو يقولون المالكية والشافعية أشعرية والحنفية ماتريدية...

ارجو ان تحتفظ بهذه الفتوى..فقد يكرر الروافض -ابعدهم الله ...-فعلتهم


فتوى ابن رشد الجد فى عقيدة الاشاعرة
سئل ابن رشد الجد :
الجواب رضى الله عنك وأرضاك فيما يقوله أهل الكلام بعلم الاصول من الاشعرية . ومذهبهم أنهم يقولون :
لا يكمل الايمان الا به . ولا يصح الاسلام الاباستعماله و مطالعته وتحقيقه . وأنه يتعين على العالم والجاهل قراءته ودراسته. فهل يصح ذلك ,وفقك الله, من قولهم إن المسلمين مندوبون الى قولهم ومجبرون على مذهبهم؟ أم لايسوغ لهم ذلك ولايلزمهم البحث عليه والطلب له ؟
وإن من قولهم أيضا أنه لا ينبغى لاحد من المسلمين , فى أول ابتدائه لتبصرته بامر دين الله ودخوله فى معرفة ما يفهم به أمر الصلاة المفروضة عليه من وضوء وصلاة,أن يتعلم شيئا من ذلك الا بعد نظره وقراءته بعلم أصولهم واقتدائه بمذهبهم , ومتى خالف ذلك من قولهم كفروه,وهو, وفقك الله ,مع جهله ربما أخرجه ذلك الى التعطيل .
بين لنا,وفقك الله ,ذلك ,وفسره لنا وأوضحه مشروحا موفقا لذلك مأجورا عليه إن شاء الله عز وجل ,وما عجزنا عنه ,وفقك الله ,من القول وأغفلناه من الذكر الذى يتم به مفهوم نزعتنا ونهاية إشارتنا فلك الفضل فى التنبيه عليه ,والاعلام به مأجورا عليه إن شاء الله , ولك الفضل فى الاحالة على الكتب التى منها الجواب ,وقولة كل من قال من أهل العلم فى جوابنا منك .

فكان الذى أجابه:


سؤالك هذا وقفت عليه . وما ذكرت فيه عن الطائفة من أهل الكلام بعلم الاصول على مذهب الاشعرية من أنه لا يكمل الإيمان الا به ,ولا يصح الإسلام الاباستعماله ومطالعته لا يقوله أحد من أئمتهم ,ولا يتأوله عليهم إلا جاهل غبي ,إذ لو كان الايمان لايكمل والاسلام لايصح إلا بالنظرو الاستدلال من طريق العقل على القوانين التي رتبها أهل الكلام على مذهب الاشاعرة,والمناهج التى نهجوها على أصولهم , من وجود الجواهر والاعراض واستحالة بقائها فيها وما أشبه ذلك من أدلة العقول التى يستدلون بها ,لبين ذلك النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم للناس وبلغه اليهم كما أمره الله تعالى فى كتابه حيث يقول :" ياأيها الرسول بلغ ما أنزل اليك من ربك وإن لم تفعل فما بلغت رسالته"( المائدة67)
فكما بينا أنه صلى الله عليه وسلم لم يدع الناس فى أ مر التوحيد,وما يجب عليهم من الاعتقاد فيه ,الى الاستدلال بالاعراض وتعلقها بالجواهر, ولا أن أحدا من أصحابه تكلم بذلك ,إذ لم يرو عنه صلى الله عليه وسلم ,ولا عن أحد منهم كلمة واحدة فما فوقها من هذا النمط من الكلام من طريق تواتر ولا آحاد من وجه صحيح ولا سقيم
على أنه صلى الله عليه وسلم وهم رضى الله عنهم عدلواعنه الى ما هو أولى وأبين ,وأجلى وأقرب الى الافهام ,لسبقه إليها باوائل العقول وبدائهها ,وهو ما أمرمن الاعتبار بمخلوقاته فى غير ما آية من كتابه ,إذ لم يمت صلى الله عليه وسلم حتى بين للناس ما نزل اليهم ,وبلغ ما أمر ببيانه لهم ,وتبليغه إ ليهم ,فقال صلى الله عليه وسلم فى خطبة الوداع ,وهو فى مقامات له شتى بحضرة عامة أصحابه :"الاهل بلغت ؟" فكان الذى أنزل الله من الوحى ,وأمر بتبليغه هو كمال الدين وتمامه لقوله تعالى : "اليوم أكملت لكم دينكم وأتممت عليكم نعمتى" (المائدة 3)
فلا حاجة بأحد فى إثبات التوحيد وما يجب لله من الصفات , ويجوز عليه منها ,ويستحيل بها , الى سوى ما أنزله فى كتابه ,وبيبنه على لسان رسوله صلى الله علبه وسلم من الايات التى نبه عليها , وأمر بالاعتباربها . من ذلك قوله عز وجل : وفى أنفسكم أفلا تبصرون , إشارة إلى ما فيها من آثار الصنعة , ولطيف الحكمة الدالين على وجود الصانع الحكيم, وأنه واحد قادر عالم مريد " ليس كمثله شىء" كما ذكر فى محكم كتابه "هو السميع البصير "(الشورى 11)
لأن العاقل إذا نظر الى نفسه ,وما ركب فيها من الحواس التى عنها يقع الادراك ,والجوارح التى يباشر بها القبض والبسط, والاعضاء المعدة للافعال التى يختص بها كالاضراس التى تحدث له عند استغنائه عن الرضاع وحاجته الى الطعام , وكالمعدة التى ينضج فيها الطعام ,ثم ينقسم فيها على الاعضاء فى مجارى العروق المهيأة لذلك ويرسب ثقله إلى الامعاء حتى يبرز عن البدن .
وإلى ما أمر به من الاعتبار بقوله تعالى : "أفلا ينظرون الى الابل كيف خلقت . وإلى السماء كيف رفعت .وإلى الجبال كيف نصبت .وإلى الارض كيف سطحت " (الغاشية17-20),وإلى قوله :"إن فى خلق السموات والارض واختلاف الليل والنهار لآيات لأولى الالباب "(آل عمران 190), وإلى قوله : " أفرايتم ما تمنون . أأنتم تخلقونه أم نحن الخالقون" (الواقعة85-95),إلى آخر الآيات , وإلى ما أشبه ذلك من الأدلة الواضحة , والحجج اللائحة التى يدركها كافة ذوى العقول , وعامة من لزمه حكم الخطاب , وهى فى القرآن أكثر من أن تحصى , فلا يمكن أن تستقصى .ثبت عنده وجود الصانع الحكيم . ثم تيقن وحدانيته وعلمه وقدرته وإرادته بما شاهده من انبناء أفعاله على الحكمة واطرادها فى سبلها , وجريها على طرقها . وعلم سائر صفاته توقيفا على الكتاب المنزل الذى بان حقه , وعلى النبى المرسل الذى ظهر صدقه بما ظهر على يديه من المعجزات الخارقة للعادات .
فكان الاعتماد على هذا الاستدلال الدى نظر به القرآن , وعول عليه سلف الامة هو الواجب , إذ هو أصح وأبين , وفى التوصل الى المقصود أقرب ,لانه نظر عقلى بديهى مركب على مقدمات من العلم لا يقع الخلف فى دلالتها .أما الاستدلال على ذلك بطريقة المتكلمين من الاشعريين , إن كانت من طرق العلم الصحيحة , فلا يؤمن من العيب على صاحبها , ولا الانقطاع على سالكها , ولذلك تركه السلف المتقدم من أئمة الصحابة و التابعين , ولم يعولوا علبه لا لعجزهم عنه , فقد كانوا ذوى عقول وافرة وأفهام ثاقبة , ولم يأت آخر هذه الامة بأهدى مما كان عليه اولها
فمن الحق الواجب على من ولاه الله أمر المسلمين أن ينهي العامة المبتدئين عن قراءة مذاهب الأشعريين , ويمنعهم من ذلك غاية المنع , مخافة أن تنبو أفهامهم عن فهمها فبضلوا بقراءتها . ويأمرهم أن يقتصروا فيما يلزمهم اعتقاده على الاستدلال الذى نطق به القرآن , ونبه الله عليه عباده فى محكم التنزيل إذ هو أبين وأوضح لائح ,يدرك ببديهة العقل بأيسر تأمل فى الحين فيبادروا بعد إلى العلم بما يلزمهم التفقه فيه من أحكام الوضوء والصلاة والزكاة والصيام وسائر الشرائع والاحكام ومعرفة الحلال فى المكاسب من الحرام .
وأما من شدا فى الطلب وله حظ وافر من الفهم فمن الحظ له أن يقرأها إذا وجد إماما فيها يفتح عليه مغلقها لأنه يزداد بقراءتها و الوقوف عليها بصيرة فى اعتقاده , ويعرف بذلك وجه الكمال فى العلم ويدخل فى الصنف الذى عناهم النبى صلى الله عليه وسلم بقوله :"يحمل هذا العلم من كل خلف عدوله ينفون عنه تحريف الغالين , وانتحال المبطلين , وتأويل الجاهلبن "
هذا الواجب فى ما سألت عنه, لاما حكيت عن الطائفة المذكورة من أنه يتعين على العالم و الجاهل قراءة مذهب المتكلمين من الاشعريين, والبداية بذلك قبل تعلم ما يفهم به أمر دينه من وضوئه وصلاته وسائر العبادات المفترضة علبهم و يكفر من خالف ذلك .

وما الكفر إلا فى اعتقاد ما ذهبوا إليه من ذلك

لأنهم إذا لم يصلوا ولا صاموا ولا حجوا حتى يعرفوا الله تعالى من تلك الطرق الغامضة البعيدة , قد لا يصلون إلى معرفته من تلك الطريق إلا بعد المدة الطويلة , أو تنبو أفهامهم عنها جملة فيمرقون من الدين , ويخرجون من جملة المسلمين .
أعاذنا الله من الشيطان الرجيم , ولا نكب بنا عن المنهج المستقيم برحمته إنه منعم كريم وبالله التوفيق لا شريك له .
أبو عبد المعز

[Shaghuri]

This is the most ridiculous thing ive heard. Do you know who Ibn Rushd even is? Maybe you should ask yourself if he is an Ashari or not. How sly of you to post this from him. Here, all he mentions is the extremism of some of the Ashari theologians who made it incumbent upon the common folk to memorize and be able to break down the Kalami arguments.

If you are really just (and hey, im not one to assume that you arent) maybe you can also take a look at this statement of his regarding the Asharis.

Your thread should instead be called: Ibn Rushd al-Maliki refutes some of the Ashari theologians.

He said:

وسئل الإمام ابن رشد الجد المالكي رحمه الله تعالى الملقب عند المالكية بشيخ المذهب عن رأي المالكية في السادة الأشاعرة وحكم من ينتقصهم كما في فتاويه(2)ومما جاء في جوابه –


» .. .. وهؤلاء الذين سمّيت من العلماء أئمة خير وهدى وممّن يجب بهم الاقتداء لأنهم قاموا بنصر الشريعة، وأبطلوا شبه أهل الزيغ والضلالات، وأوضحوا المشكلات، وبينوا ما يجب أن يدان به من المعتقدات فهم، بمعرفتهم بأصول الديانات العلماء على الحقيقة، لعلمهم بالله عز وجل وما يجب له وما يجوز عليه وما ينتفي عنه، إذ لا تُعلم الفروع إلا بعد معرفة الأصول، فمن الواجب أن يعترف بفضائلهم ويقر لهم بسوابقهم، فهم الذين عنى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وآله وسلم بقوله »يحمل هذا العلم من كل خلف عدوله ينفون عنه تحريف الغالين وانتحال المبطلين وتأويل الجاهلين« فلا يعتقد أنهم على ضلالة وجهالة إلا غبي جاهل، أو مبتدع زائغ عن الحق مائل، ولا يسبهم وينسب إليهم خلاف ما هم عليه إلا فاسق، وقد قال الله عز وجل والذين يؤذون المؤمنين والمؤمنات بغير ما اكتسبوا فقد احتملوا بهتاناً وإثماً مبيناً ، والله أسأل العصمة والتوفيق برحمته. قاله محمد بن رشد]

Are you saying that Ibn Rushd al-Maliki was not an Ashari at all? Ajib

[Abu_Abdallah]

al-Salamu 'Alaikum,

Tell US:

Are you saying Ibn Rushd was an Ash'arite?!?!?!

Are you REALLY saying that?!?!?!

By Allah, this is truly amazing! I know that, we know that and YOU might know that too. In fact, even unbelieving orientalists know that. So if you are sincere, collect for us the clear evidence wherein he considers himself an Ash'arite...

..it would make al-Tusi smile in his grave!

[Shaghuri]

وسئل الإمام ابن رشد الجد المالكي رحمه الله تعالى الملقب عند المالكية بشيخ المذهب عن رأي المالكية في السادة الأشاعرة وحكم من ينتقصهم كما في فتاويه(2)ومما جاء في جوابه –


» .. .. وهؤلاء الذين سمّيت من العلماء أئمة خير وهدى وممّن يجب بهم الاقتداء لأنهم قاموا بنصر الشريعة، وأبطلوا شبه أهل الزيغ والضلالات، وأوضحوا المشكلات، وبينوا ما يجب أن يدان به من المعتقدات فهم، بمعرفتهم بأصول الديانات العلماء على الحقيقة، لعلمهم بالله عز وجل وما يجب له وما يجوز عليه وما ينتفي عنه، إذ لا تُعلم الفروع إلا بعد معرفة الأصول، فمن الواجب أن يعترف بفضائلهم ويقر لهم بسوابقهم، فهم الذين عنى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وآله وسلم بقوله »يحمل هذا العلم من كل خلف عدوله ينفون عنه تحريف الغالين وانتحال المبطلين وتأويل الجاهلين« فلا يعتقد أنهم على ضلالة وجهالة إلا غبي جاهل، أو مبتدع زائغ عن الحق مائل، ولا يسبهم وينسب إليهم خلاف ما هم عليه إلا فاسق، وقد قال الله عز وجل والذين يؤذون المؤمنين والمؤمنات بغير ما اكتسبوا فقد احتملوا بهتاناً وإثماً مبيناً ، والله أسأل العصمة والتوفيق برحمته. قاله محمد بن رشد]

This quote is sufficient I believe.
Besides, he was living where the Asharis were dominant and his students such al Imam al Shahid Ibn Juzay al Kalbi were Asharis. It is more reasonable to ask for proof that he was not and Ashari, and this is fitting with the principle of Istishab.

[Abu_Abdallah]

SubhanAllah.. see how stupid you make look yourself:

وسئل الإمام ابن رشد الجد المالكي

And then you said:

This is the most ridiculous thing ive heard. Do you know who Ibn Rushd even is? Maybe you should ask yourself if he is an Ashari or not. How sly of you to post this from him.

Wallahi, this is ignorance if you mean what I think you mean which is:

Besides, he was living where the Asharis were dominant and his students such al Imam al Shahid Ibn Juzay al Kalbi were Asharis. It is more reasonable to ask for proof that he was not and Ashari, and this is fitting with the principle of Istishab.

Let me say one thing:

THE FATWA IS FROM THE GRANDFATHER OF IBN RUSHD/AVERROES!!!!

It is not from Abu'l-Walid b. Rushd, the famous pphilosopher! It is from his grandfather. You seem to have no clue who is Ibn Rushd, the Jadd or even the one in between!

And on top of this ignorance, you say without shame, that Ibn Juzayy al-Kalbi is his student?!?!? This man died after Ibn Taymiyyah!!! So how can he be the student of Ibn Rushd al-Hafid (the grandson), LET ALONE that of his GRANDFATHER!!!

SubhanAllah! Go do your homework before you defend talk of others you cant understand.

[Shaghuri]

Hmm,

I seemed to have blundered then. You are right. Ibn Rushd al Jadd is not the same Ibn Rushd that Imam Ibn Juzay al Kalbi studied under. I stand corrected.

So let me get this straight. You brothers use Ibn Rushd al Jadd as a source against the Asharis? You use Averroes against the Asharis? But wasnt he the biggest defender of Aristotle?
So we know there are two with the name Ibn Rushd, and al Karmi didnt have a book called Tawilat ath Thiqat either.

And with regards to Ibn Juzay al Kalbi, it is mentioned in as Shajarah az Zakkiyah that he was a student of Ibn Rushd.

[qadri]

hello mr. shaguri. you seem to have no clue about this issue. Better go to Keller or GF Haddad and take "Ashari aqida for dummies" ; oh yes, don't forget to grab an arabic book "arabic 101" on your way...

print this what Ibn Rushd the grandfather wrote and show it to your friend or someone who is good in arabic and then come back here...otherwise you make yourself laughing stock along with your Kullabi Asharite friends...I agree mistakes happen but you were the one who thought that I did a mistake and were so bold in making your claims subhanallah...... i guess this nickname will die and you will appear with a new nick....

فكان الاعتماد على هذا الاستدلال الدى نظر به القرآن , وعول عليه سلف الامة هو الواجب , إذ هو أصح وأبين , وفى التوصل الى المقصود أقرب ,لانه نظر عقلى بديهى مركب على مقدمات من العلم لا يقع الخلف فى دلالتها .أما الاستدلال على ذلك بطريقة المتكلمين من الاشعريين , إن كانت من طرق العلم الصحيحة , فلا يؤمن من العيب على صاحبها , ولا الانقطاع على سالكها , ولذلك تركه السلف المتقدم من أئمة الصحابة و التابعين , ولم يعولوا علبه لا لعجزهم عنه , فقد كانوا ذوى عقول وافرة وأفهام ثاقبة , ولم يأت آخر هذه الامة بأهدى مما كان عليه اولها
فمن الحق الواجب على من ولاه الله أمر المسلمين أن ينهي العامة المبتدئين عن قراءة مذاهب الأشعريين , ويمنعهم من ذلك غاية المنع , مخافة أن تنبو أفهامهم عن فهمها فبضلوا بقراءتها . ويأمرهم أن يقتصروا فيما يلزمهم اعتقاده على الاستدلال الذى نطق به القرآن , ونبه الله عليه عباده فى محكم التنزيل إذ هو أبين وأوضح لائح ,يدرك ببديهة العقل بأيسر تأمل فى الحين فيبادروا بعد إلى العلم بما يلزمهم التفقه فيه من أحكام الوضوء والصلاة والزكاة والصيام وسائر الشرائع والاحكام ومعرفة الحلال فى المكاسب من الحرام .
وأما من شدا فى الطلب وله حظ وافر من الفهم فمن الحظ له أن يقرأها إذا وجد إماما فيها يفتح عليه مغلقها لأنه يزداد بقراءتها و الوقوف عليها بصيرة فى اعتقاده , ويعرف بذلك وجه الكمال فى العلم ويدخل فى الصنف الذى عناهم النبى صلى الله عليه وسلم بقوله :"يحمل هذا العلم من كل خلف عدوله ينفون عنه تحريف الغالين , وانتحال المبطلين , وتأويل الجاهلبن "

[Shaghuri]

I came across this quote over a year and a half ago, so I found it interesting that someone comes now and posts it here.

1. What Ibn Rushd says here (regarding forbidding the common people from reading the Ashari books on Kalam and theology) is basically what Imam al Ghazali says as well, so there is nothing new there.
2. The Fatwa that I posted was also by him (al Jadd) and it only strengthens what i just stated above. In in he makes numerous points>

وسئل الإمام ابن رشد الجد المالكي رحمه الله تعالى الملقب عند المالكية بشيخ المذهب عن رأي المالكية في السادة الأشاعرة وحكم من ينتقصهم كما في فتاويه(2)ومما جاء في جوابه –


» .. .. وهؤلاء الذين سمّيت من العلماء أئمة خير وهدى وممّن يجب بهم الاقتداء لأنهم قاموا بنصر الشريعة، وأبطلوا شبه أهل الزيغ والضلالات، وأوضحوا المشكلات، وبينوا ما يجب أن يدان به من المعتقدات فهم، بمعرفتهم بأصول الديانات العلماء على الحقيقة، لعلمهم بالله عز وجل وما يجب له وما يجوز عليه وما ينتفي عنه، إذ لا تُعلم الفروع إلا بعد معرفة الأصول، فمن الواجب أن يعترف بفضائلهم ويقر لهم بسوابقهم، فهم الذين عنى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وآله وسلم بقوله »يحمل هذا العلم من كل خلف عدوله ينفون عنه تحريف الغالين وانتحال المبطلين وتأويل الجاهلين« فلا يعتقد أنهم على ضلالة وجهالة إلا غبي جاهل، أو مبتدع زائغ عن الحق مائل، ولا يسبهم وينسب إليهم خلاف ما هم عليه إلا فاسق، وقد قال الله عز وجل والذين يؤذون المؤمنين والمؤمنات بغير ما اكتسبوا فقد احتملوا بهتاناً وإثماً مبيناً ، والله أسأل العصمة والتوفيق برحمته. قاله محمد بن رشد]

a.They are called the Imams of guidance and goodness.
b. It is obligatory to follow them because they gave aid to the Shariah and refuted the doubts of the people of deviation and clarified the problematic issues.
c. It is wajib to admit to their virtue
d. That none hold them to be upon misguidance and ignorance save the ignorant and foolish person, or the innovator who has deviated from the truth.
e. That none insult them or attribute to them things that they do not hold to save a corrupt (fasiq) person.

Now, Im not so sure why he, an Aristotlean Faylasuf would speak so well of the Asharis, given his back and forth rebuttals with al Ghazali, but it doesnt appear that he is saying in either of the two fatwas what you have implied, i.e. that the Asharis are deviant.

3.In the fatwa that you posted, it said at the end:

وأما من شدا فى الطلب وله حظ وافر من الفهم فمن الحظ له أن يقرأها إذا وجد إماما فيها يفتح عليه مغلقها لأنه يزداد بقراءتها و الوقوف عليها بصيرة فى اعتقاده , ويعرف بذلك وجه الكمال فى العلم ,

Rough translation:
Whoever was serious in his studies and possess a strong portion of understanding, then it is to his advantage to read them (the Ashari books of theology) if he finds an Imam in them that can elucidate for him the difficult parts. That is because he will increase in insight (basirah) in his beliefs through reading and perusing them. And by that, he will come to know completion in knowledge...

So yes, Ibn Rushd al Jadd does have some critical statements directed to some of the Asharis, but if you look at his other fatwa that I posted, you get the full picture.

And on a different note, since when did salafis use Ibn Rushd as a source for Aqidah? With all of this talk of people taking Aristotole as their prophet, that seems a bit strange.

[qadri]

alhamdulilaah, you are improving....you know it is very hard to discuss with someone who has no clue about the issue.

You seem to continue with your old trick, just translate the stuff which is inline with Asharites and delete the lines which refute the Asharites.

Anyway, and who told you that Ibn Rushd was Athari in creed ?!! I have quoted from Qushayri al-Ashari and other Asharites numerous times on our sunnipress forum, does that mean that we agree with them. The quotes are to show you how the modern day Asharites differ from the earlier generation of Asharites...and I'm sure you agree with me on this but you don't want to say it..

here is something which you shed some light on the issue:

http://s8.invisionfree.com/Sunnah/ar/t418.htm
Sharif_Abu_Jafar - December 7, 2004 04:41 PM (GMT)
4 The Fourth Saying is from Abu'l-Walid Ibn Rushd (d.595/1198), in the West known as Averroës the Philosopher.
__________________________________________________ ___________

As it is with Abu Hamid al-Ghazali, rahimahullah, it would be wise to start beforehand with an exposition of his stature as an scholar in Islam.

Born in 520/1126 in Cordoba, al-Andalus, he lived there and in al-Maghreb all his life. His father was an famous preacher and mufti, and his father, called Ibn Rushd al-Jadd, was even more known. Both he and his grandfather are great authorities in the Maliki Madhhab when it comes to Fiqh. Ibn Rushd died in 1198, in Marakech.
Ibn Rushd became even the chief Qadi of Cordoba for a time, while before he was also active as a Qadi in Seville. He also acted as doctor at the royal court of the Amir, where his opinion on Fiqh-matters counted too heavy.
All in all, you would say nothing is wrong with him if you read this. But, Ibn Rushd indulged in the so-called 'Ulum al-Awa'il (lit. Early Sciences), or the "Greek sciences". They where called in ancient time by the comprehensive name 'philosophy', which included pharmacy, medicin but also politicology, history ánd theology. And specifically in these, so-called 'foreign sciences' ('Ulum al-'Ajami) by the Sunnis, such as theology, logic and all that is related to it, he became proficient in it, to such an extreme way, that he violated many beliefs in Islam. It is not the time and place to expose his mistakes, deviancy in certain matters or even unbelief, as some may accuse him; rather, he was not only wrong in some way, but also right, as all scholars are. And this did not go unnoticed to the Sunnis, rather they appreciated what's good of him and rejected was bad of him. And as for al-Ghazali, Ibn Rushd can be excused for many wrong Ijtihad he did, such as in his legitimacy of philosophy, and his permissibility for Ta'wil for some people, and other issues. But they are, though innovative in more then one sense, not always Kufr. And even if they were, for the Mujtahid, who sincerily opposes something by faulty reasoning or interpretation, there's no blame, as indicated by the Ahl al-Sunnah, who understand well the famous Hadith al-Sharif. This enables the reader also to realize that it is the Ahl al-Bid'ah who rush first in Takfir of Muslims, rather then the Ahl al-Sunnah, and this will be mentioned too, by this scholar in Islam, the most knowledgeable of those who has been called 'Muslim philosophers' Ibn Rushd, a man who studied the Qur'an, the Sunnah, the Fiqh of Imam Malik and his followers, the Language etc. and who prayed, fasted, payed his zakat etc. while those Zanadiqa by consensus, such as Ibn Sina and his followers, who inclined to the Isma'iliyyah sect, and professed either Jahmi or Rafidi/Ghulat views, and abstained from formal 'ibadah such as salat, then they are Kuffar, Enemies of Allah, whose opinion is waste and foolishness in any issue covering Islam and the Muslims; rather, they are worser then the Kafirun as Ibn Taymiyyah said, for they attack Islam from inside and spread their cancer to both the elite as common people. May Allah forbid them Paradise!

[For references to Ibn Rushd, I would direct people first and firmost to Ibn Taymiyyah and his Radd 'ala Ibn Rushd, and to the Siyar of al-Dhahabi, Ibn Farhun's Dibaj and the subsequent views on him and others by the A'immah of the Malikiyyah such as al-Shatibi and al-Wansharishi]
__________________________________________________ ____________

Today, many Muslims, both scholars as students speak great about Ibn Rushd. The author of Bidayat al-Mujtahid, The Commentator of Aristoteles, the Physican who authored al-Kulliyyat, one of the best medical textbooks..
..You'll see also the Ahl al-Bid'ah praise him, both those who claim to be Malikis as others..
..Even Ash'aris praise him, speak highly of him, and mention his greatness as they wish, though they and many others are unaware of his opinions, meaning what he really believed in.

Thus you'll see them never mention his attacks against al-Ghazali, without adding that they differed only in opinion on small matters, nor will they regognize that what Ibn Rushd mentioned against al-Ghazali was more then once truthful, and that what he refuted was correct in some of his writings. Neither will they mention his attack against the Ash'ariyyah in particular and the Ahl al-Kalam in general, for either their blind to it, or they stuffle it away.

But when Abu Muhammas Ibn Hazm mention the disgraces and vices of the Ash'arites they reject him, claiming he was ignorant of al-Ash'ari and his followers. They reject him as a reliable reporter, dubbing him as a 'literalist' or Zahiri, while he wasn't that at all in this issue we mention. It suit them well to reject this Faqih and Mufti, for they abhor him and his teachings, while when we report what Ibn Rushd said about them, they neither deny nor respond at all!

How unjust are many innovators! When the Hafidh Ibn Hazm reports on the authority of their Ash'ari follower Abu'l-Walid al-Baji what the beliefs of the Ash'arites are they deny and reject; but if Ibn Rushd is mentioned, you hear...

The Mufti Ibn Rushd knew very well what he was saying, and his saying against the Ash'ariyyah are almost always supported by firm proofs and evidence. For what he rejected from the was their opposition to the Qur'an and Sunnah.
For example, he opposed al-Ghazali, declaring:

"He (i.e. Abu Hamid) is an unbeliever on account of his summoning people to unbelief"

And he makes also Takfir of the Ash'aris, responding:

"It is they (i.e. the Ash'arites) who are the Unbelievers and in error!"

(Source: Ibn Rushd, Fasl al-Maqal p.34 and 37, see tr. by Hourani)

Comment:

Then tell me O Ash'arites! Why are you angered by the Takfir of Ibn Hazm, as reported by Ibn al-Subki, but not by the same Takfir of the Maliki Qadi Ibn Rushd? Then they have nothing to say, for as far as I'm aware none as embarked on refuting Ibn Rushd in his Takfir of the Ash'aris. Why? Was he right? I don't think you can call them all Kuffar, far from that!, but certainly those who oppose the manifest Qur'an as some extremist of them did, they are close to Kufr, as many A'immah said, and as Zahiris, Malikis, Hanafis and other said.

The Maliki Ibn Rushd said also:

"As for the Ash'arites' claim that it is permissible for Allah to do that of which He does not approve, or enjoin that which He does not want, we take refuge with Allah the Almighty from this sort of belief, because it is tantamount to Kufr!"

(Source: Ibn Rushd, Kashf 'an Manahij al-Adillah p. 235)

And he also said about the Ash'arites and other Mutakallimun in general:

"The worst that has befallen religion from this group of people is that they have interpreted many of [those passages] which they thought should not be understood literally, and maintained that such interpretation was not its intent; Allah made it look ambiguous in order to try and test His servants. We take refuge in Allah from entertaining this suspicion concerning Him! We rather hold that the precious Book is miraculous in its clarity and eloquence. Hence how far from the intent of Scripture are those who claim that what is not ambiguous is really ambiguous!"

(Source: Idem., ibid. p. 180)

And in his Kashf there's a long section of Ibn Rushd, rahimahullah and may Allah reward and forgive him for his mistakes by upholding and defending part of Islam, in which he cuts down the Ash'arite Denial of 'Uluww and Fawqiyyah from p. 176 and further.

He mentions for example some Ayat al-Qur'an on Allah's Highness and Aboveness, and says,

"There are many other verses of this type, which, were one to interpret them, the whole of Religion would become interpreted; whereas if one were to declare them ambiguous, the whole of Religion would become ambiguous. For all the religious laws are based on [the belief] that Allah is above heaven, wherefrom the Angels bring down revelation to the Prophets, that from heaven the holy Books were sent down; and that to heaven the Prophet [Muhammad], saw, was carried up during the midnight journey until he became close to Sidrat al-Muntaha. Furthermore, all the philosophers are in agreement that Allah and His Angels are above heaven, and all religions agree with them in this!"

(Source: Ibn Rushd, Kashf p. 176)

So what about the Ash'arites who deny this?! See how Ibn Rushd refute them, and says that,

"it has been customary for people of [our] Religion (i.e. Islam as above) to affirm it of Allah the Almighty since the beginning, until the Mu'tazilites denied it. Later on they were followed in this denial by the later Ash'arites, like Abu'l-Ma'ali and his followers"

And this is true, for the early Ash'arites, even al-Ash'ari himself, never denied Allah's Istiwa, and His being 'above the heaven'; rather, the first major 'mujaddid' of the Madhhab al-Ash'ariyyah was Abu'l-Ma'ali Abd al-Malik al-Juwayni, who begun continue denying the Sifat Allah by way of Ta'wil which he borrowed from the Mu'tazilah. Both his Irshad and Luma' testify to his unjust Ta'wil.
And al-Ghazali followed his master, i.e. al-Juwayni, in this in part as Ibn Rushd indicates.

But Know, O dear brothers/sisters!

Be Aware, that many of the Ahl al-Kalam, especially the Asha'irah have repented from many mistakes, and they should be therefor be recognized as Sunnis in the end, even if their innovative opinions have not vanished, and people still rely on them such as many nowadays Jahmis.

Thus said Abu'l-Faraj Ibn al-Jawziy, the Hanbali whom we have mentioned before and about whom we shall mention more Insha'Allah, that Abu'l-Ma'ali al-Juwayni repented!
And this report, which the Ash'ari-Jahmi can't digest, is a slap in their face, for they are fond at taking rejoice in mentioning Ibn al-Jawziy and his attack against the Ahl al-Sunnah in his Daf' Shubah al-Tashbih. So what will they do with their favourite, why by the way rejected al-As'ari himself in Sayd al-Khatir!, who said:

"Abu'l-Ma'ali al-Juwayni used to say: I have traversed the world of Islam and its sciences, sailing the ocean and diving into all that has been forbidden them, all in search for truth and fleeing from imitation; now I have come back from all to the word of truth. Follow the religion of the licit. If Allah does not cause His Loving Kindness to overtake me, so that I shall die in the religion of old wives, and my terminate on the day of my departure with the word of Ikhlas (lit. sincerity, bu maybe Tawhid), then Woe to Ibn al-Juwayni! (i.e. himself)!"

Ma'a Salam!

So now here is another quote from Ibn Rushd (but I will leave Shaguri to discover who this one is)



( ( القول في الجهة) ، وأما هذه الصفة فلم يزل أهل الشريعة من أول الامر يثبتونها لله سبحانه حتى نفتها المعتزلة ، ثم تبعهم على نفيها متأخروا الاشعرية كأبي المعالي ومن اقتدى بقوله ، وظواهر الشرع كلها تقتضي اثبات الجهة مثل قوله تعالى … ثم ذكر بعض الايات المعروفة ثم قال : الى غير ذلك من الايات التي ان سلط التأويل عليها عاد الشرع كله مؤولا ، وان قيل فيها انها من المتشابهات عاد الشرع كله متشابها لأن الشرائع كلها متفقة على أن الله في السماء وأن منه تنزل الملائكة بالوحي الى النبيين …)

ابن رشد في ( الكشف عن مناهج الادلة ) 66 :

rough translation from: http://aqeedah.wordpress.com/2006/08...and-direction/

Ibn Rushd al-Maliki in his book called al-Kashf: ‘As for this Attribute, i.e. the belief in a direction (for Allah), then the people of Shari’a did not cease to affirm it, until the Mu’tazila and the latter Ash’arites negated it, such as Abul-Ma’ali (al-Juwayni) and those who followed him. He then said: ‘It has become obvious that the affirmation of direction (jiha) is obligatory, legally and intellectually..’

[Shaghuri]

Well, brother, you didnt address the points that are both in the quote you first posted as well as the one I posted.

So do you agree with Ibn Rushd that the world is eternal? As for his statement on al-Jihah, that is well known. Frankly, it doesnt matter, because all your doing is taking some statements of his that agree with you while ignoring the rest. He might agree with all sorts of other groups (Asharis Salafis and others). He is not a Hujjah, and if his statement is to be taken just because he was so knowlegable, then there much more that you would then have to take.

Ibn Rushd was very clear in stating the the Shara is both Dhahir and Muawwal, i.e. that there are aspects that must be left on the Dhahir just for the common people, although there is a Muawwal aspect that the people of knowledge are aware of.

And its interesting, some of you claim that Asharis take Aristotole as their prophet, yet it was the Asharis who stood against Ibn Rushd and his errors.

So, are we now to say that his views are in fact a result of Aristotolean logic?

Ibn Rushd isnt a Hujjah for anyone (except for some), what he says on creedal matters are of no importance to me. I just think that it is one sided to use some of his statements against the Asharis when he:
a. Says other things quite differently
b. Says things that are also against your Madhhab.