Tag Archives: Ibn Taymiyyah

Arab Nationalism in the Masaajid

Assalaamu Alaykum,

I help out in a Masjid in my local area, they give me a spot to run new Muslim activities, mentoring etc, as well as store Dawah materials and I help them out in terms of admin tasks in the Masjid. It’s a pretty good relationship for everyone.

However several times in the past couple of years of helping out some brothers have asked for help or favours or leniency from those involved in the running of the Masjid, implying they are more deserving as Arabs.

Leading to them perhaps getting a little more terse a response than perhaps they are used to from myself.

Ahmad (22978) narrated from Abu Nadrah: Someone who heard the khutbah of the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) on the second of the days of at-Tashreeq told me that he said: “O people, verily your Lord is One and your father is one. Verily there is no superiority of an Arab over a non-Arab or of a non-Arab over an Arab, or of a red man over a black man, or of a black man over a red man, except in terms of taqwa. Have I conveyed the message?” They said: The Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) has conveyed the message.
Classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in as-Saheehah (6/199).

We need to clear to the ignorant among us, that our Masaajid and Islamic centres are upon the Quran and Sunnah, even better to be upon the best of understanding of that, the Salafi Manhaj.

We can be pretty tolerant of others as well, but if they wish to have a place of worship for their arab nationalism I suggest the Masaajid is not the right place for them to push that ignorance upon the rest of us.

Now here is a fatwah from a person of knowledge, who has used his understanding of arabic as a language to push back against asabiyyah in the arab community.

https://islamqa.info/en/182686

Is the Arab Muslim better than the non-Arab Muslim?

A while ago I read a hadith from the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him): It was narrated from ‘Utbah ibn ‘Abd that he said: A man said: O Messenger of Allah, curse the people of Yemen for they are tough fighters and great in number, and their fortresses are well fortified. He said: “No.” Then the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) cursed the non-Arabs, and the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “If they come to you, with their women and carrying their children on their shoulders (then show kindness to them), for they are of me and I am of them.” Narrated by Ahmad, and also by at-Tabaraani, except that he said: The Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) cursed the non-Arabs, the Persians and Romans (Byzantines), and the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “If the people of Yemen pass by you, with their women and carrying their children on their shoulders (then show kindness to them), for they are of me and I am of them.” The isnaads of both reports are hasan, and Baqiyyah clearly stated that each narrator heard it from another.

My question is:

Why did the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) curse the non-Arabs, the Persians and Byzantines? Didn’t many of them become Muslim after the conquest of Syria and Iraq, and even as far as China? Is the hadith proven to be sound and of a high level of authenticity? Why did he not say, O Allah, curse the disbelievers, and leave it at that? Is the Arab Muslim considered to be better than the non-Arab Muslim? I am from Syria and am not fully Arab; does this mean that my Islam is less than the Islam of those who are fully Arab among you? Were there any of the Sahaabah who were not Arabs?

Praise be to Allah

Firstly:

We have explained previously that Islam does not pay attention to differences in colour, race or lineage. All people are descended from Adam, and Adam was created from dust. Rather according to Islam, superiority of some people over others is measured by faith and taqwa (piety, mindfulness of Allah), doing what Allah has enjoined and refraining from what Allah has forbidden.

At-Tirmidhi (3270) narrated from Ibn ‘Umar that the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) addressed the people on the day of the conquest of Makkah and said: “O people, verily Allah has taken away from you the arrogance of Jaahiliyyah and its pride in forefathers. People are of two types: righteous and pious, who are dear to Allah, and doomed evildoers, who are insignificant before Allah. People are the descendants of Adam, and Allah created Adam from dust. Allah says (interpretation of the meaning): ‘O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Acquainted’ [al-Hujuraat 49:13].”

Classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh at-Tirmidhi.

Ahmad (22978) narrated from Abu Nadrah: Someone who heard the khutbah of the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) on the second of the days of at-Tashreeq told me that he said: “O people, verily your Lord is One and your father is one. Verily there is no superiority of an Arab over a non-Arab or of a non-Arab over an Arab, or of a red man over a black man, or of a black man over a red man, except in terms of taqwa. Have I conveyed the message?” They said: The Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) has conveyed the message.

Classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in as-Saheehah (6/199).

Al-Bukhaari (4898) and Muslim (2546) narrated that Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) said: We were sitting with the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) and Soorat al-Jumu‘ah was revealed to him: “And [He has sent the Prophet to] others of them who have not yet joined them” [al-Jumu‘ah 62:3]. I said: Who are they, O Messenger of Allah? He did not answer him until he had asked three times. Among us was Salmaan al-Faarisi and the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) put his hand on Salmaan and said: “If faith were at the Pleiades, some men from among these people [the Persians] would get it.”

Al-Bukhaari (5990) and Muslim (215) narrated that ‘Amr ibn al-‘Aas said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) say, out loud and not secretly: “The family of Abu Fulaan (the Father of So and so) are not my friends. My friends are Allah and the righteous believers.”

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said:

The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) was speaking of a clan that was closely related to him, and pointed out that mere lineage did not make them his friends; rather his friends were Allah and the righteous believers of all backgrounds.

End quote from Iqtida’ as-Siraat al-Mustaqeem (144).

See also the answers to questions no. 12391 and 3793.

Secondly:

Imam Ahmad (17195) narrated: Haywah ibn Shurayh told us: Baqiyyah told us, Baheer ibn Sa‘d told me, from Khaalid ibn Ma‘daan, from ‘Utbah ibn ‘Abd that he said: A man said: O Messenger of Allah, curse the people of Yemen for they are tough fighters and great in number, and their fortresses are well fortified. He said: “No.” Then the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) cursed the non-Arabs, and the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “If they come to you, with their women and carrying their children on their shoulders (then show kindness to them), for they are of me and I am of them.”

The commentators on Musnad al-Imam Ahmad (ar-Risaalah edn., 29/194) said:

Its isnad is da‘eef (weak). Baqiyyah – who is the son of al-Waleed – is mudallis [i.e., he engaged in tadlees, which is when a narrator narrates a hadith that he did not hear directly from his shaykh, without mentioning the name of the third party from whom he did hear it, using wording that may or may not give the impression that he heard it directly], and narrated by saying ‘an (“from”, without clearly stating that he heard the hadith himself from another narrator). His hadith cannot be accepted unless it is clearly stated that each stage of the isnad that one narrator heard it directly from another.

It was also narrated by Ibn Abi ‘Aasim in al-Aahaad wa’l-Mathaani (2280); at-Tabaraani in al-Kabeer(17/304) and in ash-Shaamiyyeen (1139), via ‘Abd al-Wahhaab ibn Najdah al-Hooti; and by Ibn Abi ‘Aasim (2280) from Hishaam ibn ‘Ammaar, both of whom narrated it from Baqiyyah ibn al-Waleed with this isnaad. In ash-Shaamiyyeen it mentions Ismaa‘eel ibn ‘Ayyaash instead of Baqiyyah, and we think it most likely that this is an error on the part of the copyist. End quote.

Even if we assume that the hadith is saheeh (sound), it is to be understood as referring to those among them who are deserving of being cursed, namely the disbelievers, evildoers and their ilk. These people were only singled out for mention because in most cases they were disbelievers and were misguided, especially at that time.

Thirdly:

In the answer to question no. 115934, we noted that Ahl as-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa‘ah are unanimously agreed that the Arabs are superior to others in terms of descent and lineage, and that regarding the Arabs as superior is in general terms, and does not apply at the individual level. So a non-Arab who is pious and righteous is better than an Arab who falls short in his duties to Allah, may He be exalted.

Therefore an Arab Muslim cannot be superior to a non-Arab Muslim just because he is an Arab. Rather superiority is based on taqwa (piety, mindfulness of Allah). So whoever is more mindful of Allah and obedient to Him is better than his counterpart, regardless of whether he is an Arab or a non-Arab.

So the fact that you are not fully Arab does not mean that you are less than one who is fully Arab in terms of virtue and status simply because of that. As is clear from what we have mentioned above, the real standard is faith and righteous deeds.

Fourthly:

There were some of the Sahaabah who were not Arabs, such as Salmaan and Miqsam, who were Persians, Bilaal al-Habashi (who was Ethiopian) , Zunayrah ar-Roomiyyah (who was Byzantine), Barakah al-Habashiyyah (who was Ethiopian) and others such as Suhaym the freed slave of Banu’l-Has-haas, Ya‘eesh the slave of Banu’l-Mugheerah, Khaalid ibn al-Hawaari, and Tamaam al-Habashi.

Al-Haakim (8194) narrated that Ibn ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) said: The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “I saw (in a dream) many black sheep who were joined by many white sheep.” They said: How did you interpret it, O Messenger of Allah? He said: The non-Arabs will join you in your religion and your lineage.” They said: The non-Arabs, O Messenger of Allah? He said: “If faith were at the Pleiades, some men from among the non-Arabs would get it.”

Classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in as-Saheehah (1018).

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said:

The confirmation of that is seen in the many Persians, both free men and freed slaves, among the Taabi‘een and those who came after them, such as al-Hasan, Ibn Sireen, ‘Ikrimah the freed slave of Ibn ‘Abbaas, and others, and those who came after that of people who were prominent in faith, religious commitment and knowledge, until these prominent figures became better than most of the Arabs.

Similarly, among types of non-Arabs, such as the Ethiopians, Byzantines, Turks and others, there are people who excelled in faith and religious commitment, too many to be counted, which is something well known to the scholars, because true virtue is in following that with which Allah sent Muhammad (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) of faith and knowledge, both inwardly and outwardly. So the more strongly a person adheres to it, the better he is, and virtue is only in terms of the praiseworthy qualities mentioned in the Qur’an and Sunnah, such as Islam, faith, righteousness, taqwa, knowledge, righteous deeds, ihsaan and so on.  There is no virtue in a person simply being an Arab or non-Arab, or being black or white, or being a city dweller or desert dweller.

End quote from Iqtidaa’ as-Siraat al-Mustaqeem (p. 145)

And Allah knows best.
Islam Q&A

THE RIGHTEOUS WIFE – IBN TAYMIYYAH

Ibn Taymiyyah said:

“A righteous wife will be with her righteous husband for many years, and she is the one who is meant in the hadeeth in which the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “This world is temporary conveniences and the best of its comforts is a believing wife, who when you look at her she pleases you and if you tell her to do something she obeys you, and if you are away from her she protects you with regard to herself and your wealth.”

This is what the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) enjoined when the Muhaajiroon asked him which kind of wealth they should acquire, and he said: “Let one of you acquire a tongue that remembers Allaah, a thankful heart, and a believing wife who will help him with regard to the Hereafter.” Narrated by al-Tirmidhi from Saalim ibn Abi’l-Ja’d, from Thawbaan.

She may offer the love and compassion that Allaah speaks of in His Book, and the pain of separation may be harder for her than death in some cases, and harder than losing wealth or leaving one’s homeland, especially if one of them is fond of the other or they have children together who will be harmed by separation.”

Majmoo’ al-Fataawa (35/299)

Taken from ‘Islamic Marriage’ wordpress blog – https://marriageislam.wordpress.com/2016/09/16/the-righteous-wife/

BE FIRM – SHEIKH IBN UTHAIMEEN

Sheikh Muhammad bin Saalih al-Uthaimeen رحمه الله

“Be FIRM, and DO NOT change (your stance) because of the large number of attacks on you nor due to (their) being offended by your words. As long as you are upon the TRUTH then be firm, for truth is never budged (by falsehood). Thereafter, defend (the truth) if you are in a weak position. There is nothing lesser than defending (the truth).

But if you are in a strong position, then upon you is to attack (the falsehood). For the days take turns (sometimes in your favor and sometimes otherwise).
But (remember) the most important thing is that even if you are in a weaker position, then you should remain firm. And never say: ‘Oh, all the people are in opposition to this.’ Rather, be firm, for Allaah سُبحانه وتعالى aids His Deen, His Book, His Messenger throughout the ages.
No doubt that you will face harm (from the people).

Here is Imaam Ahmadرحمه الله , he was dragged by a mule in the market and was whipped. But he was patiently firm.
And here is Sheikh-ul-Islaam (Ibn Taymiyyah)رحمه الله , who was driven around in the market on a cart and was thrown in the prison, but he remained firm.
It is not possible that the earth will always be a carpet of roses and flowers for a person who clings to the Sunnah (for he will face opposition and will be harmed by the people).”

[Sharh al-Nooniyyah of Ibnul Qayyim by Sheikh Ibn al-`Uthaimeen (3/270)]

FOLLOWING THE QURAN AND SUNNAH BUT NOT THE SAHABAH

Shaykh-ul-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allāh have mercy upon him, said:

“Whoever thinks that he can simply take from the Book (the Qur’ān) and the Sunnah without following the Sahābah (the companions of the Prophet ﷺ, may Allāh be pleased with them), and pursues a path other than theirs, is from the people of innovations.”

Source: Mukhtasar Al-Fatāwā Al-Misriyyah p556

SOME CRITICISMS OF THE BELIEF OF IBN RUSHD (AVERROES)

From Islam Q&A – https://islamqa.info/en/130484

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?

Published Date: 2016-04-06

 

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’sMetaphysics) 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.

Islam Q&A