Part 14: Brief Rebuttal Against Ed Husain – [Ex-affiliate of The Khaarijites of Hizb at-Tahreer Makes a Desperate Attempt to Conceal The True Reality of Ibn Rushd]

In The Name of Allaah, The Most Merciful, The Bestower of Mercy.

Why Is Ed Husain Rebutted

Ed Husain – a bewildered philosopher seeking to spread the conjecture – wrote:

Fifth, Ghazzali’s attempts to close the Muslim mind were rejected by the great jurist and philosopher, Ibn Rushd (famous in the Latin West as Averroes). Ibn Rushd wrote books, taught students and advised Spanish Muslim rulers making the case for philosophy as “ḥikmah,” wisdom, that Muslims are religiously obliged (“wajib”) to protect and pursue.

Ibn Rushd’s greatest contribution to civilisation was not only that he refuted Ghazzali, but this great Arab philosopher found ways to reconcile reason and religion, two valid ways in which to seek truth. It was that method of reason and rational thought of Arabian philosophers that gave Andalusia eight hundred years of a booming civilisation, until 1492 when Jews and Muslims were expelled by Catholic monarchs Isabelle and Ferdinand. Ibn Rushd and the Muslims of Andalusia were descendants of Caliph Mu’awiya, the Umayyads. In the Muslim East, Arabs gave way to others to rule: ‘Abbasids, Seljuks, Mamlukes, Mughals, Ottomans. But in the Muslim West, Andalusia, Sicily and Portugal it was the Arabian spirit of Mecca that shone. [End of quote]

Response to the above

Firstly, in the above statement one can see that Ed Husain – the frustrated philosopher – did his utmost to conceal the truth, so the naïve and gullible reader is easily made to think that Ibn Rushd was upon truth and that those who refuted him were wrong as well as guilty of attempting to close the Muslim mind! Then Ed Husain mentioned that Ibn Rushd is famously known in the Latin West as Averroes, as if his fame amongst Westerners would beautify his affair and conceal his clear errors; but rather what Mr Husain fails to realise is that he has exposed Ibn Rushd’s affair by mentioning that he is famous amongst Westerners! These Westerners are none else but proponents of Ibn Rushd’s errors and continue to praise him for preserving Aristotle’s misguidance for them.

Secondly, Mr Husain says that Ibn Rushd considered philosophy to be Waajib! Subhaanallaah! Neither Ibn Rushd nor Mr Husain have a predecessor in this affair, as Imaam Maalik [rahimahullaah] said: “May Allaah curse Amr Ibn Ubaid, for indeed he innovated this innovation from Al-Kalaam. If Kalaam was knowledge, the companions of the Messenger and the Taabi’een would have spoken about it just as they spoke rulings and laws of the religion, however it is falsehood and leads to falsehood”. [Dhammul Kalaam by Al-Harawi. 5/73]

Imaam Ash-Shaafi’ee [rahimahullaah] said,

“Ilmul Kalaam is ignorance”. Imaam Abu Yusuf [rahimahullaah] said, “Ilmul kalaam is ignorance and to be ignorant of Ilmul Kalaam is knowledge”. (1)

Imaam Ahmad (rahimahullaah) said,

“I am neither a person of Ilmul Kalaam nor do I recognize Ilmul Kalaam in anything. (I only recognize) that which is found in the Book of Allaah or in the Sunnah of His Messenger (sallal-laahu-alayhi-wasallam)”. (2)

Imaam Ahmad (rahimahullaah) also said,

“Do not sit with the proponents of ilmul kalaam even if they defend the Sunnah”. (3)

Yoonus Ibn Abdil A’laa (rahimahullaah) said,

“I heard Ash-Shaafi’ee (rahimahullaah) saying, ‘It is better for a man to be put to trial with everything that Allaah has forbidden except Shirk than looking into (or engaging himself in) ilmul kalaam; for indeed I have come across affairs from the proponents of ilmul kalaam that which I never thought I would come across’”. (4)

Question to Shaikh Rabee [hafidhahullaah]:

May Allaah reward you with good; this is also a question from the brothers who are present, saying: Assalaamu Alaykum Warahmatullaahi wabarakaatuhu. Virtuous Shaikh, is it permissible for me to learn [or study] the knowledge of philosophical logic? Benefit me [i.e. with a response] and may Allaah [The Exalted] reward you with good.

Answer: The knowledge of philosophical logic is a corrupt knowledge and the Salaf- by way of consensus- declared that it is Haraam [forbidden] to study it due to the misguidance and disgustingly evil consequences within it. Shaikhul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah [rahimahullaah] said, “Neither does a dull-witted person benefit from it nor is an intelligent person in need of it”. An intelligent person is not in need of it because he is sensible in his self, natural disposition and intellect; and a dull-witted  person does not benefit from it. Even if he studied all the books of philosophical logic, he will not benefit from it.

Shaikh Albaani [rahimahullaah] used to debate against the scholars of philosophical logic and they used to be like children in his presence, yet he never studied philosophical logic; rather Allaah granted him [sound] speech and [Sharee’ah] knowledge, and there is no proof stronger than the proofs of the Kitaab [i.e. the Qur’aan] and the [authentic] Sunnah.

The people of philosophical logic are always defeated [or overwhelmed]. By Allaah, regardless how much they [utilise] philosophical speech and  how strong they are in philosophical logic, they are defeated [or overwhelmed] in the presence of the methodology of the Salafus Saaleh [which is] founded on the Book [i.e. the Qur’aan] and the [authentic] Sunnah. (5)

Two Main Evil Outcomes of Theological Rhetoric And Soofiyyah- By Shaikh Rabee Bin Haadee

Shaikh Rabee [hafidhahullaah] said: The final affair of Ahlul Kalaam [the proponents of theological rhetoric] are a state of doubt and confusion, and the final affair of Ahlut Tasawwuf [the people of the Sofee paths] are a state of wild irrational behaviour and false claims. Shaikhul Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah [rahimahullaah] said, “And because of this, the innovators of Ahlul Kalaam [proponents of theological rhetoric] have something of resemblance to the Yahood and the innovators in acts of worship have something of resemblance to the Nasaaraa. The final affair of ahlul kalam are a state of doubt and confusion and the final affair of the innovators in acts of worship are a state of wild irrational behaviour and false claims. That is because these ones [i.e. ahlul kalaam] deny the truth and thus it leads them to doubt and those ones [i.e. innovators in acts of worship] believe in falsehood and it leads them to a state of wild irrational behaviour. These ones [i.e. ahlul kalam] are like the darkness in a vast deep sea, overwhelmed with a great wave topped by a great wave, topped by dark clouds, darkness, one above another; and those ones [i.e. innovators in acts of worship] are like a mirage in a desert, the thirsty one thinks it to be water, until he comes up to it and finds it to be nothing”. (6)

The Consequences of Conjecture And Desires

Allaah said:

[إِن يَتَّبِعُونَ إِلَّا ٱلظَّنَّ وَمَا تَهۡوَى ٱلۡأَنفُسُ‌ۖ  – They follow but a guess and that which they themselves desire].

Shaikh Abdur Razzaaq Al-Badr [hafidhahullaah] said: The one deprived of sound Eemaan and the sound creed sent down as revelation by Allaah- The Lord of the Aalameen, then his affair is one of two: Corruption in Knowledge or Corruption in his Intent– corruption in knowledge occurs as a result of following conjecture and corruption in one’s intent occurs as a result of following desires, or the person may combine both of them.

Another benefit derived from this is that the rectification or well-being of a person cannot be attained except by way of two affairs: Upright Knowledge and Upright Intent. This is why Imaam Ibnul Qayyim (rahimahullaah) said in Miftaah Daarus Sa’aadah that a person is in need of two things: “Sound Knowledge by way of which he is rightly guided and lofty aspiration by way of which he is urged towards that”. That is because it maybe that a person has beneficial knowledge but not sound intent and aspiration, therefore one cannot be upright except by way of upright knowledge and intent. Sound knowledge is corrupted through following conjecture and sound intent is corrupted through following the desires of one’s soul. (7)

Shaikh Uthaymeen [rahimahullaah] said:

Ad-Daaraqutnee [rahimahullaah] hated Ilmul Kalaam, even though he never entered into it due to its evil consequences, monotonous speech without benefit, the doubts it presents in affairs that are already established based on certainty, the confusion it causes and leading to abandonment of the [authentic] narrations. There is nothing- based on what I can see or what I hold – more harmful to the Muslims in their creed than Ilmul Kalaam and philosophical logic. Many of the senior scholars of philosophical rhetoric affirmed – at the end of their lives – that they wished to die upon the religion [i.e. the religion that is in conformity with what is found in the Qur’aan, authentic Sunnah and understanding of the pious predecessors] and return to their natural disposition [i.e. Islaam as revealed in the authentic texts].

Shaikhul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah [rahimahullaah] said,

“The ones it is feared for the most that they will fall into misguidance are those scholars of philosophical rhetoric at the intermediate level, because those who did not engage in it were safe from its evils; and those who engaged in it and reached a high level became acquainted with its corruption and falsity, and thus left it”. He [Shaikhul Islaam] spoke the truth, for this is what is feared in every affair of knowledge. It is what is feared for the ones at the intermediate level in knowledge- those who are exploring the path [or are in the path of study], because indeed they consider themselves as ones who have entered into affairs of knowledge and do not leave the affair to others [i.e. they enter into affairs that are above their ability to deal with], whilst – in reality- they have not reached the highest level in knowledge and are not grounded; so they become misguided and misguiding others. (8)

Shaikh Rabee Bin Haadi [may Allaah preserve him] said that Shaikhul Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah [may Allaah have mercy upon him] said:

The people in their pursuit of knowledge and religion have two innovated paths and a path legislated in the Sharee’ah. The path of the Islamic legislation is to look at that which the Messenger brought, utilise it as evidence and act upon that which it necessitates; therefore, there  has to be knowledge based on that which he [sallal laahu alayhi wasallam] came with and to act upon it, and only one of them is not enough. This path is built upon the sound intellectual proofs and the sound proofs that are based on absolute certainty [in conformity with the revelation], for indeed the Messenger [sallal laahu alayhi wasallam] clarified the sound intellectual proofs whose limits are determined by the [infallible] divine texts and the Messengers clarified the sound rational proofs which the people are in need of, just as Allaah put forth in the Qur’an every kind of similitude. This is the straight path which Allaah commanded His servants to ask Him to guide them to.

As for the two innovated paths, one of them is the path of the people of innovated theological speech and views, for indeed there is much falsehood in this. Many of its people become negligent in the deeds commanded by Allaah and His Messenger, so they remain upon corruption in knowledge and deeds. These people stray towards false Judaism.

The second is the path of people who employ ways of strengthening the soul, the people of the Soofi paths and innovated acts of worship. These ones stray towards false Christianity, because they say that if a person purifies his soul based on the manner in which they have stated, then the sciences of the religion will come to him in abundance without learning. The acts of worship of many amongst these people are innovated; rather they are in opposition to that which the Messenger [sallal laahu alayhi wasallam] came with and thus they remain upon corruption in their deeds and corruption due to deficiency in knowledge, since they do not know what the Messenger came with. These people often malign one another and every group speaks ill against the other, whilst each of them claims to be following the Messenger [sallal laahu alayhi wasallam]; however, what the Messenger [sallal laahu alayhi wasallam] came with is neither in agreement with what these ones say and what those ones say. Allaah said:

مَا كَانَ إِبۡرَٲهِيمُ يَہُودِيًّ۬ا وَلَا نَصۡرَانِيًّ۬ا وَلَـٰكِن كَانَ حَنِيفً۬ا مُّسۡلِمً۬ا وَمَا كَانَ مِنَ ٱلۡمُشۡرِكِينَ

Ibrahim (Abraham) was neither a Jew nor a Christian, but he was a true Muslim Hanifa (Islamic Monotheism – to worship none but Allah Alone) and he was not one who associated partners to Allaah in worship. [Surah Aal Imraan. Aayah 67]

Neither the Messenger of Allaah [sallal laahu alayhi wasallam] nor his companions were upon the path of the people of religions innovations amongst the proponents of Theological Rhetoric and Views, nor upon the path of the people of religious innovations amongst the proponents of innovated worship and Soofiyyah; rather he was upon that which Allaah sent him with based on the Qur’aan and Sunnah.(9)

Then Ed Husain said:

Ibn Rushd’s greatest contribution to civilisation was not only that he refuted Ghazzali, but this great Arab philosopher found ways to reconcile reason and religion, two valid ways in which to seek truth. It was that method of reason and rational thought of Arabian philosophers that gave Andalusia eight hundred years of a booming civilisation, until 1492 when Jews and Muslims were expelled by Catholic monarchs Isabelle and Ferdinand.

Response to the above

Yes indeed, Ibn Rushd attempted a refutation to defend his clear errors, just as Shaikhul Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah [rahimahullaah] said:

He [i.e. Ibn Rushd] responded to al-Ghazaali, but a response in which he made many mistakes and what is correct was with al-Ghazaali. He attributed some of his arguments to Ibn Sina and not to his predecessor (Aristotle), and the mistake in it he attributed to Ibn Sina. And in some of his arguments he spoke ill against al-Ghazaali and accused him of having little fairness because he [Ibn Rushd] based his views on corrupt rhetoric. [10]

O Mr Husain! Is defending the philosophy of deviant Aristotle a contribution to civilization?! Shaikhul Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah [rahimahullaah] said, “He [i.e. Ibn Rushd] was one who followed the statements of Aristotle the most”. [11] Read here about the deviant Aristotle:

Al-Allaamah Muhammad Amaan Al-Jaami [rahimahullaah] said:

That which no two people would differ about is that Ibn Rushd is a big and dangerous philosopher. [12]

So, read on this link to see one of Ibn Rushd’s blunders as a result of his philosophy – a quote by Shaikh Abu Iyaadh [hafidhahullaah] from Shaikhul Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah’s [rahimahullaah]:


Then Ed Husain said:

But this great Arab philosopher found ways to reconcile reason and religion, two valid ways in which to seek truth.

Response to the above

Shaikh Abdul Waahid Abu Khadeejah [hafidhahullaah] quotes:

Ibn Abdul-Barr Al-Māliki (rahimahullāh, d. 390H) quoted the saying of Imām Mālik: “It is not permitted to accept the witness of Ahlul-Bid’ah and Ahlul-Ahwā.” Then he explained:

“The people of desires according to Mālik and all of our companions are Ahlul-Kalām (the people of theological rhetoric). So every mutakallim (one who resorts to theological rhetoric) is from the people of desires and Bid’ah whether he is an Ash’ari or other than an Ash’ari. His witness is never accepted in Islam. He is to be abandoned and disciplined for his innovation. And if he continues upon innovation, his repentance is sought [by those in authority].” (Jāmi’ Bayān Al-‘Ilm wa Fadlihi, 2/96)

Shaikh Abdul Waahid Abu Khadeejah [hafidhahullaah] also said:

The scholars of Sunnah such as Al-Imām Ibn ‘Uthaimīn stated that Ahlul-Kalām and Mutakallimīm are those who establish their beliefs based on their intellects. They give precedence to the capacity of their thinking and ideas over and above the Revelation. They judge the verses of the Qur’an and the ahādīth that affirm Allah’s Names and Attributes, and the affairs of the Unseen in accordance with futile principles of logic and reason that they have innovated or borrowed from the non-Muslims. Ayyūb As-Sakhtiyāni (d. 131H) stated: “I do not know of anyone from the people of desires except that he will argue with that which is ambiguous.” (Ibn Battah 1/233, no. 788). So this is what you will find from those who oppose the Sunnah in their da’wah and in their ‘aqeedah.

The Ruler During Ibn Rushd’s Era Finally Dealt With Him – Alhamdulil laah – to Protect The Ummah From His Misguidance

Shaikh Ash-Shuyookh Ibn Hamawiyyah [rahimahullaah] said:

When I entered the city, I enquired about Ibn Rushd and it was said that the Khaleefah Ya’qoob did not allow him to leave his house nor was anyone allowed to go to him, because of the many bizarre statements that were transmitted from him and the rejected sciences that were attributed to him. He died in Maraakesh whilst confined in his house. [13]

To be continued InShaaAllaah. All remaining posts regarding Ibn Rushd will be based on this Risaalah by Shaikh Muhammad Amaan al-Jaami [rahimahullaah]

[1: Aqeedah Ash-Shaafi’ee. Page 87.   ]

[2: Source: Quoted in ”An-Nahjul Aqwaa. Introduction by Shaikh Saaleh Al-Fawzaan and Shaikh Abdul Azeez Aala Shaikh. page: 126]

[3: An-Nahjul Aqwaa’ with the introduction of Shaikh Fawzaan and Shaikh Abdul Azeez Aala Shaikh. Page: 127

[4: Aqeedah Ash-Shaafi’ee. Page: 86]

[5: An Excerpt from Marhaban Yaa Taalibal Ilm page 347. Slightly paraphrased]

[6: Al-Mukhtaaraat Al-Bahiyyah Min Kutub Shaikhil Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah. Page 281. Slightly paraphrased]

[7: An Excerpt from Sharh Kitaab At-Tawheed. Lesson 4]

[8: Sharh Hilyati Taalibil Ilm page 28. paraphrased]

[9: Al-Mukhtaaraat Al-Bahiyyah Min Kutub Shaikhil Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah. 290-291. Slightly paraphrased]”

[10: Minhaaj as-Sunnah 1/255]

[11: Bayaan Talbees Al-Jahmiyyah 1/120]

[12: Al-Aql Wan-Naql Inda Ibn Rushd. Page 16]

[13: Siyah A‘laam An-Nubala 21/310]


Share The Knowledge

Salafi Centre Appeal 2020



Follow Us


Back to Top

More Articles



Manhaj (Methodology)

Fiqh (Rulings & Jurisprudence)

Women & Family

Innovations in Islam