Philosophy – An Islamic Perspective

In this piece, I intend to look at the term ‘philosophy’, or to be more precise, what has come to be known as ‘Islamic Philosophy’, and the centuries old conflict between the Muslims and the philosophers, and show that Islam, as a complete way of life, does not need philosophy – the ancient or the medieval or the modern - to improve the lives of its subjects, socially, politically and more especially religiously. By the word need, I mean to assert that Islam is never considered deficient, incomplete, outdated or incapable of attending to the needs of its adherents just because it discards philosophy.
I will then come to discuss the fallacies involved in philosophy generally and particularly those to do with the Islamic faith. I will further show that Muslim scholars like Ibn Taimiyyah and admirers of his line of thought, chose to do away with philosophy not out of ignorance of what it entails, or because their intellects lack the essential faculties with which to grasp and perceive what philosophy has to offer for mankind, but for the fact that its ideas and teachings, more especially in metaphysics (ma wara at-tabi’ah) and politics, negate the basic foundations of the message of Islam.

The word ‘philosophy’, literally, meaning ‘love of wisdom’, from the Greek root philo (meaning love) and sophia (meaning wisdom), has been variously defined in its technical sense by many philosophers past and contemporary. So, philosophy historically has been understood in different ways by different philosophers and outsiders to philosophy. It has been put by some to mean love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline, while others assert that philosophy is a system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the philosophy of Hume. Others say: it is the critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs. It is also said to refer to the discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology, or a set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory: an original philosophy of advertising, or a system of values by which one lives: has an unusual philosophy of life. The definition more relevant to this discussion is the one which refers to philosophy as investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods. The main theme of the knowledge and values here of course, comprises the disciplines mentioned above, i.e. logic, ethics aesthetics, metaphysics and epistemology.
Ancient philosophy stemmed out from what the Greek called their quest for truth through inquiry independent of theological creeds. This made the most distinguishing characteristics of philosophy to be that it rejects dogma and deals with speculation rather than faith, as against theology which is wholly based on received truths and sets of creeds. Philosophy calls upon man to search for the reality of almost everything, tangible and intangible, seen and the unseen. The main subject matter of philosophy is put by some in the following questions:
· What is truth? How or why do we identify a statement as correct or false, and how do we reason?
· Is knowledge possible? How do we know what we know?
· Is there a difference between morally right and wrong actions (or values, or institutions)? If so, what is that difference? Which actions are right, and which wrong? Are values absolute, or relative? In general or particular terms, how should I live?
· What is reality, and what things can be described as real? What is the nature of those things? Do some things exist independently of our perception? What is the nature of space and time? What is the nature of thought and thinking? What is it to be a person?
· What is it to be beautiful? How do beautiful things differ from the everyday? What is Art?
· Does free will exist, or are our lives determined through a destiny planned long before we were even born?
· How did this world come to be? Who is ‘god’ or ‘God’. Does he or He really exist?
Al-Kindi, the famous philosopher we will come to discuss, puts philosophy to mean: ‘the knowledge of the realities of things according to human capacity’, and metaphysics according to him is ‘knowledge of the First Reality which is the Cause of every reality’. (Abu Rida, Rasa’il al-Kindi al-Falsafiyyah 1/97).
As regards the above questions he puts them this way: ‘Philosophy is concerned with four questions also, since … the philosopher inquires into ‘the whether, the what, the which, and the why’, or the existence, the genus (or species), the differentia, and the final cause of things. Thus whoever knows the matter knows the genus, whoever knows the form knows the species, as well as the differentia which it entails; and once the matter, form and final cause are known, the definition, and eo ipso, the reality of the definiendum are known also’ (Abu Rida, Rasa’il 1/101, quoted in Majid Fakhry, A History of Islamic Philosophy, p. 70, 1983).
These questions, as important as they are, the philosopher turns to his own intellect in search of their answers, and if subjected to tight scrutiny these questions are meant to challenge any given knowledge especially that which is divinely revealed, and deride it by giving it the title ‘dogma’, thereby paving the way for them to wholly rely on the human intellect as the only source of knowledge, and as seen in the aforementioned examples, they pose these questions in a logical manner, historically using syllogisms of traditional logic.
And the result amazingly comes out to be sort of disgusting. In my humble understanding, philosophy is just a roundabout way of telling you what you know.

Philosophy is also distinct from science in that both the natural and the social sciences base their theories wholly on established fact, whereas philosophy also covers areas of inquiry where no facts as such are available. Originally, science as such did not exist and philosophy covered the entire field, but as facts became available and tentative certainties emerged, the sciences broke away from metaphysical speculation to pursue their different aims. That is why we don’t find Islam frowning at the natural and social sciences in so far as they are in agreement with its established laws that are based on revelation from Allah to the infallible Messenger.

This brings us to the issue of what some people call ‘Islamic Philosophy’. From the outset, it is highly imperative to assert, with utmost certainty, of course, that Islam, as taught and embodied by the Qur’an (the Holy Word of Allah) and the Prophetic traditions of the Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) has nothing called ‘philosophy’ born and bred by it, or claimed to be its own. The word, the source and the teachings are totally alien to Islam. On another side there is also nothing called ‘Islamic Philosophers’, if the genitive manner of the two words here means that Islam professes philosophy and has a group of ‘scholars’ whom it charges with the responsibility of learning, expounding and teaching what is called philosophy and allows them bear the nomenclature ‘philosophers’, and endorses all the ideals and beliefs they teach, such that one may eventually ascribe that to Islam. This is not found anywhere in the vast literature of classical and orthodox Islam based on the teachings of the Qur’an and Sunnah. Yes one may address it: ‘The philosophy that is ascribed to Islam’ and the men ‘the so-called Muslim Philosophers’.
In the life time of the Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam), the Companions never tried to search for any other source of guidance apart from the Qur’an being revealed to the Prophet through Angel Gabriel (alaihis salam), and the practical teachings of the Prophet himself. By mere listening to him reciting the words of Allah, they comprehended the whole of the message, they believed the whole of it, certainly believing it to be true, upholding its teachings to be superior to and surpassing the ancient beliefs and customs they inherited from their forefathers. They considered any other source running counter to the Qur’an and the prophet’s teachings to be a negation of the message and the messenger. No foreign knowledge or philosophy was ever ascribed to them. They lived and died according to Allah’s message. It was only after the conquest of Persia in the days of ‘Umar ibn Al-Khattab (radiyallahu ‘anhu) when the Muslims entered the Persian lands, they found among the huge number of its treasures, large amounts of books. At that time Sa’ad ibn Abi Waqqas (radiyallahu ‘anhu), the Muslim Jihad commander, wrote to ‘Umar asking him of what to do with them. ‘Umar wrote him saying: ‘Throw the whole of them in the sea. If there is any guidance in them, we are content that Allah has guided us to what is better. And if they contain falsehood and deviation, then we are pleased that Allah saved us from their evil’. All the books were instantly drown and nothing was left. (Ibn Khaldun: Al-Muqaddimah 2/603).
This stern action from Umar is of course, a practical application of a personal lesson he got from the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam), when one day ‘Umar was holding a piece of writing he got from a Jew, which turned out to be a portion of the Torah. At the sight of that the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) was enraged, and said: “Are you people that reckless about it (the message of Islam), O, Ibn Al-Khattab? I swear by Allah, I have brought it to you perfect and pure. Do not ask them (the Jews) anything, for they may tell you something that is true and you reject it, or they may tell you what is false and you believe them. I swear by Allah, if Moses were alive, he would have no choice but to follow me!” (Reported by Al-Imam Ahmad, Al-Musnad 3/387; Al-Darimi, As-Sunan 1/115; Ibn Abi Shaibah, Al-Musannaf No. 26421; Ibn Abd Al-Barr, Jami’ Bayanil Ilmi Wa Fadlihi 2/42; Al-Bazzar, Abu Ya’laa, Al-Baihaqi etc.).
So, if the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) will prohibit the Muslims from following a book once revealed by Allah to Musa alaihis salam, how can they be subjected later on to the dictates of the star-worshipping Greeks?
This perfect and pure character of Muhammad’s (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) message continued to guide the whole Muslims in the Arabian Peninsula, and the former Byzantine and Persian empires that were brought under the rule of Islam.
The coming together of Islamic teachings with Greek Philosophy did not happen overnight. It rather materialized through two important stages that need to be studied in detail.
First: The Emergence of Foreign fields of knowledge and sciences into the Muslim community, and this owes itself to the following factors:
One. The role played by the University of Alexandria and other institutes that engaged in teaching and spreading philosophy as a special field of knowledge. As an important and strategic centre economically, industrially and culturally, the city of Alexandria became the greatest oriental civilization centre where various nations – from the Greeks, the Egyptians, Jews, Italians, Arabs, the Persians, Ethiopians, Indians, Syrians, the Nubians etc. - came together, and its inhabitants were well versed in Philosophical studies, so eventually its university was the first centre in the world for the studies of Greek philosophy. (See Will Durant, History of Civilization 11/99-101 Ar). In addition to its important place in philosophy Alexandria reached its peak in cultural development under the influence of a government professing the Christian religion at that time, and this naturally indicates why Neo-Platonism gained ground, as a result of its founders strive to harmonize Christian religion with the Greek schools especially that of Plato. It could be rightly asserted that Neo-Platonism represents a selective systematisation of the works of Plato, plus elements from Aristotle and Stoicism. The Neo-Platonists did not see themselves as following a new philosophy: they believed that they had re-discovered the true meaning of Plato’s teachings. This school, originally founded by, and popularly ascribed to Plotinus (205-270 C.E) gave rise to different schools of thought whose main aim was to search deeply into religious facts but through allegorical methods founded by Greek philosophers. So, it was Neo-Platonism that had the greatest influence upon Christian theology from the fourth century until it was displaced by Aristotelianism in the Middle ages.
But before Plotinus, Philo (20 BCE – 40 CE), a Hellenised Jewish philosopher born in Alexandria, did a lot to pave the way for other philosophers after him for the project of bridging the wide gap between revelation and Greek philosophy, as he included in his philosophy both Greek wisdom and Judaism which he sought to fuse and harmonize by means of the art of allegory that he had learned as much from Jewish exegesis as from the Stoics.
These philosophers were overwhelmed by the ‘accuracy’ of Plato’s idealism that they sought to necessarily bring the revealed facts to come to consent with them. This job, they found easy for the fact that Plato’s ideas differed from others in that they were mystic in nature, so their influence on Christianity was apparent. It is believed that Pauline Christianity was a direct result of Philo, whose teachings some of the Christians accepted whole-heartedly. It was he who laid the foundations for the development of Christianity in the West and in the East, as we know it today. So it was upon this solid foundation Plotinus laid his teachings in the days when Christianity was the religion of the government in Alexandria.
Alexandria continued to be the world’s centre of civilization up to the Muslim conquest of Egypt, when it came under Islam. Its university also continued to be the centre of Greek philosophy the world over. Al-Mas’udi suggests that it was during the reign of ‘Umar ibn Abd Al-‘Aziz that the school in Alexandria was relocated to Antioch (Antakia) (a boarder city between the former Byzantine and the Muslim world at that time). The Muslims therefore found themselves amidst a stronghold of Greek philosophy that was camouflaged in a religious form, a factor that facilitated their being attracted so easily. One other important factor that influenced the spread of Greek philosophy was the tolerant attitude of the caliphs of those days who let the adherents of all religions to practice their religion without hindrance. So, many Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, Magians and all kinds of pagans were left to freely spread their religion among the Muslims, and were brought so close to the government that some of them even threw challenges for debates in matters of belief between them and the Muslims.
One of the notable communities that enjoyed this ‘tolerance’ to a very large extent was the Syriacs (i.e. members of the Eastern Syrian Church). These people played a vital role in the spread of Greek philosophy in the Eastern Muslim world, for they had instituted many schools before the Muslim conquest of the area, in Edessa (al-Ruha) (now in Turkey), Nasibis (now in Syria) and Jundishapur (now in Iran) through which they disseminated philosophical studies in Syria and Mesopotamia (Iraq). So when the Muslims conquered the area they met those schools and witnessed Greek philosophy flourishing amidst the inhabitants of the areas. Some Muslims therefore showed their interest in learning from the Syriacs what that ‘mysterious’ sort of knowledge entails. This is where the Muslims started to get in contact with the Greek philosophy. De Purr concludes that: “The Syriacs and the Arabs started philosophy where the Greeks stopped” (History of Islamic Philosophy p. 26).
Before concluding this part, it is imperative to emphasis the importance of the School of Jundishapur, founded by Chosroes I (Anusharwan) around the year 555, for it stands out as a major institution of Hellenic learning in Western Asia whose influence was destined to extend to the world of Islam in ‘Abbasid times. For after Justinian closed the school in Athens, in 529, seven of the most influential philosophers of the time were cordially welcomed by Anusharwan to serve in his school. The school, with its medical faculty, its academy and observatory, achieved great fame and was still flourishing when Baghdad was founded in 762 by the ‘Abbasid caliph Al-Mansur. Since Jundishapur was near Baghdad, the Persians were in close political contact with the ‘Abbasid caliphate. Consequently it is from this school that important scientific and other intellectual developments spread throughout the Muslim empire. (Majid Fakhry, A History of Islamic Philosophy p. 4, 1983).
The caliphs used to seek from the school expert court physicians to assist them in their courts. Most of those physicians sent by the school were members of the Christian Nestorian family of Bakhtishu, and they served the caliphs loyally for over two centuries. This explains the role played by those schools in the spread of Greek philosophy among the Muslims.
The Second Factor: The Roles Played by some Individuals
The Muslim conquest of the various countries of the East and West brought them into contact with many nations with differing cultures and customs that negate the message of Muhammad (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam). The ‘intellectuals’ of those communities were at that time free either to profess Islam openly and become Muslims, or only declare being Muslims openly but retain their old pagan practices secretly, or out-rightly declare to remain non-Muslims. Those people had surely played a vital role in bringing Greek philosophy near the Muslims. The most notable among them are: the Jewish philosopher Maimonides (Musa ibn Maimun ibn Yusuf Abu ‘Imran Al-Qurtubi). This is one of the most notorious philosophers that influenced some Muslims of his time, for he was born in Cordova in 529 A.H. and traveled to various parts of Andalusia (Spain). He lived in Fez for nine years pretending to be a Muslim, memorized the Qur’an and became well versed in the Maliki law predominant in the region, but on returning to Egypt he publicly declared his Jewish religion and became the spiritual leader of the Egyptian Jews for about thirty four years. He became so close to the famous Muslim ruler of the time Salahuddin Al-Ayyubi (Saladen) and was made the personal medical doctor of his eldest son Nurud Deen, and Al-Qadi Al-Basyani, one of the viziers of Salahuddin. He used his position in raising the level of the Jews in Egypt. In fact when Salahuddin recaptured Jerusalem from the Christians and intended to drive the Jews away from the land, Maimonides convinced him to let them stay and he did.
As for his role in spreading philosophy among the Muslims he did that through about thirteen of his writings the most important of which is “The Guide for the Perplexed”. This book was studied by Muslims of his time under close supervision of outstanding Jewish teachers. He was the first to declare that the Bible must be brought to consent with human reasoning. (Will Durant 14/129 Ar.). He lived for about twenty years never carried away from his treatise on expounding on the Mishna for which he was raised by the Jews to the highest level among the expounders of the Talmud.
His sons carried on with his assignment of spreading philosophy among the Muslims and Jews alike, among whom are Ibrahim ibn Musa, his grandsons Dawud ibn Ibrahim and Sulaiman ibn Ibrahim.
Mention must also be made of the role played by The Zoroastrian Philosopher and astrologer, Nobakht, who was one of the closest people to Abu Ja’far Al-Mansur the ‘Abbasid caliph (D. 158 A.H.). He engaged fully in the study of astrology and spread of philosophy. When he was too old, Al-Mansur, who was deeply fond of philosophy and astrology, demanded him to bring his son to pick from where he stopped. He brought his son Abu Sahl. (This name was given to him by Al-Mansur, as a result of his amazement with his original name. In a ridiculous narrative it is reported that when Al-Mansur asked the young man what his name was he replied: ‘Khurshmadh Mah Taimadh Ma Baazaar Daabad Khusro Nahshah’. Al-Mansur asked him: is your name the whole of these words? He said yes, and at that point in time he called him Abu Sahl).
As noted above this slack and too ‘tolerant’ attitude of the caliphs in matters of belief contributed so much to the spread of philosophy among the Muslims.
The Third Factor: The Role of Translations
Ibn An-Nadeem, the most ancient source in this respect traced the earliest efforts of translating alchemical, astrological and medical works to Khalid ibn Yazid (d. 85 or 90 AH), the Umayyad prince who turned to the study of alchemy., and was highly fond of it. He was the first to bring foreign translators to render chemical works into Arabic, and that was the first translation that occurred in Islam, although it was confined at that time to some fields like wisdom and general history of philosophy, without getting into the deeper aspects of the metaphysical studies of Greek philosophy.
Then came the era of the ‘Abbasids when those steps were continuously taken seriously to import foreign books and translators to a very large extent, starting in the time of Abu Ja’afar Al-Mansur, the second ‘Abbasid caliph, who was referred to above. One of the most notable contributors in the field of translation during the reign of Al-Mansur was Abdullah ibn Al-Muqaffa’, a Persian convert from Zoroastrianism, who was killed in the year 142 A.H., and who translated to Arabic many works of Aristotle on logic. He also translated the fables of the Indian sage Bidpai, known as Kalilah Wa Dimnah, a literary classic which continues even now to be regarded as a model of Arabic prose. It was alleged that he translated it in order to replace the Qur’an that occupied the minds of the Muslims.
In the time of Harun Al-Rashid (d. 198 A.H.) a special translation academy was founded called “Baitul Hikmah” (House of Wisdom). The preponderance of astronomical and astrological works is linked to a significant feature of the reign of this caliph, who assigned his vizier, Yahya ibn Khalid Al-Barmaky (d. 190 A.H.), a notorious Zindeeq known for his secret conspiracies against Islam (See As-Suyuti, Saunul Mantiq p. 7-8). He was known to have sent to the Roman ruler of that time asking for the huge amount of Greek literature in their possession to be sent to the Muslim lands. The Roman ruler himself, as it was related, had packed those books in a secure place underground and blocked it from the top with a solid building, for fear of his people getting into contact with them so as not to divert them from their Christian faith. Abu Muhammad ibn Abi Zaidin Al-Qirawani (the renown Maliki scholar and author of Ar-Risala, d. 386 A.H.), was reported to have referred to this incident. He said: “May Allah bless the Umayyads; none of their caliphs was known to invent any bid’ah into Islam, and most of their servants and close labourers were Arabs. But when it was the turn of the ‘Abbasids, their governments were wholly supported by Persian servants and viziers, most of whom were accused of disbelief and concealing a great deal of hatred and contempt against Islam and the Muslim government. As such they introduced serious innovations that could undermine and cause the end of Islam. If not for the fact that Allah (subhanahu) Has promised his prophet that his deen and its adherents will prosper and be victorious to the day of Judgement, they would have destructed Islam, although they have already injured it and weakened its pillars, but Allah will surely fulfill His promise in sha Allah…” he then listed the innovations that found way into Islam in the reign of the Abbasids, among which is the act of importing Greek literature to Muslim lands. He then mentioned when the books were brought to Yahya ibn Khalid Al-Barmaki, he called on all philosophers to come and get to acquaint themselves with them, and free inter-religious and inter-denominational debates were conducted in his house for a long period. Among the books imported was one “Definition of Logistics” on which Ibnu Abi Zaidin Al-Qirawaani commented: “Hardly will one go through this book and remain free from Zandaqah…”. (Reported by Al-Maqdisi, Al-Hujjah ‘ala Tarikil Mahajjah p. 954-957, and Ad-Dabbi, Bughyatul Multamis p. 144, from Al-Humaidi in Jadhwatul Muqtabis p. 109).
This is as far as the reign of Haroun Ar-Rashid is concerned. In the time of Al-Ma’mun, the seventh ‘Abbasid caliph, the issue of translating Greek literature reached its apogee, when he sent to various foreign leaders asking for the books to be sent to him, and he was known to personally oversee the practice himself under curious and regular supervision. Suyuti comments on this: “… Be that as it may, the knowledge of the ancients came to Muslims in the first century after they conquered the A’aajim (non-Arabs), but it was not rampant between them as the Salaf were warning and prohibiting people from plunging into reading them. It was later in the time of Al-Barmaky that they were made prevalent, and their spread was strengthened by Al-Ma’mun”. (Saunul Mantiq p. 11-12).
Al-Ma’mun was not only confined to encouraging the translations of Greek books, but rather he boldly imposed their contents on his subjects. Scholars among the Salaf, like Al-Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Yazid ibn Haroun and others were repressed and tortured for refusing to endorse the Kufr that was found in the Greek literature.
But despite all this you find some contemporary pseudo-philosophers calling Al-Ma’mun the most liberal and tolerant Muslim leader in history who gave people their right of thought and expression and set them free from the bonds of irrational dogma. One of them (Muhammad Lutfy Jumu’ah, in his History of Islamic Philosophers, intro) even considered this to be one of the prides of Islam as it is an element that gave rise to the development of ‘Islamic thought’ in the form of the various sects of bid’ah and religious denominations, each contributing with his own ‘interpretation’ of Islam, and asserted that Al-Ma’mun’s greatest contribution to Islamic thought was his support of the Mu’tazilah. Majid Fakhry, another contemporary philosopher calls him ‘the most enlightened caliphs of the period’. (A History of Islamic Philosophy, p. 8).
It is not irrelevant to mention some of the books translated to Arabic within those periods of time.
From Greek to Arabic: 8 works written by Plato on philosophy, 19 works for Aristotle in philosophy and logic, 10 by Hippocrates in Medicine, 48 by Galin, 20 by Euclid and Ptolemy.
From Syriac to Arabic, about 20 works, from Persian to Arabic about 20 other works, 20 from Latin and Hebrew to Arabic and 30 from Sanskrit to Arabic, all by a number of philosophers.
This totals to around 195 books, a little number compared to the great number imported. Some researchers list the number of books translated in the reign of Ma’mun alone to about 256 books.
And all of the translators have been Christians of the Nestorian or Jacobite sect, except for an outstanding translator in the person of the pagan astrologer-philosopher Thabit ibn Qurra, who hailed from Harran in north Syria, settled in Baghdad. (For a detailed study on the translators and the books translated see: Muhammad Lutfy (Tarikhu Falasifatil Islam, intro., and Majid Fakhry, A History of Islamic Philosophy, p. 12-19).
The Impact of the Translations on Muslims
The negative impact of these works on the Muslim mind cannot be overemphasized. To say the least, Muslims were occupied with the study of philosophy as against the study of the Qur’an and the Sunnah of the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam), a factor that gave rise to an enormous increase in the number of sects claiming to belong to Islam, and this eventually added to the rift of the Ummah and taking it as far away from the teachings of Islam as possible.

Stage Two: Mixing The Deen of Islam With Philosophy
The study of all the different fields of Greek philosophy having gained ground within the Muslim community, a new type of Muslim emerged, dedicated to the ideal that he called Falsafah. At first they concentrated on natural science, but then, inevitably, they turned to Greek metaphysics. They were so amazed with the logical systematization of the knowledge, the method of presenting its cases and arriving at results that, as the case with their Christian and Jewish predecessors, they found themselves amidst a gigantic problem: how can the revealed facts of Islam as contained in the Qur’an and Prophetic traditions be subjected to these logical laws and how can they be applied to arrive at results that are in line with human ‘reasoning’? Allah has told us he created the worlds, the heavens, the earth and all that is between them, how can this be established through the principles of Greek logic? Nay, first and foremost, how do we ‘prove’ and ‘establish’ the existence of this ‘Creator’.
The fundamental mistake of these ‘new set’ of philosophers was, as put by Karen Armstrong: “They believed that the God of the Greek philosophers was identical with Allah. Greek Christians had also felt an affinity with Hellenism but had decided that the God of the Greeks must be modified by the more paradoxical God of the Bible: eventually,… they turned their backs on their own philosophical tradition in the belief that reason and logic had little to contribute to the study of God. The Faylasufs, however, came to the opposite conclusion: they believed that rationalism represented the most advanced form of religion and had evolved a higher notion of God than the revealed God of scripture. … There were problems, however. We have seen that the God of the Greek philosophers was very different from the God of revelation; the Supreme Deity of Aristotle or Plotinus was timeless and impassible; he took no notice of mundane events, did not reveal himself in history, had not created the world and would not judge it at the end of time. Indeed history, the major theophany of the monotheistic faiths, had been dismissed by Aristotle as inferior to philosophy. It had no beginning, middle or end, since the cosmos emanated eternally from God. The Faylasufs wanted to get beyond history, which was a mere illusion, to glimpse the changeless, ideal world of the divine… Such a faith in a wholly rational universe seems naïve to us today, since our own scientific discoveries have long since revealed the inadequacy of Aristotle’s proofs for the existence of God.” (A History of God p. 170-171).
The new philosophers therefore set off in their search for ways of fusing the principles of Islam in the belief in One Creator, who created from nothing, who is omnipotent, omniscience, “His is the dominion of the heavens and earth. He gives life and causes death, and He is over all things competent. He is the First and the Last, the Ascendant, and the Intimate, and He is, of all things, Knowing. It is He who created the heavens and earth in six days and then established Himself above the Throne. He knows what penetrates into the earth and what emerges from it and what descends from the heaven and what ascends therein; and He is with you, wherever you are. And Allah, of what you do, is Seeing. His is the dominion of the heavens and earth. And to Allah are returned [all] matters. He causes the night to enter the day and causes the day to enter the night, and He is Knowing of that within the breasts” [Suratul Hadeed 2-6]. They want all these simple and clear declarations from the Only One Who Made Such Claims to necessarily succumb to ‘logical’ laws set by pagan Greeks who worship the celestial spheres created by Allah.
We now take a look at the early philosophers among the Muslims and who were its aberrant exponents and flag-bearers, through whom the Muslim world came to be deluded and misguided. It is not out of place to assert that these people – all of them – were not well versed in the Sunnah of the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam).

(1) Al-Kindi
The first among the philosophers attributed to Islam, to apply the rational method to the Qur’an and the principles of Islam was Al-Kindi, Abu Yusuf Ya’qub ibn Ishaq, a scion of the famous South Arabian tribe of Kindah, born in the year 185 A.H. in Kufah. He was titled the Arab philosopher due to his Arabian lineage. He got his early education in Basrah and Kufah, although the source of his patronage or tutelage in real Islamic education is still a mystery. The most early information about him was that he was known to be a Mu’tazili, very much fond of Aristotle and other Greek philosophers. He was fluent in Syrian and Greek languages. In Baghdad he enjoyed the patronage of Al-Ma’mun, then al-Mu’tasim and Al-Wathiq, whose interest in the dissemination of philosophical studies needs not be repeated. He wrote a lot on philosophy. Ibn An-Nadeem attributed to him 242 works on logic, metaphysics, arithmetic, spherics, music, astronomy, geometry, medicine, astrology, theology, psychology, politics, meteorology, topography, prognostics and alchemy (See: Ibn An-Nadeem Al-Fihrist p. 371-379). He was so fond of the Greeks that he claimed one of his grandfathers to have been one. De Purr asserts that: “It is from this angle that Al-Kindi attached more importance to Persian and Greek civilizations more than he attached to the religion of the Arabs and their virtues. Nay, he opined that Qahtan, the grand patriarch of the Southern Arabs was a brother to Yunan who was a scion of Igreek”. (Tarikhul Falsafatil Islam p. 236 Ar.).
Al-Kindi was so fond of Socrates that he wrote much on his person, works and views, in an effort to fuse his views with those of Aristotle within the bounds of Neo-Platonism.
As regards Al-Kindi’s extent of commitment to ‘his’ religion of Islam, lets see what Al-Dhahabi, the famous Muslim historian said: “As regards wisdom of the Ancients (philosophy), Greek logic, astronomy, astrology, medicine etc, (Al-Kindi) was a head, second to none in that deserted knowledge. He was more excellent in engineering and music. As regards his religion, he was accused (of being a Zindiq). He was a miser, devoid of any sense of honour and virtue…He once attempted to compile a similitude of the Qur’an but gave up failingly after some days”. (Siyaru A’alamin Nubalaa 12/337).
Al-Kindi died in 258 or 260 A.H.
Al-Kindi is considered by many to be more closer to Islam than the rest of major philosophers, whom we would come to discuss, especially in his view on creation, although not perfectly clear, but was not in agreement with that of Aristotle, the real model of other philosophers among the Muslims. But a good indication to the fact that even though his views on some issues might have been closer to Islam, looking at his closest student and successor, Ahmad ibn At-Tayyib Al-Sarakhsi, who followed al-Kindi’s footsteps in philosophy, will show how the negative impact of his teachings, as this student of his pushed the limits of familiarity with the caliph of his time, Al-Mu’tadid, too far, thereby taking the liberty of broaching heretical themes in his discourses with him, where he openly showed his doubts in the religion of Islam in many aspects, to the extent that he wrote in some of his treatises words of attack on the prophets whom he regarded charlatans, an issue that cost him his life in the hands of the caliph. (See: A History of Islamic Philosophy, p. 95-96)
We would not pass this juncture without discussing about another successor of al-Kindi, Ibn Al-Rawandi (d. 910 CE) one of the most notorious malahidah (although you find writers like Majid Fakhry calling him ‘radical … free thinker’, to lighten the gravity of what is ascribed to him, nay terming the sources reporting his heretical views as ‘undoubtedly hostile sources’). This philosopher was reported to have repudiated the grand supernatural themes of revelation and miracle, as well as the very possibility of a satisfactory rational answer to the question of God’s existence and the rationality of His ways. (See: Al-Khayyat, Kitab al-Intisar p. 11-12). He even regarded the idea of revelation as superfluous. He argued that human reason was sufficient to determine the knowledge of God and the distinction between good and evil. Nay, to him, the most important miracle, according to Islam, which is the literary perfection of the Qur’an, is quite untenable, and that there is nothing miraculous about it, finally terming it to be irrelevant to foreigners to whom Arabic is an alien tongue. He also professed the eternity of the world and the superiority of dualism (Manichaenism) over monotheism, and the vanity of divine wisdom etc. His views did not stop there, rather he was reported to have ridiculed the Qur’an and Muhammad (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam). (A History of Islamic Philosophy, 96-97).
One other most notorious philosopher was Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn Zakariyya Al-Razi, called Rhazes in Latin sources. He was believed by some, to be the greatest nonconformist in the whole history of Islam. He was born in Rayy in Khurasan and died around 925 CE. He turned to philosophy and became one of the greatest medical doctors of his time. Some of his views include his belief, in emulation of Plato, that the soul is eternal as the creator, and that philosophy is the only pathway to the soul’s purification and its release from the fetters of the body. He rejected outright the concept of revelation and the role of the prophets as mediators between God and man. He reasoned that prophecy was either superfluous, since the God-given light of Reason was sufficient for the knowledge of the truth, or obnoxious, since it has been the cause of so much bloodshed and warfare between the one people (meaning the Muslims) who believed itself to be favoured with divine revelation and the other less fortunate peoples.

(2) Al-Farabi
The second of those major ‘Falasifas’ was Abu Nasr Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn Tarkhan Al-Farabi. Born in Farab in Transoxiana in Turkistan in the year 259 or 260 A.H. Al-Farabi was hailed by most writers in this field as the leading logician and expositor of Plato and Aristotle in his day. He grew up in Damascus where he devoted himself to reading philosophical books at night by the ‘watchman’s torch’, while working as a garden keeper by day. (Ibn Abi Usaibi’ah, Uyunul Anbaa vol. 2 p.134.). He later went to Baghdad where he spent much of his time learning logic, philosophy, music and mathematics in the hands of the leading ‘teachers’ of the day: Matta ibn Jonah and Yuhanna ibn Hailan, two Christian philosophers. He then moved to Halab where he got associated with the Hamdani Shi’ite family, and was highly respected by Saif al-Daulah who was very fond of arts and letters. Al-Farabi died in Damascus in 339 A.H. He was believed to be fluent in 70 languages (Siyar A’alaamun Nubalaa 15/417). It was related that for his mastery of music, he once entered the court of Saif Al-Daulah, debated with scholars in various arts, after which he brought out his lute (musical instrument) and played it until every man sitting there was made to laugh and become happy. Then he instantly changed the tune to make all the people fall asleep, and he left the place. (See Wafayatul A’ayan 5/155-156 and As-Siyar 15/417).
Al-Farabi then changed his direction towards studying the works of Aristotle, and was believed to excel in that. He wrote a lot of his works in expounding Aristotle’s works. All in all he was said to write about 102 books.
As regards his effort of harmonizing religion with philosophy, he was believed to extract for himself a new methodology no one ever applied. For he started by trying to bring that deluded harmony between the works and ideas of his philosophic ancestors, Plato, Aristotle and their folks after which he tried to fuse that whole knowledge with that of religion. It is in this regard and in trying to practically apply Plato’s theory of his Republic where he said that a good society must be led by a philosopher who ruled according to rational principles, Al-Farabi, considering the fact that he was living in a Muslim society, under a Muslim rule, purported that Muhammad (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) had been exactly the kind of ruler that Plato had envisaged. He had expressed the timeless truths in an imaginative form that the people could understand; so Islam was ideally suited to create Plato’s ideal society. One will critically point out the folly in al-Farabi’s example here in his effort to bring Islam in consent with his ancestors religion. That is because, he knew quite alright that Muhammad (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) did not rule according to rational principles, but according to a law revealed to him by the Creator of the heavens and earth. But as he did not have the courage of the likes of Abu Bakr Ar-Razi, he couldn’t dare say the Islamic society was not a good example of his masters Republic, which he considered the yardstick in measuring a good society from a bad one.

One fact remaining ironically disturbing regarding the teachings of Al-Farabi is that he was not known to have a Muslim teacher, nor did he produce a close Muslim student; all the students that excelled and became his successors were Christians. That is why he was accused of being a Zindiq. Will Durant said: “This mysterious mixture, in addition to his writings, may have been the reason why he was accused of being a Zindiq” (Qissatul Hadarah vol. 13/204 Ar). De Purr also asserted: “As for true Islamic scholars, they have indeed accused him of being a Zindiq, and it stays as a mark on him. And this might have definitely been supported by sound reasons” (Tarik Al-Falsafah fil Islam p. 226 Ar).

As regards his opinion on creation, Al-Farabi was totally with Aristotle in professing that this world was not actually created by Allah ex nihilo. Karen Armstrong spelt it out: “But al-Farabi stayed close to Aristotle. He did not believe that God had ‘suddenly’ decided to create the world. That would have involved the eternal and static God in unseemly change. Like the Greeks, al-Farabi saw the chain of being proceeding eternally from the One in ten successive emanations or ‘intellects,’ each of which generates one of the Ptolemaic spheres: the outer heavens, the sphere of the fixed stars, the spheres of Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Sun Venus, Mercury and the Moon…. There were obvious differences from the Koranic vision of reality, but al-Farabi saw philosophy as a superior way of understanding truths which the prophets had expressed in a poetic, metaphorical way, in order to appeal to the people”. (A History of God, p. 175).

(3) Ibn Sina (known as Avicenna in the West).
He is Abu ‘Ali Husain ibn ‘Abdullah ibn Al-Hasan ibn ‘Ali ibn Sina, born in Afshinah, a village in Bukhara in the year 370 A.H., later on moved with his family to Bukhara, where he received his early instruction in writing, arithmetic, jurisprudence and logic. His father and his brother were Isma’ili (a Batini Shi’ah sect) propagandists of the high order, so Ibn Sina was brought up as an Isma’ili. His interest in philosophy appears to have developed from listening to conversations between his father and another of his Isma’ili teachers. By the age of eighteen he had mastered logic, physics, and mathematics. This he said he did within a year after having the privilege of confining himself in the library of the Emir of his area when he was seventeen, and in just one year he read and memorized all the books in the library. He was said to read the book of Metaphysics by Aristotle forty times, memorized it off head, but was still unable to comprehend the intent of its author until he lighted incidentally on a copy of al-Farabi’s Intentions of Aristotle’s Metaphysics, which at once illuminated for him Aristotle’s meaning.
He was an expert medical practitioner and this led him to have association with the Samanid Sultan of Bukhara, Nuh ibn Mansur, who was suffering from an incurable disease, which Ibn Sina was able to cure.
Ibn Sina himself did not live very long, for, he died at the age of 58 as a result of his excessive indulgence in wine and sex, after repeated efforts to cure himself of colic by unorthodox methods. (See: A History of Islamic Philosophy p. 129-130).
The efforts of making religious facts come to consent with philosophy was best exemplified by Ibn Sina, although failingly. The ‘Abbasid caliphate was in decline, and it was no longer so easy to see the caliphal state as the ideal philosophic society described by Plato in the Republic. Naturally Ibn Sina sympathized with the spiritual and political aspirations of the Shi’ah, but he was more attracted to the Neoplatonism of philosophy. Ibn Sina worked out a rational demonstration of the existence of God based on Aristotle’s proofs which became standard among later medieval philosophers in both Judaism and Islam… Ibn Sina saw it as a religious duty for those who had the intellectual ability to discover God for themselves in this way to do so, because reason could refine the conception of God and free it of superstition and anthropomorphism. (A History of God, p. 182-183).
As his predecessor, Al-Farabi, Ibn Sina also rejects the doctrine of creation ex nihilo. (See his An-Najat (Cairo, 1938) p. 213-214; and Ilahiyyat, 2/266-267. See also Michael E. Marmura, Efficient Causality in Avicenna, An Essay in Islamic Theology and Philosophy, Studies in Honor of George F. Hourani, p. 181).
Ibn Sina is of the opinion that prophecy is attainable by any body, as its basic prerequisites are: a sound sense of intuition, a strong sense of imagination such that whatever he imagines in his mind materializes in reality, and a spiritual power that makes him able to effectuate things. (See: Ibn Sina’s Al-Shifaa p. 63-244, see also: W. Montgomery Watt, Islamic Philosophy and Theology, Edinburgh University Press, 1979, p. 97).

(4) Ibn Rushd (known in the West as Averroes).
Abul Walid Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Rushd, known in Islamic literature as ‘Ibn Rushdin Al-Hafid’, meaning the grandson, to differentiate him from his grandfather, Ibn Rushdin Al-Jadd’. Al-Hafid was born in Cordova in Andalusia in the year 520 A.H. a month after the death of his grandfather. Abul Walid led a life full of controversy and died in 595 A.H. at the age of 75. Unlike his predecessors among the Muslims fond of philosophy, Ibn Rushd was brought up in a fiqhi backround. Himself and his forefathers before, were grand Maliki scholars and judges in Cordova. Ibn Rushd has written one of the most vital books on fiqh on a comparative basis between the Maliki and other mazhabs. In his early years, therefore, he studied Islamic law, Arabic language and medicine. He later on turned to the ‘knowledge of the ancients’ (philosophy) and excelled in it. (See: Ad-Dhabi, As-Siyar 21/8).
In the reign of caliph Ya’qub ibn Yusuf ibn Abd Al-Mu’min, Ibn Rushd devoted his time to summarizing the works of Aristotle. He is believed by many philosophers to be the most extreme in extolling and revering Aristotle. Muhammad Lutfy Jumu’ah asserts that: “His reverence for Aristotle knows no bounds: he considers him as the man whom God permitted to reach the highest summit of perfection in wisdom and intellect. He ascribes even the qualities and attributes of God to him. Of a fact, had he been a polytheist, he would have raised Aristotle to the position of the Lord of all lesser gods”. (Tarikhu Falasifatil Islam p. 155).
This might have been the reason for which he was summoned by the jurists in Cordova in a special court, and after a session of queries, they issued a verdict to the effect that Ibn Rushd has been declared ‘kafir’ and ‘zindiq’ and prohibiting all Muslims from reading his books. As a result of that the Sultan, Al-Mansur billah Ya’qub ibn Yusuf sent him on a compulsory exile to a Jewish village near Cordova and his movements were confined. A special order was also given to all parts of the Muslim Andalusia that Ibn Rushdin’s writings should be deserted and burnt at stake except those on Medicine, Mathematics and other sciences. (See Al-Dhahabi, Tarikul Islam vol. 42 p. 223-224). Although some historians believe that the reason behind the Sultan’s action was purely political and not as a result of Ibn Rushd’s blaspheme acts and inclinations, because in the end, after the interference of some influential persons, the Sultan pardoned Ibn Rushd and was once again among his closest associates, and was allowed to return to Maraqish (now in Morocco) up to his death. (See: Ibn Abi ‘Usaibi’ah, ‘Uyunul Anbaa p. 532).
Among the philosophers professing Islam, Ibn Rushd is the most celebrated in the sight of Western contemporary philosophers. It is on his works in which he expounded and improved the ideas of the ancient philosophers, most of them rely.

Fallacies of Philosophy and the Philosophers

Before looking at this point, it is important to make a clear distinction between the fields of knowledge in which the philosophers missed their steps and went counter to the principles of Islam, and those in which they are considered to have contributed immensely to the development of human life. I have shown above that sciences, considering its nature and field of study, ‘gained’ its independence from philosophy. Sciences is mostly based on factual findings that are or can be established through practical experiments. Philosophers professing Islam have indeed contributed in various fields of physics, chemistry, engineering, mathematics, astronomy, medicine etc. Their intellectual brilliance has been correctly displayed in these fields that now become indispensable in the running of human life. This fact has been acknowledged by the strongest critics of philosophy, in the persons of Al-Ghazali and Ibn Taimiyyah. “A greater portion of the discussions of these philosophers”, wrote Ibn Taimiyyah, “relating to physics is quite clear, detailed and convincing. They possessed intellect and aptitude to understand these subjects and, instead of being predisposed to any particular view, they seem to be searching for what is right and correct”. (Ar-Radd ‘alal Bakri, p. 143). Expressing similar views about the Greek mathematics he wrote: “The mathematical formulas dealing with numerals are quite convincing and are unanimously accepted by all scholars. Every man has to have some knowledge of these for one needs them for conducting his daily business as also for further studies. Who can dispute that one is not half of two? In fact, their equations are acceptable for they have no inexactness to which any objection could be raised. This is the beginning of their philosophy which is invented by Pythagoras…”. (Ar-Radd ‘alal Mantiqiyyin, p. 134).

The fallacies of the philosophers are therefore to do with other than the natural sciences, to be precise, in the field of metaphysics, dealing with the origin of creation, and other fields like ethics, politics, and more especially what has to do with prophecy. Most of the surmises of the Greek metaphysical concepts are not only unreasonable but stupid due to their naked ignorance, for had their speculative thought been restricted to the natural sciences without blundering into its metaphysical domain of absurdity, they would have saved themselves from becoming a laughing stock. Ibn Taimiyyah says: “So far as the knowledge of God is concerned, these unlucky people appear to be deprived of the truth. They have no knowledge of the angels, divine scriptures, and prophets of God, for they had heard nothing about these either in favour or against them. Only some of the later philosophers acquainted with the revealed religions have spoken about these matters”. (Tafsir Suratil Ikhlas, p. 57).
One reason Ibn Taimiyyah mentions many times is the fact that the Muslims came into contact with Greek philosophy and unfortunately their choice fell on the worst part of it, that is Aristotelian philosophy, the theories of which are more pagan than others. That is because discussions on theology in Aristotelian philosophy is limited and the mistakes found are grievous, for instance, Aristotle was the first to profess the eternity of the world and that there is not creator to it. These mistakes are seen by Ibn Taimiyyah to be mainly for the fact mentioned by some historians like Muhammad ibn Yusuf Al-‘Amiri, that unlike other philosophers preceding Aristotle, like Pythagoras, Socrates and Plato, who were able to travel to the land of the Prophets, Syria and were believed to have met Luqman Al-Hakeem and other followers of Prophet Daud, and Sulaiman (alaihima as-salam), Aristotle never traveled to the land of the Prophets, so his knowledge of the Prophets and their beliefs is nil. What he had was the knowledge of the Sabians upon which he drew to form the principles of the philosophy he extracted for his followers.(See: Naqdu Al-Mantiq p. 113, and Ar-Radd ‘alal Mantiqiyyin, p. 337).

To list some of the most grievous fallacies of those philosophers professing Islam, we mention the following:
· Their attitude of condoning shirk. This found way into the ideas of Sufi-Philosophers like Ibn ‘Arabi, Ibn Sab’een and At-Tilmisani, who see nothing wrong in a Muslim professing Judaism or Christianity or to worship idols or join any other religion. That is because the philosopher’s most important end as an individual, is to resemble Allah in his actions.
· Their belief in the origin of this world. They do not believe Allah to be the creator. Rather they believe that this world has been eternal together with whom they call the First Mover in every sense, neither before or after him. This Mover is the First Cause for the movement of the world. They believe that he is older than the world only in his essence not in relation to any time, he moves the world in a reflex sense and never moves himself. He is the cause of this world not in an active way. This is the final theory advanced by Aristotle which is handed over to later philosophers among the Muslims, and is what we mean when we say they do not believe that Allah has created the world ex nihilo (from nothing and with his intention). This is of course in total negation of Allah’s plain statement in the Qur’an that He created the world and everything from nothing, and that whenever He wishes the creation of anything He says: “Be and it is”.
· In relation to number two above, they believe that the world emanated from the first cause instantly at a time, not in a sequence.
· As regards the Angels, the ancient philosophers mentioned nothing positively or negatively. But their Muslim inheritors, having read from their predecessors the influence of the celestial spheres, the stars which they called ‘The Ten Intellects’, from whom emanate everything, they tried to fuse this idea into the Muslims belief in the Angels who act as messengers from Allah to his servants, act by Allah’s order to send down rain, etc. They call the angels ‘the Ten Intellects’, Jibril (alaihis salam), being the active intellect and the tenth. As intellects they are perceived by the philosophers as non entities, but rather imaginations.
· Their belief that Allah only knows things in a general sense not in their minute details.
· As regards prophecy and revelation, they believe that prophets are men with sound intellect that imagine things and relate them to their followers to serve their political interests. Based on this, they do not believe in any revelation, rather the prophets, who can be anybody with sound intellect and powerful sense of imagination, invent words of their own without Allah telling them anything. That is why they do not believe the Qur’an to be the Words of Allah, and the prophets are just a collection of liars, eloquently good in the rhetorical act of using words, relating things they imagine – like Paradise, hell, day of judgement, in order to ease their way of leading people politically.
· The philosophers claim that the Qur’an is full of anthropomorphic terms, so they must be given metaphorical meanings to purify the Qur’an from them. Majid Fakhry asserts: “Moreover, the anthropomorphic passages in which the Koran abounded made it imperative to resort to some process of allegorical interpretation in order to safeguard the immateriality and transcendence of God…”. (A History of Islamic Philosophy, xviii introduction). It is clear from this how the philosophers allude or expressly show that Allah is unable to tell us about Himself in a pure and perfect language, and that their words of describing Him are more pure and perfect. This is the back bone of the issue of the term Ta’weel in Muslim literature, and it found its way through the Mutakallimun (speculative theologians) to some books of tafsir. See for instance, the tafsir of As-Sawi (Hashiyatus Sawi ‘alal Jalalain vol. 3 p. 10), where he says “… for taking the words of the Qur’an and Sunnah in their literal and apparent meaning is one of the foundations of Kufr”. So these people believe that for one to believe in Allah he has to change the words of Allah Himself, especially those speaking about His attributes and His transcendent reality.
· In politics, the philosophers believe that a nation can only prosper if it is led by a philosopher and the principles of politics should be entirely philosophic and secular. Al-Farabi, the first to introduce the tradition of political philosophy into the world of Islam, “goes to say that the principles and rules that constitute siyasa are to be sought, not in the Qur’an and the Traditions, but in Aristotle’s Politica (kitab fil siyasa) and in Plato’s Republic (also kitab fil siyasa)”. (Fauzi M. Najjar, ‘Islamic Political Philosophy’, an essay in ‘Islamic Theology and Philosophy, Studies in Honor of George F. Hourani, p. 103). This is based on the philosophers deluded assumption that the most important end in human life is the attainment of ‘true happiness’, not gaining Allah’s pleasure through one’s actions as taught by Islam. And due to the fact that they do not believe in the Prophets as guiders of human beings according to the dictates of the Shari’ah, they sought their happiness through what their ancient predecessors extracted for them in terms of political ideology. That is why you find most of the political systems used or came to be used in history bear Greek names, like Democracy, Aristocracy, etc.

The Stance of The Salaf On Philosophy
Before concluding I would like to touch a little on the stance of the Salaf As-Salih with regard to philosophy. Many people have been deluded by the claim that Muslim scholars rejected philosophy because they could not understand it. This is totally false. The reason is that philosophy, in the fields shown above, teaches something that is contrary to Islamic teachings. Al-Imam Al-Shafi’ii, Muhammad ibn Idris, says: “People did not become ignorant and divided in their religion until after they deserted the Arabic language and inclined to the language of Aristotle”. (Quoted by Suyuti in Saunul Mantiq, p. 15).
An-Nawawi says: “We have shown previously the categories of the knowledge of the Shari’ah. On another side there are other parts of knowledge that are either prohibited or disliked or allowed. The prohibited are like learning magic… and philosophy…and whatever causes doubts in religion”. (Al-Majmu’ Sharh Al-Muhazzab, vol. 1 p. 27).
Ibn Al-Jauzi says: “Satan has deluded some people among the Muslims, through their so called sound intellect and brilliance. He showed them that the right path is following the ways of the philosophers because they possess wisdom. Muslims of later times were told of how those philosophers rejected the belief in a creator, rejected the Shari’ah and following its dictates, so they also left the shari’ah, left the performance of prayer, indulged in various prohibited acts, neglected the application of the shari’ah and hudud, left the religion of Islam…”. (Talbis Iblis p. 65-66).
Ibnus Salah says: “Philosophy is the foundation of all stupidity, corruption, doubts in religion and main causes of Zandaqah (hypocracy). Whoever engages in philosophy will be blinded from taking cognizance of the beauty of the pure Shari’ah…”. (Fatawa Ibn As-Salah p. 34-35).
Al-Dhahabi adds: “The man (referring to Ghazali) had written his Tahafut to refute the philosophers and expose them, but agreed with them on some issues assuming that they are correct according to Islam. His knowledge of the athar (traditions of the salaf) and the Prophetic Sunnah which supercede human reasoning, is limited…. If not for the fact that Abu Hamid (Ghazali) was one of the brilliant and sincere servants he would have been destroyed. One should therefore stay as far away as possible from these books of philosophy, and run away with his religion from the doubts of the ancients, otherwise he will fall into confusion. Whoever wishes to be on the safe side should devote himself to true and sincere ta’abbud (worship of Allah), and always asks Allah’s help to make him die a Muslim on the path of the Sahabah and Tabi’een”. (Siyaru A’laam An-Nubalaa vol. 19 p. 328-329).
The most gigantic effort in refuting philosophy and its principles came from the person of Ibn Taimiyyah, Ahmad ibn Abd Al-Halim ibn Abd As-Salam Al-Harrani (d. 728). When he came of age, Aristotelianism dominated the intellectual and literary scene owing to the influence exerted by Tusi (a staunch Shi’ite that acted well for the spread of philosophy) and his followers. It was the time when a thorough grasp of Aristotelian logic and philosophy was deemed to be the summit of one’s intellectual attainment, when nobody could dare raise a dissenting voice against the teaching of the Greek master. Ibn Taimiyyah was surprised or rather pained to see certain philosophers equating the prophetic teachings with the metaphysical speculation of the Greek philosophers. So Ibn Taimiyyah devoted his time to refute the principles upon which philosophy was built, using his gifted talent, sound intellect and going by the light of the Qur’an and Sunnah. His refute did not stop at the speculations of the philosophers among the Muslims, but he used to show with utmost brevity the contradictions in the sayings of their Greek masters, the incompatible discrepancies between the theories of the Greek philosophers and even correcting Al-Farabi, Ibn Sina and Ibn Rushd on some theories they ascribed wrongly to Aristotle or Plato. He has knowledge of the original Greek books translated. He has a detailed treatise refuting Aristotle’s book on theology. He was well versed in logic and the principles of philosophy. He says on the ignorance of the philosophers: “The philosophers are absolutely unfamiliar with the unseen realities taught by the prophets as also with those comprehensive natural laws which envelop all beings and creations and whose knowledge could have helped them to correctly categorise all the existing things. The only person capable of attempting it is he who can encompass the whole varied existence, but the philosophers have but little knowledge of palpable objects and the laws related to it. This in fact shows their comprehension of just a small part of the general causes and principles of natural phenomena. But the existence of beings and causes not known to man far exceed that of which he has any knowledge. Thus all those persons whose knowledge is limited like that of the philosophers, are taken by surprise when they are told that numerous other objects such as prophets, angels, empyrean, heaven and hell also exist. They are surprised because they believe that nothing exists beyond what they know. This is also the reason why they try to interpret the facts of unseen realities told by the prophets in the light of limited knowledge of things they possess. Their arguments are really baseless for they have no positive evidence of the non-existence of things not known by them. Of a fact, to lack the knowledge of a thing’s existence is quite different from the non-existence of anything. It is not necessary that whatever we do not know does not have any existence. Their denial of the unseen realities is like the denial of the jinn by a physician on the ground that medical science does not afford any evidence of their existence, although medical science doe not prove their non-existence too. Similar is the case with others possessing knowledge in a particular branch of science. Whatever they find out outside the compass of their own knowledge, they deny simply out of their ignorance of it. The fact is that man has not been as much misled in owning and accepting things as in denying that of which he has no knowledge. This is a common weakness and natural propensity of human beings which has thus been spoken of by Allah: “Nay, they have denied that, the knowledge whereof they could not compass, and whereof the interpretation (in events) hath not yet come unto them”. (Suratu Yunus: 39).

Ibn Taimiyyah made a distinction between the philosophical concepts of antiquity and those of the later philosophers, which again affords a proof of the agility of his mind and the deep knowledge of Greek thought. He pointed out that it was Aristotle and the later philosophers after him wedded to the view of rationality who denied their predecessors’ concept in regard to the unseen realities and incorporeal objects. Describing the Aristotelian view of Greek philosophy he says: “The philosophers following the Aristotelian thought did not adopt the view held by the earlier masters and precursors of philosophy who believed in the creation of the universe and the existence of a super-natural world apart from the terrestrial one. They had spoken of the celestial world in a language which confirms the description of heaven given in the Traditions. Likewise, the ancients also believed in the resurrection of the dead as the writing of Socrates and some other philosophers affirm”. (Tafsir Suratil Ikhlas, p. 69).
After condemning and showing the fallacies entailed in Greek logic and arguments, Ibn Taimiyah showed how vivid and more rational are the arguments of the Qur’an. He writes: “The arguments put forth by the Qur’an are much more assuring and carry a deeper sense than the propositions of the philosophers and dialecticians. At the same time, the former do not suffer from paralogism which is a common feature of logical disputations”. (Ar-Radd ‘alal Mantiqiyyin, p. 321). At another place he says: “Knowledge of the reasons advanced by the Qur’an as well as the self-evident marks and signs adduced in support of the existence of God, His sustentation of the world, His Oneness, His knowledge and power and the possibility of resurrection and retribution in the Hereafter is essential for acquiring the noblest human qualities”. (Ar-Radd ‘alal Mantiqiyyin, p. 150).

The most important of Ibn Taimiyyahs writings in this field are: Ar-Radd ‘alal Mantiqiyyin, Naqd Al-Mantiq, Dar’u Ta’arudil Aql Wan Naql, Tafsir Suratil Ikhlas, As-Safadiyyah, Minhajus Sunnah, Bughyatul Murtad, An-Nubuwwat, Naqd Asas At-Taqdees, etc.
One cannot cover all his efforts in this little piece, and there are many treatises written particularly on Ibn Taimiyyah and Philosophy, and Greek logic, all in Arabic. Whoever wishes to expand should read the aforementioned works.

One other thing important in this respect is that Western writers and orientalists have deliberately neglected the works of Ibn Taimiyyah in their efforts to spread Muslim writings on philosophy, and the reason for that is surely not unknown, for the enemies of Islam have seen how erudite and pure the writings of this man are, and spreading them is just another way of spreading pure Islam, and this not what they came to do. That is why in almost all the Western or philosophical books the mention of Ibn Taimiyyah is in a derogatory style, to display that he was a staunch literalist. As an example Majid Fakhry, in his history of Islamic philosophy, devoted a couple of hundreds of pages discussing Al-Kindi, Al-Farabi, Ibn Sina and Ibn Rushd, who were pro-philosophy. But on those against philosophy he gave only 20 pages under the title: Theological Reaction and Reconstruction, ‘Literalism and Neo-Hanbalism: Ibn Hazm, Ibn Taimiyyah and Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab’. In these 20 pages he started with Al-Ghazali and his Tahafut in paragraphs, Ibn Hazm in a page and a half, and when he came to Ibn Taimiyyah he said: “Like al-Ghazali, but without his moderation, they both attack Greco-Arab philosophy in unequivocal terms. Even more vehemently than Ibn Hazm, Ibn Taymiyah protests against the abuses of philosophy and theology and advocates a return to the orthodox ways of the ancients (al-salaf). It is as though in his religious zeal he is determined to abolish centuries of religious truth as they had been long before they became troubled by theological and philosophical controversies”. He further mentioned Ibn al-Qayyim and Ibn Abdul- Wahhab in one paragraph. (A History of Islamic Philosophy, p. 312-332).

No mention was there of Ibn Taimiyyah’s knowledge of philosophy and its fundamental principles, much less of talking about his ability to show the contradictions and discrepancies widely existent in ancient and medieval philosophical works. But he was cheaply termed ‘literalist’, ‘immoderate’, and his approach ‘vehement’, just to warn readers to beware of him, as his only quality is that he ‘hates’ philosophy for the sake its being philosophy.
This same trend we find now circulating amidst many Muslims influenced either by the writings of those orientalists or their students, or in their strenuous effort to defend the bid’ah they call people to, in any name. Anybody calling Muslims to follow the teachings of the Qur’an and Sunnah as understood by the Sahabah and Tabi’un, is named either a literalist or a quasi-salafi or the intolerant and immoderate Wahhabi or even calling him a terrorist, being the word chosen by the enemies of Islam to fight Muslims. For nothing but the fact that he refuses to worship any one or anything but Allah and takes Muhammad ibn Abdilllah -sallallahu alaihi wa sallam - to be his model and example.


To sum up, philosophy in metaphysics or politics is vain talk. To borrow once more from Ibn Taimiyyah, I say: Whatever good thing is found in any other religion or ideological thought, is found in Islam in a more better way. One can give his time to search for the good parts of any religion – Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Paganism, Cultism or any other thing called religion - or any path or any ideological thought, he will find the teachings of Islam to be more appealing to the human mind, more rational, more relevant and more importantly more closer to the attainment of Allah’s pleasure. The same thing with the Sunnah of the Prophet. Whatever good thing is found in any Muslim sect is found in the sunnah of the Prophet in a better manner.

I pray Allah to guide and help us in upholding the values of Islam and calling others to them in the most correct manner full of knowledge and wisdom, and may He in His infinite mercy, unite all Muslims on one word, that is the worship of Him alone and following the teachings of His noble Prophet Muhammad sallallahu alaihi wa sallam.

Wa sallallahu wa sallama wa baaraka ‘ala Nabiyyina Muhammadin wa ‘ala aalihi Wa Ashaabih.