Arabic version: 丕亘賳 乇卮丿 Commentaries of well known Arab philosopher, jurist, and physician 础惫别谤谤辞毛蝉 or 础惫别谤谤丑辞毛蝉, also ibn Rushd, of Spain on Aristotle exerted a strong influence on medieval Christian theology.
Abu'l-Walid Ibn Rushd, better as Averroes, stands as a towering figure in the history of Islamic as that of west European thought. In the Islamic world, he played a decisive role in the defense of Greeks against the onslaughts of the Ash'arite (Mutakallimun), led by Abu Hamid al-Ghazali, and in the rehabilitation.
A common theme throughout his writings properly understood religion with no incompatibility. His contributions took many forms, ranging from his detailed, his defense against the attacks of those who condemned it as contrary to Islam and his construction of a form, cleansed as far as possible at the time of Neoplatonism.
After centuries of nearly total oblivion in west Europe, world recognition as early as the 13th century contributed to the rediscovery of the master. That instrumental discovery launched Scholasticism in Latin and the Renaissance of the 15th-century Europe in due course. Since the publication of [title:Averroes et l'averroisme] of Ernest Renan in 1852, notwithstanding very little attention to work of Averroes in English, French showed greater interest.
I came to know this book from a previous one (Islam's Quantum Question) calling this a great book in talking about the clash between Tradition (丕賱卮乇蹖毓丞) and Philosophy/science (丕賱丨賰賲丞). But unfortunately, that is the least what Ibn Rushid talks about in this book. He mainly focuses on defending some previous Islamic Philosophers, like Ibn Sina, from 'takfeer' by a prominent Islamic scholar of that time, Al-Ghazali namely.
Al-Ghazali, in his book "Incoherence of the Philosophers," goes on to comminate some philosophers due to three reasons; 1. Their denial of God's knowledge of the intricacies (丕賱噩夭卅賷丕鬲) of this life, 2. Them saying that this world/universe is infinitely old, and 3. Resurrection of the bodies on judgement day.
Ibn Rushid's defense comes by arguing that those philosophers have done "ijtihad" on some issues that have not been settled by Qur'an and there is not an all-encompassing consensus on them, so if they are wrong, they should not be regarded as Kafir, they even get 1 ajr for their diligence.
I bought this book because of the title, without reading the synopsis at the back - a HUGE mistake. This book is a part of Ibn Rushd's Tahafut al-Tahafut, which was written as a counter-argument to Imam Ghazali's Tahafut al-Falasifa. (Note here tahafut means incoherence, while falasifa means philosophers). As a person who is ignorant about this whole Ibn Rushd vs Imam Ghazali thingy, this book was incredibly hard to understand - particularly because of the (1) subject of interest, and (2) Malay translation.
Apparently, Ibn Rushd's views were more appreciated* in the Western world, where he is more commonly known as Averroes. On the contrary, Imam Ghazali is more well-recognized in the Muslim world, gaining him the title of Hujjatul Islam (Proof of Islam). Having said that, both scholars are on the right track - I believe. Despite the disputes on their manhaj (way of thinking), both are scholars who dedicated their lives to perfecting their knowledge of Islam. As has been mentioned repeatedly in this book, Ibn Rushd strongly emphasizes the status difference between civilians (orang awam/ramai) and scholars (ahli ilmu).
Some lessons/reflections I got: - I do not know what I do not know - I need to research and dive deeper into the topic before giving out any opinions (otherwise I'm just an empty can a.k.a a fool who makes noises) - I'm indeed, only an orang awam. It humbles me and makes me look at the khilaf between the Muslim scholars in a new positive way