The Fall of Ibn Rushd School of Thought
Written by Farida Farouk
Ibn Rushd, also known as Averroes, was one of the best Islamic philosophers. He became known in both the East and West as a commentator and explanations on the works of Aristotle. Ibn Rushd’s ideas affected much of the philosophical ideas in medieval Europe. He became an example of how religions are dynamic and evolving traditions. No character in the history of Muslim philosophy can represent the glory of rational thinking than Ibn Rushd.
Throughout the centuries most Muslims have only been provided with an explanation of religion no other than what was explained to them by the enemies of logical reasoning and free thought, initiated by Ibn Hanbal some centuries ago to the start of the Wahhabi-Saudi state in the Arabian Peninsula in seventeen hundreds by Mohamed ibn-Abdul Wahab, the father of Wahhabi. More recently, an Islamic state established three quarters of a century ago, took it upon itself not only to stand as the producer of this brand of Islam but to also spread its understanding and message to the world. In that version of Islam, there is no room for the other (Christian, Jewish, Buddhist or otherwise); there can be no equality between men and women nor peaceful coexistence with others, no possibility of allowing the human mind to explore new horizons, and no room for creativity or imaginative thinking.
During the Moorish era, the Islamic world witnessed a war of different schools of thought. The first one, which supported free thinking and reasoning, was started off by the Mo’tazalittes and developed and elaborated upon by Ibn Rushd. The second one was against the use of logical reasoning in the interpretation of holy texts, supporting orthodoxy and tradition and refusing constructive reasoning altogether. This latter trend had many prominent supporters, including Ahmed Ibn-Hanbal, one of the four Sunni imams, and Abu Hamed Al-Ghazzali, the noted Islamic jurist.
Sadly, the school that supported orthodoxy and tradition over the use of reasoning and free thinking won. The fall of the school of logical thinking was exhibited in the burning of Ibn Rushd’s books by the government, which in return raised the importance of Al-Ghazzali by giving him the title “Hujat al Islam” (the authority of Islam). Raising the status of a man who did not believe that the human mind is capable of grasping “The Truth” brought about the disastrous effects on the Arab psyche which continues to this day and as a result has become confined, backward and unwelcoming to new ideas.
Why have Muslims chosen to follow the school of thought advocated by Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali? A man who pleaded orthodoxy and tradition and why were Al-Ghazali’s ideas so readily accepted while Ibn Rushd’s were rejected?
Back then, Muslim rulers had found Al-Ghazali’s ideas more appealing than those of Ibn Rushd. In Europe, dominance through threat of punishment and violence was in retreat. In return, in the fourteenth century, a prominent school of learning such as the University of Paris upheld the ideas of Ibn Rushd over other European thinkers. Meanwhile, the Muslim world continued to be ruled by a religious establishment which condemned the use of reason and demanded blind support to the authority of tradition. The Muslims lost a historic opportunity to use Ibn Rushd’s ideas that could have placed them on a path similar to the one which took Europe to an intellectual climate that encouraged debate, free thinking, general freedom and creativity in literature, art and science.
At the time, Muslims had known two almost opposed understandings to Islam; one was based on a rigid, interpretation of the Qur’an and the brutal suppression of free logical reasoning, the other one was more balanced and open to interpretations of Islamic scriptures which permitted the recognition of the other. The first was brought about in the Arabian Peninsula and can best be described as the Bedouin model. The second took hold in the more intellectually vibrant climate that prevailed among the people descended from ancient civilizations in places like Egypt, Iraq, and Turkey which is better known as the Egyptian/Turkish/Syrian model of Islam.
A clash between the two models of Islam was inevitable, and, in the second decade of the nineteenth century, they confronted one another on the field of battle. Under the command of Mohamed Ali’s son, the Egyptian army had triumphed. Unfortunately things were changing in the area and Egypt’s influence regressed as its economy and educational system declined. Meanwhile, the supporters of the model of Islam which demanded a strict support to orthodoxy and tradition found themselves in control of vast wealth. This gave them a lot of power over their moderate rivals and allowed them to extend their influence into the more tolerant model of Islam.
This unfortunate situation could have been prevented if the Muslim world had approved and backed up Ibn Rushd or if the situation had not weakened the moderate model represented by Egypt.
For some it is easy to believe that Islam, violence and terrorism go hand in hand. But those who have a more detailed understanding of the issue know that this understanding of Islam is present only because a fanatic model of Islam has managed, due to the need and the export of oil, to make the people believe that its interpretation of Islam is Islam.
The version of Islam adopted by the Wahabis had no followers among the Muslims of the world before the expansion of Saudi influence following the oil boom. Millions of Muslims throughout the world remained immune to the call of the brutal, destructive and bloody message of what was a small sect produced in the in Arabian Peninsula. Hence the emergence of militant Islam, a force that now represents a dangerous threat to world peace, humanity, Islam and Muslims. Following the decline in living standards that the Muslims have suffered at the hands of corrupt rulers, they have become easy casualties for the Wahhabi interpretation of Islam.
