The Curse of Philosophy 347
and Ibn Taymiyya view the history of ideas as a history of decline.
Al-Ṣaghīr suggests that the latter remains within the framework of the
former’s critique of Muslim theologians and philosophers, insofar as
he aimed to restore them to their respective origins: the Koran and
Aristotle. Ibn Taymiyya, who knew that Ibn Rushd was the closest
Muslim philosopher to Aristotle, considered him also to be “the clos-
est philosopher to Islam” – “a testimony which Ibn Rushd would have
most liked!”^90 In his final remarks, al-Ṣaghīr assumes that the strik-
ing similarities of both positions are traceable to common sources
of thought or to Ibn Rushd’s influence on Ibn Taymiyya, which, of
course, the latter did not display openly. Ibn Taymiyya would be, thus,
like Thomas Aquinas – “one of the firstlings of Averroism in a differ-
ent environment than its first Moroccan milieu.”^91
In conclusion, al-Ṣaghīr presents Ibn Taymiyya’s position as “an
echo, application and extension of Ibn Rushd’s philosophical cri-
tique” to previous Muslim philosophers and kalām-theologians. He
does this in order to make a case for Ibn Rushd’s uninterrupted influ-
ence in the Islamic East (al-mashriq).^92 In his view, Ibn Taymiyya’s
propagated agreement of “clear reason and sound traditional knowl-
edge” is identical with Ibn Rushd’s principle of the oneness of truth.
Al-Ṣaghīr, however, by means of the interrogative form of the title
as well as several cautious statements within the study itself, demon-
strates his awareness of the highly hypothetical nature of his argu-
ments and conclusions.
Nevertheless, al-Ṣaghīr is silent about Ibn Taymiyya’s explicit accu-
sation that Ibn Rushd, in his writings, concealed his true belief in the
so-called “double truth”: that the truth of theological teachings is
reserved exclusively for philosophers, while common people are fed
pious fictions. Al-Ṣaghīr likewise completely ignores the numerous
polemical attacks against the Córdoban philosopher in Ibn Taymiyya’s
works.^93 Obviously, Ibn Taymiyya does not take Ibn Rushd’s profes-
90 Ibid., p. 182. In her abovementioned study, Anke von Kügelgen, Dialogpartner,
pp. 472–475, states that Ibn Taymiyya does not treat Ibn Rushd in a better way
than al-Ghazālī deals with his predecessors. She, furthermore, briefly indicates
major points of agreement and disagreement between both thinkers, referring
to relevant passages in Ibn Taymiyya’s works.
91 Al-Ṣaghīr, Mawāqif, p. 182.
92 Ibid., p. 165.
93 For instance: Ibn Taymiyya, Darʾ, edited by Muḥammad Rashād Sālim, vol. 1,
p. 11 et passim, vol. 11, s. v. Ibn Rushd.
Brought to you by | Nanyang Technological University
Authenticated