the Muslims, although he acquired them only from heretics who claimed affiliation with the Muslims, such as the Ismāʿīliyyah. He, his household, and their followers were known among the Muslims for their heresy. The best they professed outwardly was the creed of the Rāfidah, while inwardly they concealed outright disbelief. Muslims wrote books, both large and small, exposing their secrets and tearing away their veils, and strove against them by word and deed, for they were more deserving of this than the Jews and Christians. One need only mention “Uncovering Secrets and Tearing Away Veils” by Judge Abū Bakr Muhammad ibn al-Tayyib, the book of ʿAbd al-Jabbār ibn Ahmad, the book of Abū Hāmid al-Ghazālī, and the writings of Abū Ishāq, Ibn Fūrak, Judge Abū Yaʿlā, and al-Shahrastānī, besides much else that would take too long to describe.
The point here is that Ibn Sīnā himself reported that his household, his father, and his brother belonged to these heretics, and that this was what led him to take up philosophy, for he used to hear them discussing the intellect and the soul.
These Muslims with whom he claimed affiliation, despite their outward heresy and inward disbelief, knew more about Allah than his philosophical predecessors, such as Aristotle and his followers. For whatever knowledge of Allah those philosophers possessed was surpassed by that of devout Arab polytheists.
I have cited Aristotle’s own statements in his “Metaphysics,” in “Book Lambda” and elsewhere, which represent the ultimate achievement of his philosophy, and have explained some of the ignorance they contain. For among the well-known groups who discuss divine knowledge, despite their error and misguidance—such as Jewish and Christian scholars, the innovators among the Muslims, and others—none are more ignorant