I have already discussed this and established the soundness of what Abū Hāmid said [in that regard] (1) insofar as it was correct and consonant with the principles of Islam, as well as the error in the contrary arguments of Ibn Rushd and other philosophers. Whatever truth they stated that accords with the Book and the Sunnah is not to be rejected but accepted. Where Abū Hāmid fell short in refuting their corrupt doctrines, those doctrines can be answered by another method that assists him in achieving his sound objective. Yet Ibn Rushd and others like him were able to assail him only because he agreed with them upon certain corrupt principles and because of what (2) is found in his books of discourse consonant with their principles. This prompted him and others like him to recite about Abū Hāmid (3):

Among Yemen’s folk, a Yemeni for the day;
If he meets a Maʿaddite, then an Adnanite. (4)

For this reason, they treated (5) much of his discourse as a middle ground between the Muslims and the Peripatetic philosophers: through it, the Muslim philosophizes according to the Peripatetic method, though as a Muslim, while the philosopher embraces Islam through it, though as a philosopher. Thus, he is neither purely a Muslim nor purely a philosopher of the Peripatetic school.

As for rejecting philosophy wholesale or affirming it wholesale, neither is possible. The philosophers have no single, determinate doctrine that they champion, nor any position upon which they agree concerning divine matters, the afterlife, prophethood, and revealed laws—or even concerning natural philosophy and mathematics, or much of logic. They agree only upon the observable matters of sense perception upon which all human beings agree,