How did Ibn Rushd answer al-Ghazali's attack on the philosophers?

Al so he basically said so he uh that's why he kind of suffered massively but the man Rush was a legend uh some of his books he responds to razali gazali did attack all the philosophers he had this book which I did take out called and what rush does is he refutes that and calls it the half which was incoherence of the philosophers and he basically takes out these points and says based on them on these three

crucial factors all philosophers are kufar having a having a senior moment Gali did have his uh bachara kind of you know I wouldn't be surprised if he because he had a mental breakdown um so because he kind of just went to the desert and abandoned everything and just kind of but then you know he he did emerge from it alhamdulillah safe and sound but he did I I think for maybe uh whether it was a few years or whatever arguably people would say but he definitely went a bit strange and so

he wrote this thing at dissing all philosophers and then a century later I Rush is the one who kind of counters it by calling it The incoherence of the incoherence and he refutes him and he actually explains that look gazali got it wrong because he bases a lot of his reading of philosophers um on people like IBN Sina and you know other farabi and these people and he says that these people have Miss they they have they've been ill informed and that was actually true because what happened in the early days when things were being translated it

wasn't clear what was Aristotle's views and what were Plato's views so they were kind of mixing them up a lot as well and then you had this school which emerges from Egypt and it was by people like platinus and it's called neop platonism which basically believes in things like everything ultimately comes from God and then it emanates and and they have some strange odd views about them this is what they what gazali is actually refuting so they believe that in neoplatonism uh you that you see ultimate Serenity like let's say

Paradise can be here on Earth it doesn't need to be in an afterlife therefore you don't need a resurrection or you don't need continuity but that's neoplatonism it's not Aristotle or not even arguably Socrates or Plato but the point is it's neoplatonism so gazali is refuting that and he's aiming it at Aristotle and these people so he so I Rush kind of agrees with him and says look yeah I agree these points are stupid but these points really you know you should be pointing at IA why you pointing it at me at the

philosophers so yeah so these were some interesting kind of things he he does uh he does State there was it is interesting people say he hated gazali I don't think he hated him he actually has a summary of his book called It's a summary of's um I did before finishing concluding on him I will summarize he does have you know in his commentary of um Plato's uh Republic so the popular Republic of the you know the philosopher king and how the ideal city should be he has a commentary on it and it is actually quite fascinating I