IBN RUSHD (1126- 1198)
Abu al-Walid Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Rushd, better known in the Latin West as Averroes,
lived during a unique period in Western intellectual history, in which interest in philosophy and
theology was waning in the Muslim world and just beginning to flourish in Latin Christendom.
Just fifteen years before his birth, the great critic of Islamic philosophy, al-Ghazali (1058-1111),
had died after striking a blow against Muslim Neoplatonic philosophy, particularly against the
work of the philosopher Ibn Sina (Avicenna). From such bleak circumstances emerged the
Spanish-Muslim philosophers, of which the jurist and physician Ibn Rushd came to be regarded
as the final and most influential Muslim philosopher, especially to those who inherited the
tradition of Muslim philosophy in the West.
His influential commentaries and unique interpretations on Aristotle revived Western scholarly
interest in ancient Greek philosophy, whose works for the most part had been neglected since the
6th century. He critically examined the alleged tension between philosophy and religion in
The Decisive Treatise, and he challenged the anti-philosophical sentiments within the Sunni
tradition sparked by al-Ghazali. This critique ignited a similar re-examination within the
Christian tradition, influencing a line of scholars who would come to be identified as the
"Averroists.
"Ibn Rushd contended that the claim of many Muslim theologians that philosophers were outside
the fold of Islam had no base in scripture. His novel exegesis of semirial Quranic verses made
the case for three valid "paths" of arriving at religious truths, and that philosophy was one if not
the best of them, therefore its study should not be prohibited. He also challenged Asharite,
Mutazilite, Sufi, and "literalist" conceptions of God's attributes and actions, noting the
philosophical issues that arise out of their notions of occasionalism, divine speech, and
explanations of the origin of the world. Ibn Rushd strived to demonstrate that without engaging
religion critically and philosophically, deeper meanings of the tradition can be lost, ultimately
leading to deviant and incorrect understandings of the divine.
Philosophy and Religion :
Until the 8th century, and the rise of the Mutazilite theology, Greek philosophy was viewed with
suspicion. Despite the political support given to philosophy because of the Mutazilites and the
early philosophers, a strong anti-philosophical movement rose through theological schools like
the Hanbalites and the Asharites. These groups, particular the latter, gained public and political
influence roughout the 10th and 11th century Islamic world. These appealed to more
conservative elements Within society, to those who disliked what appeared to be non-Muslim
influences. Ibn Rushd, who served a political dynasty that had come into power under a banner
of orthodox reform while privately encouraging the study of philosophy, was likely sensitive to
the increasing tensions that eventually led to his banishment. Though written before his exile his
The Decisive Treatise provides an apologetic for those theologians who charged philosophers
with unbelief.
Existence and Attributes of God :
lbn Rushd, shortly after writing his The Decisive Treatise, wrote a treatise on the doctrine of God
known as Al-Kashf 'an Manahij al-Adilla fi 'Aqaid al-Milla (the Exposition of the Methods of
Proof Concerning tlhe Beliefs of the Community). His goal was to examine the religious
doctrines that are held by the public and determine if any of the many doctrines expounded by
the different sects were the intention of the "lawgiver." In particular he identifies four key sects
as the targets of his polemic, the Asharites, Mutazilites, the Suíis and the "literalists," claiming
that they all have distorted the scriptures and developed innovative doctrines not compatible with
Islam Ibn Rushd's polemic, then, becomes a clear expression of his doctrine on God. He begins
with examining the arguments for the existence of God given by the different sects, dismissing
each one as erroneous and harmful to the public. Ibn Rushd contends that there are only two
arguments worthy of adherence, both of which are found in the "Precious Book;" for example,
surahs 25:61, 78:6-16 and 80:24-33. The first is the argument of "providence," in which one can
observe that everything in the universe serves the purpose of humanity. Ibn Rushd speaks of the
sun, the moon, the earth and the weather as examples of how the universe is conditioned for
humans. If the universe is, then, so finely-tuned, then it be speaks of a fine tuner - God. The
second is the argument of "invention," stemming from the observation that everything in the
world appears to have been invented. Plants and animals have a construction that appears to have
been designed; as such a designer must have been involved, and that is God.
Origin of the World :
Turning from the attributes of God to the actions of God, where he delineates his view of
creation, Ibn Rushd in his Tahafut al-Tahafut clearly deals with the charge against the
philosopher's doctrine on the eternity of the physical universe in his polemic against al-Ghazali.
Ghazali perceived that the philosophers had misunderstood the relationship between God and the
world, especially since the Quran is clear on divine creation. Ghazali, sustaining the Asharite
emphasison divine power, questioncd why God, being the ultimate agent, could not simply create
the world ex nihilo and then destroy it in some future point in time? Why did there need to be
some obstacle to explain a delay in God's creative action? In response to this. Ghazali offered a
number of lengthy proofs to challenge the philosopher's assertions.
Ibn Rushd, who often labelled Ghazali's arguments dialectical, sophistical or feeble, merely
replied that the eternal works differently than the temporal. As humans, we can wilfully decide to
perform some action and then wait a period of time before completing it. For God, on the
otherhand, there can be no gap between decision and action; for what differentiates one time
from another in God's mind? Also, what physical limits can restrict God from acting? Ibn Rushd,
in the first discussion, writes about how Ghazali confused the definition of eternal and human
will, making them univocal. For humans, the will is the faculty to choose between two options,
and it is desire that compels the will to choose. For God, however, this definition of will is
meaningless. God cannot have desire because that would entail change within the eternal when
the object of desire was fulfilled. Furthermore, the creation of the world is not simply the choice
between two equal fulfilled, there would not be any reason for God not to act. God, therefore,
being omniscient and alternatives, but a choice of existence or non-existence. Finally, if all the
conditions for action were fulfilled, there would not be any reason for God not to act. God,
therefore, being omniscient and omnipotent would have known from the eternal past what he had
planned to create, and without limit to his power, there would no condition to stop the creation
from occurring.
Ghazali's argument follows the typical Asharite kalam cosmological argument, in that he argues
the scientific evidence for the temporal origin of the world, and reasons from that to the
existence of a creator. Ghazali's first proof contends that the idea of the infinite number of
lanetary revolutions as an assumption of the eternity of the world is erroneous since one can
determine their revolution rates and how much they differ when compared one to another.
Ibn Rushd weakly maintains that the concept of numbered planetary revolutions and their
division does not apply to eternal beings. To say that the eternal can be divided is absurd since
there can be no degrees to the infinite. Oliver Leaman explains how Ibn Rushd accepted
accidental but not essential infinite series of existents. There can be an infinite chain of human
sexual generation, but those beings that are essentially infinite have neither beginning thus
cannot be divided.
Metaphysics :
Metaphysics, for Ibn Rushd, does not simply deal with God or theology; rather it concerns itself
with different classes of being and the analogical idea of being. It is, thus, a science that
distinguishes inferior classes of being from real being. Ibn Rushd, the adamant Aristotelian, puts
own slant on Aristotle's metaphysics. Ibn Rushd's classification of being begins with accidental
substances, which are physical beings, then moves to being of the soul / mind and finally
discusses whether the substance existing outside the soul, such as the sphere of the fixed stars, is
material or immaterial. This hierarchy, notes Charles Genequand, differs from Aristotle's
hierarchy of material beings, beings of the soul / mind and unchangeable entities. The first and
third categories of both thinkers are somewhat similar in that they encompass a straight
demarcation between material and immaterial being. Ibn Rushd's second class of being, however,
includes both universals and mathematical beings; and as such cannot be the bridge between
physics and metaphysics as it is in Aristotle. 'Rather, he contended that all autonomous beings,
whether material or not, constitute a single category. This was likely a response to the more
materialistic interpretations of Aristotle, such as that of Alexander of Aphrodisias, for Ibn Rushd
did not see physics and the metaphysical at opposite sides of the spectrum.
Conclusion :
The events surrounding Ibn Rushd towards the end of his life, including his banishment, signaled
a broader cultural shift in the Islamic world. Interest in philosophy was primarily among the
elite: scholars, royal patrons and civil servants. Nevertheless, its presence among the ruling elite
spoke of the diversity of what it meant to be "Muslim." As interest in philosophy, vigor in the
work of Christian and Jewish philosophers. The twelfth and thirteenth centuries saw an
intellectual revival in the Latin West, with the first great universities being established in Italy,
France and England. Within the walls of the University of Paris, a group of philosophers came to
identify themselves with the Aristotelian philosophy presented by Ibn Rushd, particularly certain
elements of its relation to religion.