Averroes: On the Harmony of Religion and Philosophy

by ibn Rushd

In this treatise Ibn Rushd (Averroes) sets out to show that the Scriptural Law (shar’) of Islam does not altogether prohibit the study of philosophy by Muslims, but, on the contrary, makes it a duty for a certain class of people, those with the capacity for “demonstrative” or scientific reasoning. Apparent conflicts between the teachings of Scripture and philosophy can be reconciled by allegorical interpretations of Scripture, though such interpretations should not be taught to the common people. Ibn Rushd’s contribution to what was clearly a lively debate in Almovarid Andalusia is here accompanied by extracts from two other relevant works, his Damima and Kitab al-Kashf ‘an Manahij al-Adilla, and all are covered by a full introduction and notes.

Genres: Philosophy, Islam, Religion, Nonfiction, Theology, Middle East, Classics

Paperback

First published January 1, 1198

About the author

Arabic version: ابن رشد
Commentaries of well known Arab philosopher, jurist, and physician Averroës or Averrhoës, also ibn Rushd, of Spain on Aristotle exerted a strong influence on medieval Christian theology.

Abu'l-Walid Ibn Rushd, better as Averroes, stands as a towering figure in the history of Islamic as that of west European thought. In the Islamic world, he played a decisive role in the defense of Greeks against the onslaughts of the Ash'arite (Mutakallimun), led by Abu Hamid al-Ghazali, and in the rehabilitation.

A common theme throughout his writings properly understood religion with no incompatibility. His contributions took many forms, ranging from his detailed, his defense against the attacks of those who condemned it as contrary to Islam and his construction of a form, cleansed as far as possible at the time of Neoplatonism.

After centuries of nearly total oblivion in west Europe, world recognition as early as the 13th century contributed to the rediscovery of the master. That instrumental discovery launched Scholasticism in Latin and the Renaissance of the 15th-century Europe in due course. Since the publication of [title:Averroes et l'averroisme] of Ernest Renan in 1852, notwithstanding very little attention to work of Averroes in English, French showed greater interest.

See more here.

Reviews

[Julian · Rating 4 out of 5]

Averroes was a great philosopher, but the end of his life was miserable his books burned he was exiled and I don't find this surprising; his ideas were not accepted, it was too hard for the people to understand it, to understand that his word is better for them and for humanity. in this book he tried to defend the ideas of Avicenna and Al-Farabi because they said that the world is old as a God and God does not know the molecules; because someone started a war on the philosophers by his book The Incoherence of the Philosophers by Mohammed al-Ghazali. Averroes also tried to say that the mind and religions can work together but at the end, Averroes lost everything Muslims now are studying Mohammed al-Ghazali and Ibn Taymiyyah, not Averroes.
Update 6/5/2020 This review sounds childish now.

[Haider Hussain · Rating 4 out of 5]

Two important takeaways from the book:

1. On its own, there is nothing ground breaking about this book. However, when you read it while keeping the historical context in mind (the time it was written, and the issues it touches), this is an important work.

2. If you are expecting a detailed discussion of the issues where philosophy and religion are on the same (or different) page, you will be disappointed. Averroes only briefly touches upon as to why the disentanglement between philosophy and religion arises. So the title might be a bit misleading for some. More appropriately, the book is more a prolegomena in which Averroes touches upon three key issues:

(i) Why there are different interpretations of some Scriptural (Quranic) texts, and what are the consequences of these different interpretations.

(ii) Who should interpret the Scripture and how.

(iii) Why it is important to know the audience, as not every interpretation (exegesis) is for everyone. For instance, if the allegorical interpretations are expressed to someone whose mental capacity is only enough to understand apparent meaning, he can be led into unbelief.

Averroes criticizes Mu'tazilites and Ash'araites for exposing the masses to such allegorical interpretations of Quran that are only suitable for learned scholars. He is of the view that it was due to the these allegorical interpretations (especially the false ones) “of Mu'tazilites and Ash'araites and the supposition that such interpretations of the Scripture ought to be expressed to everyone, that the sects of Islam arose, with result that each one accused the others of unbelief and hearsay.”

[Hassan Zayour · Rating 4 out of 5]

I want to read this book for a second time, and that is because I am employing a very essential concept being discussed by this brilliant scholar here.
After my second read, I will be writing a new thorough review with a general outline of what I have adopted from his views and what I have humbly rejected.
Put in simple words, I am amazed by this Philosopher, and I have found great joy and enlightenment as I read this work, although I regard him to be a little bit of an elitist.
Such organization, such brilliance, such lucidity: Ibn Rushd is simply an amazing and a beautiful mind.

[Michael Martinez · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very good book; many interpretations of the Koran which low-hanging fruit Christians may normally lodge at Islam, are shown to not be the exclusive interpretations a Believer of Islam can accept, as evident by this book. What this does not mean however, is that Islam is in a more privileged position than the orthodox Christian religion if one simply accepts the interpretations in this text, for what this text implicitly proves, is that Islam shares an epistemic problem with Protestantism. Within both religions, it is certainly possible to interpret Biblical and Koranic verses respectively in a more convenient or favorable light, but neither has any way of settling who has the right interpretation. So, for example, a Believer of Islam can accept the Averroist interpretation about the Koranic verses which seem to suggest that Allah can mislead people to damnation (by arguing like Averroes, that it is not Allah who misleads men, but men who mislead themselves by their own negative dispositions to Allah, for good verses are misleading to evil men), but have no way of settling whether Averroes is the one with the right interpretation, or if the Jabarites (who thought Allah predetermines some people to damnation) are.

[Edwin Setiadi · Rating 5 out of 5]

Averroes, also known as Ibn Rushd, was a legal scholar of the Maliki school of Islamic law. He inspired St Thomas Aquinas and many Muslim, Catholic and Jewish scholars alike, while at the same time regarded as the “founding father of secular thought in Europe.” He is the only Muslim painted in the Sistine Chapel (the guy with the turban in the “Scuola di Atene” painting), and grouped by Dante in his 14th century masterpiece “Divine Comedy” among great philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle.

Famous for bringing back the almost vanished teachings of Aristotle through his commentary work, he was trained in law, medicine and philosophy, and became the chief judge of Cordoba during the Golden Age of inventions in the Muslim world in the 12th century (that brought us al-gebra, al-chemy, al-gorithm among many others).

His life story alone reveals so much about the lost Islamic history and the rich culture Muslims had way before the Renaissance (which started to civilise the West 2 centuries later). And his resulting thinkings are the product of the advanced knowledge during that Islamic Golden Age, which would make today’s Islamic culture (with de-facto caliphate of the descendants of Muhhamad bin Saud and Abdul-Wahhab) looks medieval and simplistic by comparison. But yet, just like Ibn Al-Haytam who wrote the theory of gravity 600 years before Isaac Newton, and Al-Tusi and Al-Gazali whose work on free-market economy were copied by Adam Smith, the work of Averroes remains unknown in our modern world.

This well-researched book (written in 1960) is the attempt to bring back the stories of the complex theological debates between Muslim scholars during the Golden Age of Islam. The book is divided into 3 parts: 1.) The fascinating introduction that sets the intellectual scene of c. 10-12th century Muslim world. 2.) the translation on Averroes’ own writings. 3.) the brilliant elaborating notes on the translation. And central to all of this is Averroes’ superb thoughts on the question of the era – the harmony of religion and philosophy – that may have already settled the age-old debate between religion and philosophy around 900 years ago.

[Barry Edwards · Rating 3 out of 5]

I must say that I am quite conflicted about this book. Particularly because, the version of it I read, by Dodo Press, was quite a shoddy work. Translation, how it was structured and the terms that were used, were confusing to say the least, especially if one is already familiar with the larger philosophical context in which the work was written: That is, primarily to say, that the book was written with the translator's own (potentially limited) understanding, rather than with modern counterparts of the terms used by Ibn Rushd himself.

This makes the book quite a confusing read, that is not to say that it wouldn't have been a confusing read otherwise, but... I don't know.

Other than that, Ibn Rushd seems to touch upon some interesting points and "novel" arguments, within his context. While I suspect that, especially the earlier parts, are muddled by the translation.

[Hamad Al-Hamad · Rating 5 out of 5]

Started this pre-Covid and forgot to get around to finishing it due to life getting in the way of it. Whilst looking for something to write about for a paper for my Medieval Theology class, I re-discovered it on my bookshelf and decided to give it it's due and proper. The ideas discussed by Ibn Rushd made me reflect a lot on how medieval theologians wanted to reconcile faith and reason. I've been meaning to read texts like these because I want to expose myself to the world of Islamic thinking, theology, and philosophy and I feel this is a good start for anyone looking to do so.

[Jestora (muaad) the poet · Rating 3 out of 5]

It’s a short book so I read it one day but I had to get some help from AI because sometimes it was too complex. I was sympathetic with him because of his praise of the faith and even how he praised Ghazali but towards the end I realised why he was so controversial. His views are not mainstream at all. Frankly, I don’t know where he got them from. He’s missed the mark completely.

[Aiden Johnson]

This is not his most famous or masterful work, but it summarizes a lot of his most important ideas in an easy to understand way. I talked to one of my professors about this work, and he recommends the Hourani translation. This is then the version that I read, and Hourani’s notes really are helpful for a beginner like myself.

[Adam · Rating 2 out of 5]

Whilst it is cool to see the Arab-Islamic world having the same intellectual level and thought as the European enlightenment, its still just theistic apologetics that most thinking people disagree with these days.

[Maher Khaled · Rating 4 out of 5]

very good quick read

[Fady Abdelmeged · Rating 4 out of 5]

It’s always important to use logic and reason to make religion digestible. A good amount of the ideas in this book I still believe in today and that says a lot since I read it back in 2019.

[Matteo Curti · Rating 3 out of 5]

Testo decisivo per una parte importante del medioevo latino e per una visione illuminata dell'Islam, anche e soprattutto oggi. Molto dettagliata ed esaustiva, almeno per un primo approccio, la curatela di Campanini.

[Loubna Mckouar · Rating 5 out of 5]

A must read