Date Submitted

Ibn Rushid (Averroes) refers to a philosopher, general practitioneras well as the Islamic jurist. He lived in an era of Westernintellectual past, where philosophical interest was diminishing inIslam and commencing to become widespread in Latin Christendom.1Averroes has come to be referred as, the last and majorly influentialMuslim philosopher, particularly to individuals that adopted thepractice of western Muslim philosophy. Averroes’ influencinginterpretations, as well as exceptional commentary on Aristotle,renewed Western intellectual interest in prehistoric Greekphilosophy. He critically evaluated the supposed tension amidphilosophy and religion challenging anti-philosophic views in theSunni tradition.

Averroes has widely evaluated the relationship amid religion andphilosophy in Islamic context. His work has resulted in Europeanenlightenment, as he was amid the first individuals to comprehendAristotle and deduce numerous great interpretations of his work inArabic. Thus, it can be said that Averroes’ philosophy acts as aguide in linking Islamic faith knowhow of the world viarationalization of faith. The Quran comprises of numerousillustrations on how humans ought to seek knowhow to enhance theirreligious understanding, and as a result, live in line with Islamicideals. The work of Averroes becomes important in enlightening on therelationship between philosophy and religion, which further enhancescomprehension of Islam.

This paper discusses Averroes’ main argument on the associationamid philosophy and religion. His contributions in philosophy havetaken numerous forms, differing from the comprehensive interpretationof Aristotle, and defending philosophy from attacks of thosecondemning it as dissimilar to Islam.

Averroes philosophical defense

The philosopher’s initial work is General Medicine compiledfrom 1162 to 1169. However, the most significant writings are threeclosely linked spiritual-philosophical treaties, which are the Faslal-Makal, Kashf al-Manhij and Tahafut al-Tahafut.2The writings defend philosophy. The first two assert that it is justthe metaphysician using specific evidence, is able and experienced todeduce the teachings found in the prophetic revealed law of Shariah,in place of the Muslim mutakallimun that depend ondialectical premises. To determine the real, inner meaning ofspiritual beliefs is the objective of philosophy in its endeavor tofind truth. The inner meaning has to be revealed to masses that oughtto agree to the plain, external significance of scripture comprisedin narratives, metaphors and similes. Averroes used Aristotle’sthree premises, which are dialectical, demonstrative and persuasive,to philosophers, masses and theologians. The last work is committedtowards defending a philosophy in opposition of the predecessoral-Ghazzali’s informing attack against al-Qarabi and Avicenna.

Philosophy and Religion

Greek philosophy was in the past viewed suspiciously up to theeighth era following the emergence of the Mutazilite theology.Regardless of political backing for philosophy due to the Mutazilitesand ancient philosophers, a great anti-philosophical era emerged viatheological schools, such as the Hanbalites and Asharites. Theschools acquired public and political support all through the tenthas well as eleventh era in the Islamic world. These drew aspects thatare more conservative in society to those that detested what seemedas non-Muslim influences. Ibn Rushd, serving a political rule duringthe period, acquiring authority under the placard of orthodoxreforms, whereas secretly endorsing the research of philosophy, waspossibly sensitive to the enhancing tensions, which in the endresulted in his eviction.

Ibn Rushd commences with the arguments that law mandates theresearch of philosophy. Numerous Quranic verses, like “reflect youhave a vision” (59.2) and “they give thought to the creation ofheaven and earth” (3:191), command people to reflect on God’screation.3This is achieved via demonstration, deriving presumptions from agreedupon premises that is what philosophers do. Because such obligationis apparent in religion, then an individual that has the capabilityof natural intelligence, as well as spiritual integrity ought tostart studying philosophy. If another individual has studied thesubjects previously, the believer needs to employ the work, eventhough they are from different spiritualities. This is because, justlike in any subject of research, the formation of knowhow issuccessively created from one researcher to another. It does notimply accepting ancient teachings with no criticism, rather if whatis available from the teachings is correct then it should not berefuted based on religion.

The philosopher when adhering to the correct order of education,must not be affected by their research, thus it is incorrect toprohibit studying philosophy. Any harm that might arise isaccidental, similar to the side effects of medicine. When seriousharm emerges from philosophical research, Ibn Rushd proposes thereason is that the student was overpowered by individual passions, orhad a bad instructor. He illustrates this via quoting prophetMuhammad’s saying, when questioned by an individual concerning thebrother’s diarrhea. The prophet advices the brother to take honey,and when the man notes that the diarrhea worsens, the prophet says,“Allah has said the truth, but your brother’s abdomen has told alie.”4This demonstrates that not all individuals are capable of getting thetruth via philosophy, explaining why the Law communicates in threemanners for people to realize the truth and interpret the scripture.The three approaches are the dialectical, rhetorical anddemonstrative. According to Averroes, they separate humans tophilosophers, common masses and theologians.5The mere truth is that Islam is the perfect of all spiritualities,because, in line with the objective of Aristotelian ethics, itresults in the most gratification, comprising of the knowhow of God.As a result, one approach is selected to all individuals, in linewith their natural temperament, causing them to acquire the truth.

To Averroes, demonstrative truth is incapable of differing withscripture, which is the Quran, because Islam is the ultimate truthand philosophical nature involves searching for what is true. Ifscripture conflicts with demonstrative truth, the conflict must bemerely apparent. When philosophy and scripture differ concerning theexistence of a specific being, scripture ought to be allegoricallyinterpreted. Averroes asserts that the allegorical interpretation ofscripture is widespread amid lawyers, philosophers and theologians,and has been widely agreed upon by all Muslims Muslims differ on theextreme as well as correctness of its application.6God has provided a number of meanings and explanations, both obviousand others not obvious, scriptures with the objective of inspiringresearch and to apply to different intelligences. The ancient Muslimsociety, in reference to Averroes, asserted that scripture comprisedof both an obvious significance and hidden meaning.

If the Muslim society has agreed in reference to the significance ofany specific passage, if allegorical or obvious, no one can contestthe explanation. When there is lack of agreement concerning aspecific passage, then its significance lacks interpretation. Thechallenge is that, with the global diversity and prolonged past ofIslam, it is almost impossible to come up with an agreement on manyverses. It is not possible for anyone to be convinced they havecollected all the opinions of scholars from all periods. Bearing thisin mind, Ibn Rushd suggests that scholars as al-Ghazzali ought not tocharge philosophers with skepticism concerning their teachings on theuniverse’s eternity, the refuting of God’s knowhow of specifics,or refutation of bodily resurrection.7Because the ancient Muslims consented to the presence of obvious andallegorical interpretations of texts, and because there is noagreement on the doctrines, such a charge might merely be tentative.Philosophers are exquisitely bestowed with exceptional learningmethods, getting their beliefs via demonstrative arguments, as wellas via allegorical interpretation.

Averroes Treatise on the relation between philosophy and religion

Ibn Rushd treatise is probably his greatest contribution indemonstrating the relationship between philosophy and religion. Thetreatise sets out to demonstrate that the Islamic scriptural law doesnot restrict Muslims to study philosophy. Contrary, the work employsphilosophy in depicting how Muslims enhance their knowhow on thereligion, which ensures that they progress to live according toIslamic ideals. Evident conflicts amid the teachings of scripture andphilosophy may be reconciled via allegorical scriptureinterpretations.

Ibn Rushd seems to argue that as individuals becomes more engagedwith immortal and eternal knowhow, and with widespread and abstractideals, the mind gets to the similar level with the objects ofknowledge.8Hence, after perfecting ourselves intellectually and become aware ofall we need to know concerning the formal system of reality, therelacks any of us to execute the knowing. Averroes refers ourdevelopment in knowhow as equal to a reduction of ties with materialand personal human traits, with the radical outcome that whenanything survives passing away, it ought to be at the species and notperson.9Temporal and predetermined creatures are easy to destruct, but likemembers of a species, people are permanent, though just the speciesitself is wholly free from damage. This appears even more mismatchedwith the conventional spiritual outlook of the spirit world than thecondition which al-Ghazali attacks. Averroes follows the argumentwith a political description of the role of religious language,defining the afterlife as availing ordinary believers with a purposefor virtuous action and deterring them from immoral acts. He fails torule out completely the probability of the kind of physical afterlifeby which al-Ghazzali emphasizes, yet it is apparent from his idealsthat he refers such a possibility as improbable. The meresignificance that can be provided to such an idea is political andthere exists nothing irreligious concerning such an explanation, inreference to Averroes. It is hard for the uncomplicated believers tocomprehend that it is meaningful to behave well and evade evil, ortheir deeds have a greater reference than the immediate society ofacquaintances, thus any religion that is capable of encouraging themought to tackle them in manners that they understand, and in alanguage, that strikes emotions. Rich descriptions of the afterlife,of God viewing everything that unfolds and of the creation of theglobe from nothing, assist devotion by the majority to the rules ofreligion and are the mere type of language, which many members of thesociety can comprehend.

Averroes critiques the Asharite hypothesis of moral language thatinterprets correct and wrong based on conforming to God’s command.10The objective of the hypothesis is to insist the power of divinityover everything, even over the explanation of ethical phrases.Averroes supposes that there ought to be a differentiation amid moralideas and godly commands. The argument is based on an Aristotelianstrategy.11Because everything comprises of a nature, and the nature describesits end, people as things as well have natures and ends through whichconduct is projected. The objective of a plant is growing and theobjective of a saw is cutting, but what is the objective of a humanbeing. An ultimate objective of human beings is to be content and toevade actions that result in sorrow. At this point, it is not hard toline up Islamic, as well as Aristotelians ideals moral virtueresults in pleasure because when people do what is expected in linewith nature, it becomes probable to attain pleasure. The pleasuremight be interpreted in several manners, either as a merge of socialand spiritual actions, or intellectual principle. The latter isprobable to a few individuals, and neither spirituality norphilosophy approves it as the eventual objective for most of society.There is an important social dimension to human pleasure makingidentifying happiness with right moral and spiritual conduct mustsimpler to found. It is understandable that an individual endeavorsto live alone from the society and focus on rational pursuits.

One may suppose that a thinker like Averroes, working in the milieuof Islamic context, could identify pleasure and unhappiness with somefactor of the afterlife. However, he was incapable of accepting theconventional outlook of afterlife as comprising surviving persons.12What the concept of afterlife is expected to attain is acomprehension that the scope of individual action larger than mayimmediately seem the case. With no spiritual language, as well asimagery, normal believers might find it hard grasping that ourethical deeds affect not just ourselves, rather the pleasure of theentire society, not merely at a specific period or place, but asspecies. When people act faultily, we harm our own opportunities ofhuman growth, which affects our individual chances for attaininghappiness and developing as individuals. It also influences ourassociations with other individuals, leading in a weakening ofcommunity. Whereas it is probably correct that the misery ensuingfrom engaging in wrongdoing might not follow us in the afterlife, itmight follow society. The significance of the concept of an afterlifeis that it points to the larger reference terms where moral actionhas life. In the commentary on Plato’s Republic, Averroes altersPlato’s view in regard to his personal Aristotelian outlooks anduses the text to the modern condition.13He employs Plato’s concept of transformation as well asdeterioration of the ideal condition to four imperfect conditions todemonstrate factors of previous and current political association inthe Islamic globe. Averroes insists on the relevance of a carefulcomprehension of the association amid religion and philosophy.Revelations is greater to philosophy by making its message moreextensively available than is probable for philosophy. The prophet iscapable of doing things that the philosopher is incapable ofinstructing to masses, comprehending the prospect, determiningreligious rules and adding to the happiness of the entire humanity.Via divine revelation, the prophet creates laws that make it probableto acquire a comprehension of how to act.

The function of the philosopher within the state was an issue ofprogressive interest for Averroes. He notes that Aristotle appearedto falter amid the outlook that the main constituent of good life isintellectual perception founded on a wider collection of virtues.14The two alternatives have diverse inferences, specifically within themilieu of a religious philosophy. Identifying a more social idea ofhappiness as living in line with an overall merge of virtues couldmake happiness more available publicly, as it could imply that theuncomplicated believer may attain a greater level of perfection allthrough life.15The concept that logical excellence is the greatest types of humanhappiness means that most of the society, incapable of concentratingtotally on intellectual matters. No religion, like Islam with itsassertions to universality may tolerate a confining limitation onhuman happiness. Averroes supposes it is possible to evade thedilemma. The foundation to his solution is arguing that philosophyand religion are not mismatched. Islam is a rational structure ofviewpoints and it mandates its followers to attend to coherentarguments regarding to how to act and think. These rational argumentsare available in the Quran and different regions for those thatfollow them. This may appear as a demeaning manner for describing thefaith of the common believer.

Any religion that asserts to overall acceptability might present itsmessage in an appropriate manner for the specific audience beingtackled. Averroes supposes that Islam is a specifically outstandingreligion as it has the capability of presenting the relevant issuesto the furthermost variety of individuals.16Some persons will be drawn to Islam and supported in their faith whenthe philosophical basis for being a Muslim become pursued andadvanced. Others, possibly the majority, cannot comprehend sucharguments but can comprehend simple arguments, as well as parablesdescribing in simple terms what is incorrect with differentreligions, and the reasons why Islam is superior. Others will noteven be capable of grasping such straightforward arguments, henceought to be convinced by rhetorical devices including a rationalforce, but majorly comprise of persuasive imagery. The manner inwhich Averroes makes the differentiation has caused some commentatorsto suppose that his actual outlook is that philosophy on its owndepicts what is true, and religion merely suits those that areintellectually weak.

Averroes notes, an excellence with Islam derives from the religion’sease of understanding to many adherents.17In a majority of his writings, in specific Fasl al-maqal, Averroessupposes that the greatest form of demonstrative reasoning isincapable of clashing with the ideals of religion. He asserts thatphilosophers are best capable to comprehend well the allegoricalQuran passages on the foundation of their rational instruction, andthere exists no religious prerequisites that such passages areliterally interpreted. Where demonstrative reasoning seems to differwith the sense of scripture, then individuals able of demonstration,philosophers, are aware the passage ought to be allegoricallyinterpreted to come together with demonstrative truths. Philosophersneed to be cautious not to upset the religious awareness of the lesscomplicated.


Deutsch,Eliot, and Ronald Bontekoe, eds.&nbspAcompanion to world philosophies.Oxford: Blackwell, 1997.

Fakhry,Majid. Philosophy and Scripture in the Theology of Averroes.MediaevalStudies&nbsp30,no. 1 (1968): 78-89.

Filali-Ansary,Abdou. The sources of enlightened Muslim thought.&nbspJournalof Democracy&nbsp14, no. 2 (2003): 19-33.

Hoodbhoy,Pervez.&nbspIslamand science: Religious orthodoxy and the battle for rationality. London: Zed books, 1991.

Leaman,Oliver, ed.&nbspHistoryof Islamic philosophy.New York: Routledge, 2013.

Leaman,Oliver. Ibn Rushd on happiness and philosophy.&nbspStudiaIslamica (1980):167-181.

Najjar, FauziM. Ibn Rushd (Averroes) and the Egyptian enlightenment movement.British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies&nbsp(2004):195-213.

Stepaniants,Marietta.&nbspIntroductionto Eastern Thought.Lanham: AltaMira Press, 2002.&nbsp

Wild, Stefan.Islamic Enlightenment and the paradox of Averroes.&nbspWeltDes Islams&nbsp36(1996): 379-390.

Zagzebski,Linda, and Timothy Miller.&nbspReadingsin Philosophy of Religion: Ancient to Contemporary.Malden, Mass: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009.

1 Oliver Leaman, ed,&nbspHistory of Islamic philosophy. (New York: Routledge), 13.

2 Pervez Hoodbhoy, Islam and science: Religious orthodoxy and the battle for rationality. (London: Zed books), 91.

3 Oliver Leaman, Ibn Rushd on happiness and philosophy.&nbspStudia Islamica (1980): 167-181.

4 Oliver Leaman, 167-181.

5 Najjar, Fauzi M. Ibn Rushd (Averroes) and the Egyptian enlightenment movement. British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies&nbsp(2004): 195-213.

6 Najjar, Fauzi M. 195-213.

7 Stepaniants, Marietta.&nbspIntroduction to Eastern Thought. (Lanham: AltaMira Press), 22.&nbsp

8 Zagzebski, Linda, and Timothy Miller.&nbspReadings in Philosophy of Religion: Ancient to Contemporary. (Malden, Mass: Wiley-Blackwell), 29.

9 Zagzebski, Linda, and Timothy Miller, 31.

10 Fakhry, Majid. Philosophy and Scripture in the Theology of Averroes. Mediaeval Studies&nbsp30, no. 1 (1968): 78-89.

11 Fakhry, Majid, 78-89.

12 Wild, Stefan. Islamic Enlightenment and the paradox of Averroes.&nbspWelt Des Islams&nbsp36 (1996): 379-390.

13 Wild, Stefan, 379-390.

14 Deutsch, Eliot, and Ronald Bontekoe, eds.&nbspA companion to world philosophies. (Oxford: Blackwell), 17.

15 Deutsch, Eliot, 97.

16 Filali-Ansary, Abdou. The sources of enlightened Muslim thought.&nbspJournal of Democracy&nbsp14, no. 2 (2003): 19-33.

17 Filali-Ansary, Abdou, 19-33.