Department of English and Comparative Literature, American University in Cairo and American University in Cairo Press and Department of English and Comparative Literature, American University in Cairo are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Alif: Journal of Comparative Poetics.http://www.jstor.orgDepartment of English and Comparative Literature, American University in CairoA Call for Rationalism: "Arab Averroists" in the Twentieth Century / : Author(s): Anke von Kgelgen and Source:Alif: Journal of Comparative Poetics, No. 16, Averros and the Rational Legacy in the East and the West / (1996), pp. 97-132Published by: Department of English and Comparative Literature, American University in Cairo and American University in Cairo PressStable URL:http://www.jstor.org/stable/521832Accessed: 04-07-2015 22:43 UTCREFERENCESLinked references are available on JSTOR for this article: http://www.jstor.org/stable/521832?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contentsYou may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jspJSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.This content downloaded from 90.198.175.10 on Sat, 04 Jul 2015 22:43:18 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and ConditionsA CallforRationalism: "ArabAverroists"intheTwentiethCentury AnkevonKugelgen I. INTRODUCTION Since the middleof the nineteenthcentury,Arab intellectuals and scholarsof differenttrainingand orientationhave been asking how the Arab culturethatonce enlightenedEuropewithits science and philosophycould have declined. For some, this decline and technologicalbackwardnessmust be tracedto the failureof Ibn Rushd'srationalistthinking,i. e., to thetriumphof Muslimorthodoxy and mysticism.The battlebetweentheseopposingforcesis cast in termsrelevantto themodernArab world:adherentsof theWest are identifiedwithIbn Rushdand thoseof themysticalway of lifewith fatalismand irrationalism.1 Anotherevenmoreimportantaspectof theIbn Rushdrevivalis the conflictbetweenthe proponentsof "authenticity"(asala)and thoseof "modernity"(mu'asara). Phrasedas a question,theissue is- this:how can MuslimArabswho wishtheirnationsto be modernized preservetheiridentityandkeepfrombeingalienated? Ibn Rushd's masterfulhandlingof botha foreigntraditionand his own culture,especially in his theologicaland philosophical treatisesFasl al-Maqal (abbr.,Fasl)2 and Tahafutal-Tahafut(abbr., T-7),3is thustakenas a model.Thoughthe authorsconsideredhere are moreor less independentof one another,theyagreeupontheneed to resuscitatethe rationalismof Ibn Rushd while combatingthe theosophyand irrationalismofIbn S1naandhisIranianschool. The paradigmsof science and philosophyhave changed, however,and linkedwiththesechangesis the secularizationof the Westernworld.One maywonder,therefore,how it is possibleto link modernitywithideas rootedin naturaldeterminism,theocentrism,and teleology;witha logic thatis linear,categorical,and deductive;and with ascience that deems thingand word to be identical.The Alif16 (1996) 97 This content downloaded from 90.198.175.10 on Sat, 04 Jul 2015 22:43:18 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and ConditionscontemporaryArab thinkers whomI somewhatprovocativelycall "Averroists"onnecttheir ownWeltanschauungandpolitical positionsprimarily,and withrepeatedemphasis,to Ibn Rushd.Thus theytryto elaboratea new Averroistictradition,buttheyhandlethe problemof anachronismin variousways.That is, the scope of ideas coveredin theirinterpretationsof Ibn RushdembracestheThomistic as well as the materialisticand atheisticWeltanschauung,religious integrismas well as secularism.4Nonetheless,given the way the "ArabAverroists"presentthemselves,two majorstreamsor factions maybe discerned:"LatinAverroism"and "Islamicrationalism." "LatinAverroism"was used by ErnestRenanto denotea quite heterogeneous"movement offreethinkers"whoreferredto themselvesas Averroistsor whose intellectualrootscould be traced back to Averroes.sIt is a pointof referenceforthe Syriansocialist journalistand writerFarah Antun(1874-1922),who lived in Egypt from1897 onwards,and for a few historiansof philosophy.Most notableare the EgyptianliberalthinkerMuhammad'Atifal- 'Iraq (born in 1935),6theMoroccansocialistMuhammad'Abid al-Jabir (bornin 1936),and theSyrianMarxistTayyibT1zlnl(bornin 1938).7 Inaligningthemselveswith the "Latin Averroists,"these intellectualsdo notseek to raisethesame questionsand problemsas the"freethinkers"of theMiddleAges and theRenaissance.It is more thattheyreverethemas precursorsof theEnlightenmentand hope to developtheirownhistoryin thatway.In fact,theystriveto secularize thoughtand separatestateand religion.Thus,theyconcentrateon Ibn Rushd's criticism,mentalattitude,and mode of thought;on the logicalconsequencesof his plea fortheautonomyof reason;and on someof his philosophicalideas. TheyseldomreconstructIbn Rushd's precisetheories,fortheysee themas outdatedand as bestunderstood in termsofthepresentstandardofknowledge. "Islamicrationalism,"particularlyinthesenseofMu'tazilitethinking, is thestarting-pointforseveralEgyptianMuslims.Of primaryimportance hereis thehistorianofphilosophy,MahmudQasim(1913-1973),formerdean of theteacher-traininginstituteDar al-'Ulum,a branchof CairoUniversity. Thenthereis thewell-knownjournalistandessayistMuh.ammad'Ammara8 whowasbornin 1931;formerlya Marxist,he is nowa "moderateIslamist." Finally,thereis the professorof philosophyand currentChairof the DepartmentofPhilosophyin theFacultyofArtsat CairoUniversity,Hasan Hanaf1,whowas bornin 1935;9once a MoslemBrotherfascinatedwith Nasserism, henowcallshimselfan"Islamicleftist." 98Alif 16 (1996) This content downloaded from 90.198.175.10 on Sat, 04 Jul 2015 22:43:18 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and ConditionsThese thinkersunderstandIbn Rushd and themselvesas continuingthe traditionwhich postulatesthe absoluteharmonyof revelationand reason,guaranteedby the allegoricalinterpretationof the Qur'an. Consequently,they reject the separationof state and religion. Insofar asthey are"Averroists,"they looktothe harmonizingaspectsof Ibn Rushd's thesesand shy away froman explicitdiscussionof the developmentof science and philosophy; rather,theypreferto takehis theologicaland philosophicalteachings as starting-pointsfortheirown ideas. Notwithstandingthisagreement in focusingon Ibn Rushd,theresultsof theirreadingof his worklead to quitedistinctresults,as shallbe shownlater. Clearly,thesetwo groupsare not homogeneous,but as "ideal types" they portraythe basic premisesunderlyingcontemporary interpretationsof Ibn Rushd in the Arab world. And on the rare occasionswhenthesetwogroupsof "Averroists"referdirectlyto one anotheror enterinto adirectexchange,these premisesbecome significant. One of these exchangesis the 1902 disputebetweenFarah. Antunand Muhammad'Abduh (1849-1905), the EgyptianMuslim reformer,which centerson the relationshipbetweenreligionand science.Antun'snaturalistic,even materialistic,interpretationof Ibn Rushd isimplicitlyor explicitlyastarting-pointfor the "Arab Averroists" oriented toward"LatinAverroism" andother "sympathizers."The CopticsocialistSalama Musa (1887-1958)1and theMuslimliberalLutfiJum'a(1886-1953),11forexample,are only indirectlyconcernedwithIbn Rushd.'Abduh,who sees himselfin the traditionof "Islamic rationalism,"cannotbe called an "Averroist." Indeed,he stoodup forhimonlyunderpressureand neverproclaimed Ibn Rushdto be one of his models.12Nonetheless,his rehabilitationof Ibn ltushdas a good Muslimand his attackon thedistortionsof the genuineIbn Rushd by "Latin Averroists"has become a patternfor contemporary"Islamicrationalists"who seek to freeIbn Rushdfrom thestigmaofheresy. On the one hand, such authorsstriveto presenthim as the initiatorof Europe'sprogressand thusto portrayIslam as theteacher of the West. On the otherhand, theypraise him as an "Islamic rationalist,"i. e., as one who balancesfaithand reasonand furthers enlightenmentwithoutadoptingatheismor leadingto its path.These two obviously contradictoryassertionsreveal the Islamic and apologeticside of therevivalof Ibn Rushdand also thereasonforthe Alif16 (1996)99 This content downloaded from 90.198.175.10 on Sat, 04 Jul 2015 22:43:18 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and ConditionsgeneralinterestMuslimtheologianstakein him. Beforeenteringintoa detailedaccountof some of the "Arab Averroists,"I wantto call attentionto a phenomenonjust mentioned in passing,namely,thegrowingacademicand non-academicconcern withIbn Rushdin theArab worldevidentsince the end of the last centuryand to whichthe"revivalof Ibn Rushd"or "ArabAverroism" is connected,withoutnecessarilybeingcaused by it. In 1885-1886, two worksof Ibn Rushdwerepublishedforthefirsttimein an Arab country,namely,Tahafutal-Tahafut13and perhapsalso the Short Commentaryon Aristotle'sMetaphysics.l4By 1988, more than a hundrededitionsof differentworksof his had appeared.15And there is an evengreaternumberof monographs,essays,articles,chaptersin historiesofphilosophy,and contributionsto encyclopediasfocusedon Ibn Rushd.Theirauthorsare oftenteachersof Westernand Islamic philosophyat state or Islamic universities.Until the sixties such scholarswere mainlyEgyptian;since then,Lebanese, Syrian,and Maghrebischolarshave joined the field.16In these countries,Ibn Rushdis also partof thesubjectmatteras assignedto advancedlevel students.Yet it is importantto notethattheworkspresentedto high school pupils,to al-Azharstudents,and in manycases also to state universitystudents areprimarilythetheological-philosophical treatises,namely,Fasl,T-T,al-Kashf'anManahijal-Adillafi 'Aqa'id al-Milla(abbr.al-Kashf)17andDamlma.l8 Arab readerstodayare thereforefamiliarwithanothercorpus and thusto a certaindegreewithanotherIbn Rushdthanwere his EuropeanreadersduringtheMiddleAges.19Insofaras themajorityof Arabreaderswhoturnto Ibn Rushdtodayare intenton "restoring"his reputationas a good Muslim,thecommentarieson Greekphilosophy areoflesserinterest. Because"Averroists" aswellas "non-Averroists"look forideas thatcan be linkedto contemporary life,themostattractiveaspectsof his thinkingare his positionstaken againstor in favourof the main Islamic traditions.Nonetheless, commentarieson twoofAristotle's works theMetaphysics20andDe Anima21are also read,thoughfarless thanthetreatisesmentioned above.Moreover,manyof Ibn Rushd'swritingshave notcome down to us in theiroriginalArabicversion.22And of thosethathave come down, mosthave eitherbeen editedonly recentlyor not yet been editedat all.23Thus,lack of interestin theCommentatorcannotbe attributedmerelyto an absenceof curiosityabouthim. Asnoted, the theological-philosophicaltracts aremore Alif 16 (1996) 100 This content downloaded from 90.198.175.10 on Sat, 04 Jul 2015 22:43:18 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionsimportantin thecontemporaryhistoricalcontext.This holdseven for Farah.Antun,whose pleadingforAverroesis incorrectlyseen as a mere copy of ErnestRenan's Averroeset l Averroisme,and with whomI shall startmyaccountof the"ArabAverroists."This will be followedby a brieflook at 'Abduh'srefutationof Antun.And thenI will considerthreeotherdivergentapproachesto,and ideologicaluses of, Ibn Rushd: the theologic-scholasticalinterpretationof Mahmud Qasim, the Nasserist viewofMuh.ammad 'Ammara andthe epistemological-secularistreadingof Muh.ammad'Abid al-Jabirl.In all of this,I will restrictmyselfto an examinationof themostsignificant textualinterpretationsandleave thehistoricalbackgroundaside. II. ANTUN ANDCABDUH ManyArabandWesternauthorsmentionAntun's articles24and monographon Ibn Rushd25but do not analyseIbn Rushd's role in them orconcentrateonexposing their general purpose, viz. secularism.26They tendtherebyto misleadthereader,because they suggestthatAntunpresentsIbn Rushdas a secularist,whichis only partiallytrue. Antun considersIbn Rushd asby far the most significant"Arab philosopher."Hedeclares hisworks tobe "absolutelythemostimportantArabicbooks"and takestheirdifferent receptionin theOrientand theOccidentas a kindof didactichistory play:thevoice of Ibn Rushdshouldbe heardby Arabsin thistimeof relativeopennessto science,since his fateindicatesclearlywhatled to thedeclineof Islamicand theascentof Europeanculture.27Here Antunis pointingto theseparationof stateand religion,whichhe sees as theonlyguaranteeforthefreedomof thought.28 In thissense,he also makesuse of Averroesagainstall those who considerthe reformof religionas the remedyfor the "sick Orient."In a polemicalarticleaboutal-Afghanl,he presentsIbn Rushd as a secularistin the fieldof thoughtwho thoroughlydistinguishes science fromreligionand therebyprotectseach fromthe other.29 Elsewhere,in additionto blaming'AbduhforportrayingIslam as a religionof reasonand thusjuxtaposingit to Judaismand Christianity asirrationalreligions,30Antunconfrontsthis position with Ibn Rushd's relativelygreaterreligioustoleranceand his definitionof religiouslaw (shara'i ) as theteachingofvirtue.31 Sometimes,however,Antunharshlyaccuses Ibn Rushd of disregardingtheboundsof reasonand reducingreligionto beingthe handmaidenof philosophy.He thenrejectsIbn Rushd's rules for 101 Alif 16 (1996) This content downloaded from 90.198.175.10 on Sat, 04 Jul 2015 22:43:18 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionsallegoricalinterpretation(ta'wll)of the sharl'a and contraststhem withthoseof al-Ghazall,whomhe praisesas theArabwhoexcelledall his compatriotsin the sound understandingof religion.32Thus, althoughcharacterizedas the greatestphilosopherof the Arabs,Ibn Rushdis also sometimesdescribedas a greatdangerforreligion.33 When arguingthis way, Antunadopts Renan's interpretationand classifiesthetenetof theworld'seternityand thatof theconjunction of the materialwith the active intellectasanexpressionof materialism('ibara 'an madhhabmaddl).34Here it was necessaryfor Antunto followRenan.Otherwise,he wouldhave had to consultthe difficultLatin, Hebrew, or Arabic manuscripts,since the most importantworks where Ibn Rushd sets forthhis physical and psychologicalteachingswere eitherlost in theiroriginalArabic versionor not yet published as with the Large Commentaryon Aristotle'sMetaphysics. The same holds for Averroes' political teaching,in which Antun takes anobvious interest:the Arabic version ofthe commentaryon Plato's Republichas notbeen handeddownto us,35 and thecommentarieson Aristotle'sRhetoricandPoeticswerenotyet editedor onlypartiallyedited.36Thus,whenpointingto Ibn Rushd's appeal forthe emancipationof women,whichAntunlikensto the positionof thefirstEgyptianwho arguedforwomen'srights,Qasim Amln (1865-1908),AntunsimplytranslatesRenan's corresponding shortparaphraseoftheCommentaryonPlato'sRepublic.37 Besides pursuingsecularism,religioustolerance,and women's rights,Antunalso uses his revivalof Ibn Rushd to strengthenthe beliefin scienceand in the abilityof man to understandnatureand thusutilizeit forhis own sake. For thispurpose,as in the case of ta'wlland theequalityof religions,wherehe is quotingfromFasl and T-T,Antundoes notdependuponRenan,who paid littleattentionto thesesubjects,buton Ibn Rushdhimself.WithIbn Rushd,and likeall other"ArabAverroists,"Antunconsiderstheprincipleof causalityas the basis of science. Anyonewho denies or seems to deny it is qualifiedasan enemyof scientificknowledge.Antuncites long passages fromal-Ghazall'srefutationof the philosophers'views and fromIbn Rushd'sargumentsagainstit,38uponwhichhe commentsas follows: If thewordnecessity(al-talazumwa-'l-.darura)is taken 102 Alif16 (1996) This content downloaded from 90.198.175.10 on Sat, 04 Jul 2015 22:43:18 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionsfromthelaws of nature(al-nawamlsal-tabl'iyya)these laws turnintochaos, and theone who believesin them becomeslike theone who does notbelievein them.The beliefin theexistenceof causes or in theirnon-existence thusbecomesidentical.39 Antunregardsthe disputebetweenthe mutakallimunand the falasifaover causalityas fundamentaland sees no possibilityof harmonizingtheirviews.40Like all other"Arab Averroists"and perhapsevenIbn Rushdhimself,Antunseemsunawareof thefactthat belief in the absoluteomnipotenceof God does not influencethe "practicalvalidityof causality.''4lBut the mainreasonforrejecting the reconciliationof the two positionsis probablyhis wish to free philosophyand sciencefromthe beliefin miraclesand at the same time to protectreligionfromthe philosophicalclaim thatGod is bound,i. e., thatHe has to followforeverthelaws he established,as Antunonceputsit.42 'Abduhsets forthhis completelydifferentview of Ibn Rushd onlyin thefirstof thesevenessaysdevotedto attackingthepresumed anti-Islamicstand taken by Antunin his articleon the medieval philosopher.43One of the main points 'Abduh triesto refutehas alreadybeen mentioned,namelythe claim thatthe mutakallimun deniedcausality.WithoutexplicitlyconfirmingIbn Rushd's tenets, 'Abduh focuses on refutingAntun'smaterialisticinterpretationin orderto showthecompatibilityof reasonand faith.He thenattempts to demonstratethatIbn Rushddid not teachcollectiveimmortality. 'Abduhadducesthreeargumentsto freeIbn Rushdfromthe "stigma"of materialism.First,sincehe was a Peripatetic,he musthave beena metaphysician.44Second,his "Neoplatonic"theoryof emanation ('Abduhseemsto hintat theShortCommentaryon theMetaphysics45) showsthathe understandsGod to be theontologicalbasis of theworld. Third,his theoryof conjunctiondemonstratesthattherationalsoul of manis freefrommatterandthattheintelligiblesareactualizedin it only withthehelpof theactiveintellect.46To provethefalsenessof Antun's opinionthatIbnRushdnegatedindividualimmortality,'Abduhadvances theidea of theindividualimmortalityof thesoul,a positionheldby Ibn S47In thisvein,probablydue to his inabilityto procurethenecessary primarysources,'Abduh'sgeneralpresentationof Ibn Rushdis marked bya failuretodistinguishhimfromtheotherfalasifa. 'Abduh'srefutationis moderateand unbiasedin style,and even Alif16 (1996)103 This content downloaded from 90.198.175.10 on Sat, 04 Jul 2015 22:43:18 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionsif one takes into considerationhis difficultand exposed position, whichmadeit impossibleforhimto professheterodoxideas frankly, his interestin Ibn Rushd is patentlydifferentfromAntun's.For 'Abduh,Ibn Rushdis a historicalcelebrity,usefulonlyinsofaras he demonstratesthe toleranceof IslamIbn Rushd's "anathema"and unfortunatefate in the Islamic worldbeing passed over almostin silence.48Still his view of Ibn Rushd shows anew approachto Islamicphilosophy:it is no longerregardedas damnable,and someof its teachings forinstance,the theoryof causality are reconciled withteachingsof thekalam.49 III. MAHMUD QASIM Because it was so unusualamongbothmodernizingChristians and Muslimsin thetimeof 'Abduhand Antunto justifythecall for rationalistthinkingby resuscitatinga hithertomoreor less forgotten and disdainedmedievalIslamic"rationalistphilosopher,"Antunmust be seen as an exception.Since theforties,however,thistendencyto legitimizethe recourseto reason has gained some popularityin EgyptianMuslimtheologicalcircles. MahmudQasim (1913-1973)is themostoutspoken"Averroist" of thisgroup.He beganhis studiesin philosophyin Egyptunderone of thepioneersin therecoveryof Islamicphilosophy,Mustafa'Abd al-Raziq (died in 1947), amongothers,and completedthemin Paris. Fromthebeginningof his scholarlywriting,Qasimtookan interestin Ibn Rushd. Thus, his "These de Lettres"(Sorbonne,1945) is a comparativestudyof Ibn Rushd's and ThomasAquinas' theoriesof knowledge,50whilehis"ThesedeLettres complementaire" (Sorbonne,1945) is a translationof al-KashfintoFrench.5lThis latter treatiseis theone Qasim considersthemostimportantof Ibn Rushd's works,so muchso thathe latereditedit witha preliminarycritical apparatusand lengthyintroductionin which he summarizedthe argumentsof the Ash'antes,Mu'tazilites,and Matunditesfor the primarydogmasand comparedthemto thoseof Ibn Rushd.As might be expected,Qasim favorstheargumentsof Ibn Rushdin mostcases. In addition,Qasim deals withIbn Rushdin severalotherpublications, of whichthe monographal-Failusufal-Muftara'alaihiIbn Rushd (The BesmirchedPhilosopher Ibn Rushd) mightwell be the best known.52He also beganto editthefirstfourof Ibn Rushd'sMiddle Commentarieson Aristotle'sOrganon,but died beforefinishingthe project.It was thentakenon and expandedby CharlesButterworth 104 Alif 16 (1996) This content downloaded from 90.198.175.10 on Sat, 04 Jul 2015 22:43:18 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and ConditionswiththeassistanceofAh.mad 'Abd al-MajldHarldl.53 As alreadysuggested,Qasim bases his interpretationmainlyon al-Kashf.This does not mean thathe neglectsIbn Rushd's other writings.Indeed, incontrastwith the majorityofthe "Arab Averroists,"heconsults many primarysources. Besidesthe theological-philosophicaltreatises,Fasl, Damlma, and T-T, Qasim uses,accordingto his own statements,theTafslrMa Ba'da al-Tabl'a, the Talkhls [Jawami'] Kitab al-Nafs,the Jawami' Kitab al-Hiss wa-'l-Mahsus,theDe Beatitudineanima,partsof the"Epistleon the Possibilityof Conjunction,"and the Talkhls Kitab al-Maqulat. Nonetheless,wheneverpossibleQasimreadstheseworksin thelightof al-Kashf.He triestherebyto place Ibn Rushdin thetraditionof the Mu'tazilites,al-Kindl,and al-Ghazall,whilecharacterizinghimas the peak of the "Arabic-Islamicgenius" representedby these "Islamic rationalists."At the same time,Qasim distinguishesIbn Rushdfrom al-Farabl,Ibn Sma, Ibn BaUa, and Ibn Tufail,whomhe classifiesas Neoplatonistsand Gnostics,as philosophersalien to the "genuine spiritofIslam."s4 Even in 1972, Qasim was persuadedthatthe strugglebetween the "heirs of authenticIslamic thinking"and those of "Greek thinking"probably meaning thereby theArabfollowers of contemporaryWesternthinking was still going on.Sf He declares thatthe aim of harmonizingfaithand reason is the main feature commonto the"Islamicrationalists,"including,of course,Ibn Rushd. This harmonyis reachedby remainingopen to rationalconclusions while keepingoneself"independent"fromforeignideas or, rather, while subjectingthem to Muslim dogma.S6 Yet even if Qasim attributesthischaracteristicto the Mu'tazilites,al-Kindl,al-Ghazall, and Ibn Rushd,he clearlyprefersthesolutionsof theMu'tazilitesto thoseof the Ash'aritesand sees Ibn Rushdas havingbeen "able to correcttheopinionsof theMu'tazilitesand succeedin provingall the Islamicdogmasofbeliefin a sound[sallm]way.''S7ThusQasimbrings the mutakallimun,al-Kindl,and Ibn Rushdtogetherwithrespectto contentaswell asmethod.AsdistinctfromIbn Rushd'ssharp criticismof the analogybetweenthe suprasensibleand the sensible (qiyas al-gha'ib 'ala al-shahid)of the mutakallimun,S8Qasimholds thattheyall refusedthiskindof analogyand werethereforeable to avoidanyanthropomorphism.S9 Anthropomorphismstandsforirrationalism,and,as is oftenthe case amongthe apologistsof Islam,Qasim attributesit especiallyto Alif16 (1996) 105 This content downloaded from 90.198.175.10 on Sat, 04 Jul 2015 22:43:18 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and ConditionsChristianity.Heuses Ibn Rushd ashis instrumentin order to demonstratethesuperiorityof theMuslimovertheChristianreligion as a resultof itsrationalcharacter.60Thus,his portraitof Ibn Rushd's attitudetowardthesetworeligionsdiffersgreatlyfromAntun's.That portraitis notas wrongas one mightexpectfromAntun'schoice of quotes. AntunoverlookedIbn Rushd's statementin T-T about the Islamic Law being superiorbecause of its betterformulationof the rules of worshipand hence more effectivestimulationto virtuous action.61Nor does he say anythingat all about those passages in al-Kashf,whereIbn Rushddeclaresin muchstrongertermsthatIslam is by far the best religion.62For his part,Qasim neglectsT-T and quotesthefollowingpassagefromal-Kashf: If we were to go on to explainthe superiorityof one sharl'aover another,and the excellenceof the sharl'a ordainedforJewsand Christians,and the virtueof the doctrineestablishedforus in respectto theapprehension of Allahand theFutureLife and whatlies betweenthese two,it wouldrequiremanyvolumeswhileeven thenwe would havetoconfess the difficultywehadin performingthetask.63 However apologeticthis passage mightseem, the superiorityIbn Rushd identifiesin the largercontextis almostthe same as that mentionedin T-T.But thereis one addition,namely,thatIslam is the seal of theshara'i'and is notrevealedexclusivelyto one people but to all humanbeings.64Hence the qualitativedifferencebetweenthe "rational" Islamicandthe"irrational"Jewish andChristian revelationsthatQasim implicitlyattributesto Ibn Rushd cannotbe foundin thestatementsof themedievalphilosopher. Amongthe"ArabAverroists,"as well as amongall theMuslim theologianswhotakean interestin IbnRushd,Qasimis byfarthemost extremein tryingto demonstrateIbn Rushd'sorthodoxy.65According to him,Ibn Rushd rejectedthe theoryof the world's eternityand taughtits creation;believednot in a collective,but in an individual immortalityof the soul; and subordinatedphilosophicalto religious truth.To justifyhis interpretations,Qasim is forcedto distortsomeof Ibn Rushd'smajor tenets,even when adducingargumentsfrom al-Kashf.HowQasim proceeds canbest beillustratedby his interpretationof Ibn Rushd's theoryabout the world's cominginto Alif16 (1996) 106 This content downloaded from 90.198.175.10 on Sat, 04 Jul 2015 22:43:18 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionsbeing. Qasim'sfundamentalpremiseis thatIbnRushdthecommentator mustbe separatedfromIbn Rushdthephilosopher.To overcomethe difficultyof this distinction,heelaborates the followingrule: wheneverIbn Rushddeviatesfromthefirstteacheror developsone of his ideas, he is expressinghis own opinion;otherwise,he is merely glossinghimas faithfullyas possible.66Yet, by itself,thisruledoes notnecessarilylead to thestrangeinterpretationsby whichQasimtries to rehabilitateIbn Rushd and free him fromthe accusationsof infidelityadvanced by Muslims, "Latin Averroists,"and some orientalists.In thepresentinstance,thetermcoinedby Ibn Rushdin thetreatisesaddressedto the 'ulama forthe"comingintobeingor the existenceoftheworldas a whole"in no wayimpliesa rejectionof the theoryoftheworld'seternity. The "terminologicalcompromise,"as I shall call it, by which Ibn Rushdaimsto reducethedifferencesbetweenthefalasifaand the mutakallimunto a minimumconsistsin linkingtheeternalattributes of theworldas a wholenamely,thatit "is notmade fromanything and not precededby time"withthe attributeof being createdin timethatis, thatit "is broughtintoexistenceby something,I mean, by an agent."67Thus Ibn Rushddescribesthe worldas a whole as "perpetuallycomingintoexistence."68Ibn Rushdregardsthisidea as beingin accordancewiththeapparentmeaning(gahir)of theQur'an and chargesthatthemutakallimundeviatefromit. To provethatthe Qur'an nowheresuggestsa creatioex nihiloIbn Rushd urges the following: "He it is Who createdthe heavensand the earthin six days,and His thronewas on thewater"[11, 7], takenin theirapparentmeaningimplythattherewas abeing beforethis presentbeing, namely,the throneand the water,and a timebeforethistime,i. e., theone whichis joined to the formof thisbeing,namelythenumberof themovementofthecelestialsphere....Andthewordsof theExalted,"ThenHe directedHimselftowardsthesky, and it was smoke" [41, 11], in theirapparentmeaning implythatthe heavenswere createdfromsomething.69 Rather,as thispassage clearlyindicates,Ibn Rushdpointsto way the Qur'an characterizesthe world ashaving come into being from Alif16 (1996) 107 This content downloaded from 90.198.175.10 on Sat, 04 Jul 2015 22:43:18 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionssomethingelse and withintime,thatis, withtheparticularattributes of perceptiblethings.Elsewhere,he explainsthisby identifyingthe purposeof theHoly Scripture,namely,to reachall menand notonly an elite.70Consequently,Scriptureis silentabout"therelationwhich existsbetweenthenatureof thepossibleexistent[i. e., theworldas a whole]and thenecessaryexistent[i. e., God].''71Clearlythen,in his theological-philosophicaltreatises,Ibn Rushddoes not adhereto the theoryof creatioexnihilothathe rejectsin his commentaries.72 Qasim's main argumentfor his interpretationis Ibn Rushd's proofof theexistenceof God frommotion.Accordingto Qasim,yet withoutany clear reference,Ibn Rushd deviatesfromthe original Aristotelianproofandteachesthat: God has createdthecelestialbodiesand their1notionout of nothing['adam]and not withintime,because time could notprecedetheexistenceof thethingsmoved,as longas we considerit as a measurefortheirmotion.Thus motionrequiresa firstmoveror a cause whichdrawsit outfrom [absolute] non-existence['adam]into existence.73 Qasimknowsall too well thathis viewcontradictstheQur'anicverses citedby Ibn Rushd.He triesto neutralizethecontradictionby quoting Ibn Rushd'sstatementthattheapparentmeaning(gahir)oftheQur'an was intendedforthecommonpeople.Fromthis,Qasimconcludesthat Ibn Rushdbelievedonlythe intellectualelite was able to graspthe innermeaningof therespectiveQur'anicverses,i.e., to conceiveof creation out of nothing,while the ordinaryman'sfacultyof apprehensioncouldnotreachthislevel.74 Qasim seeks furtherargumentsto supporthis unusualview in Ibn Rushd'srefutationof thetheoryof emanation(nagariyyatal-faiO as expressedin T-T.75In rejectingthisNeoplatonictheory,considered by Qasim himselfto providecrucialsupportforthe theoryof the world'seternity,Ibn Rushdseeks to preventtheimplicitaffirmation of a hereticaltenet.76 In sum,Qasimtriesto refutemostoftheinterpretationsto which Ibn Rushdhad been subjectin boththeWestand theEast. He thereby revealshimselfas muchmoreconservativethan'Abduh,who did not regardthetheoriesof theeternityof the worldand of emanationas disbelief,even thoughhe did not adhereto thempersonally.In fact, 108 Alif16 (1996) This content downloaded from 90.198.175.10 on Sat, 04 Jul 2015 22:43:18 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and ConditionsQasim seems closerto Ash'aritethinkingthan'Abduh.As a result, Qasim's preferenceforIbn Rushd-thoughsomewhatmutilatedor weakened and for the Mu'tazilitesover the Ash'aritesand the Muslim literalists,and thereforehis general claim in favor of rationalismwithin the frameworkofMuslim dogma, canbe understoodas an expressionof liberalthinking.This is especiallytrue whenhis positionis comparedwithsomethinglike the credoof the MuslimBrothers.At thesame time,his readingis a challengeto the Westor,rather,a call to Muslimsto shakeoffintellectualdomination by revivingtheirown rationalisttradition.It is importantto notethat Qasimis almosttheonlytheologianinterestedin Ibn Rushdwhois not self-contradictorywithregardto Ibn Rushd's influenceon theWest. The AzhariteMuhammad'Abd al-RahmanBaisar,forexample,adheres to a theologicalWeltanschauungwhilepraisingIbn Rushdforhaving initiatedthe EuropeanRenaissanceand Enlightenment.77Qasim,on theotherhand,declaresThomasAquinasandhis schoolto be theonly real Averroists.78Thus,Qasim's completerejectionof Neoplatonism and gnosticismshouldbe viewed in the contextof the widespread fatalism,superstition,and recourseto magic and saintswithwhich theyareoften-rightfullyor wrongfully-identified.79 IV. MUHAMMAD 'AMMARA At theendoftheeraofJamal'Abd al-Nasir,a traditionallyraised independentscholar,a pupilofMahmudQasim,Muh.ammad'Ammara, also made Ibn Rushdone of his favoriteIslamicmodelsand triedto revive his "Islamic rationalism."80Yet his interpretationclearly shows the marksof Nasiristsocialism. 'Ammara,who had close contactswithsocialistorganizationsduringhis yearsof studies,wrote over fiftybooks and numerousarticlesin additionto editingsome twenty-oddworksby famousMuslimpersonalities,especiallyfrom the nineteenthand twentiethcenturies.81Most of his writingsare concernedwiththerole Islam will play in thefutureof theArabs,in otherwords,withhowthe"challengesofmodernity,"suchas Western rationalism,secularism,and materialismcan bemet safely and withoutlosing one'sown identitywhile still profitingfromthe morallyacceptableachievementsof modernity.'Ammarasees himself as aperpetuatorof the reformbegun by Jamalal-Dln al-Afghanl (1838-1897)andMuh.ammad'Abduh.82Hecriticizesthe traditionalistsas well as theWesternized,seekinga middlecoursein orderto unifytheumma.83 Alif16 (1996) 109 This content downloaded from 90.198.175.10 on Sat, 04 Jul 2015 22:43:18 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and ConditionsHis main publicationson Ibn Rushd appearedbetween1968 and 1973. "Ibn Rushdand RationalistPhilosophyin Islam,"his first articleon Ibn Rushd,appearedin theleftistNasiristjournalal-Tallsa and was republishedin1971 in the collected volume Muslim Revolutionariesunder the title "Arab Reason at its Height."84 'Ammarais chieflyconcernedhere with Ibn Rushd's theoretical definitionof the relationshipbetweenreligionand philosophyand some of the practicalapplicationsof his ideas of God, the world's eternity,knowledge,and freedomof act and will. In addition,he outlinessome of Ibn Rushd'spolitical ideas, relyingmostlyon Renan's summaryof somepassagesfromtheCommentaryon Plato s Republic. However, he adds anotherdimensionby emphatically statingthatIbn Rushdwas a manoftheoryandpraxis.85 In Materialismand Idealismin thePhilosophyofIbn Rushd,86 amonographof one hundredand ten pages clearlyaddressedto intellectuals,'Ammaratriesto showthata Weltanschauungcommonto bothMaterialistsand Idealists,by whom in this contexthe means Muslimbelievers,is possibleon thebasis of severalof Ibn Rushd's tenets.With the exceptionof most of the political tenets,these principlesare theones dealtwithin his firstarticle,thoughtheyare presentedherewithmuchmoreprecisionand are augmentedby some ideas 'Ammaraunderstandsas "pantheistic,"namely,monopsychism, the world asananimatedbeing, the identityof intellectand intelligibles,andthecorrelationof unityandmultiplicityin theworld. His final article on Ibn Rushd, "The PostureToward the RationalistLegacyof Ibn Rushd,"87concentrateson thehistoryof the reactionsto Ibn Rushdafterhis death,bothin the Islamic and the Christianworld.Its less academicstyleshowsthatit is directedto a widerpublic. In additionto his explicittreatmentof Ibn Rushdin thesethree publications,'Ammaraoftenrefersto Ibn Rushd because of his progressiveideasin otherwritings.He outlinesIbnRushd'stheoryoffree will and predestinationin The Mu'tazilitesand theProblemof Human Freedomandhisviewon theconnectionbetweenreligionandphilosophy in TheArabsand theChallenge,88an apologiaforIslambutat thetimea critiqueoftraditionalism.In addition,'Ammarahaspublishedan editionof Fasland Damlma based primarilyon Hourani'scriticaledition.89 'Ammara'sprimarysourcesare T-T,Fasl, and Damlma,but in some instanceshe also refersal-Kashf,theMiddle Commentaryon Aristotle'sRhetoric,and theShortCommentaryon theMetaphysics. Alif 16 (1996) 110 This content downloaded from 90.198.175.10 on Sat, 04 Jul 2015 22:43:18 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and ConditionsHecharacterizesthe philosophical-theologicaltreatisesand Ibn Rushd'sjuridicalworkBidayatal-Mujtahidas the incorporationof the genius of the umma in philosophyand religion,reason and tradition,and politicsand law and 'Ammaraconsidersthem"the Arabic-IslamicAverroism."90Yet 'Ammaradoes notrelyon al-Kashf often,since he considersit "popular writing"asaresultof its sometimesanthropomorphistargumentation.91He does not denythe majorinfluenceAristotlehad on Ibn Rushd,forhe deemstherational method(al-manhajal-aqll), thatis, "drawingout theunknownfrom theknown"(istikhrajal-majhulminal-maslum),to be characteristic of Aristotelianas wellas Qur'aniclogic.92Because he holdsthatsome of themostdecisiveteachingsin whichIbn Rushdtakesa different pointof view fromthatof Aristotleare to be foundonlyin T-T, he reliesprimarilyon it and does not concentrateon the philosophical ideas Ibn Rushdsets forthin thecommentaries93 However,even if 'Ammaradoes not explicitlydistinguishthe philosopherIbn Rushd fromthecommentatorIbn Rushdnorcondemnthe"LatinAverroists," he stillrejectsa materialistic-atheisticinterpretationand attributesto hima "religious-materialistic"Weltanschauung.94 'AmmararegardsIbnRushdas aboveall a personwhocanreconcile the quarrelingmembersof the umma and lead themto progress: If we wish our umma to have an honourablefuture, which rests on enlightenment[istinara], reason, the achievementsof scienceand its applications,we have to make thisdesiredfuturea naturalprolongationof those aspectsof ourheritagewhichare enlightenedthroughthe lightof reasonand markedby its proofs.At thehead of themis thelegacyof Ibn Rushdand of thephilosophers andthinkerswhofollowedin hispath.95 Immediatelyafter,he continues: Letusforge out of the thoughtof this excellent Arabic-Islamicphilosophera weaponwe can use in the stmggleforourfurtherdevelopmentandprogress. 'AmmaraholdsIbn Rushd'sproofsfortheagreementbetween religionand philosophyto be themostsuccessfulones of all. In his eyes,thereasonforthissuccesslies mainlyin Ibn Rushd'sdistinction betweenthedifferentintellectualfaculties,a distinctionwhichmakes Alif16 (1996) lll This content downloaded from 90.198.175.10 on Sat, 04 Jul 2015 22:43:18 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionsit necessaryto choose differentexpressionsfor the same truth.96 Taken byitself, this distinctionisnot very original; some mutakallimunadheredto it, as did manyphilosophers.Be thatas it may,'Ammaraadoptsand teachesIbn Rushd'sruleforinterpretation himself,97as do most of the "Arab Averroists"and manyof the contemporaryMuslimstakingan interestin Ibn Rushd,and prefersit becauseofitsclarityandprecision.'Ammarahas additionalreasonsfor his choice:he rejectstheNeoplatonismand mysticismof al-Farab1and Ibn S1na and thusalso rejects,rightlyor wrongly,theirallegorical interpretationsof the Qur'an.98Furthermore,'Ammaracomes to the conclusionthat Ibn Rushd allowed the rationalinterpretationto prevailover the apparentmeaningof the Qur'an,everywherebut in al-Kashf.99He adoptsthispositionbecausehe regardstheQur'anas a guideto virtuousaction,whereonlytheprinciples(usulor arkan)and far-reachingaims (maqasid,ghayat,orfalsafat)are fixed,while the derivationsdependon concreteand changinghistoricalconditions.100 Thus, while seeking the support ofal-Afghan1,'Abduh, the Mu'tazilites,andIbnRushd,'Ammaradeclaresphilosophyand science to be a religiousduty.For thisreason,he also triesto distinguish Islam from,and to show its superiorityto, the othermonotheistic religions.He does so, nonetheless,withoutreferringto Ibn Rushd's statementsconcerningtheotherreligions.10l Todemonstratewhy 'Ammarathinksthe above-mentioned teachingsof Ibn Rushdare adequateforreconcilingmaterialistsand Muslimbelievers,I would once again like to examinethe theoryof how theworldcame intoexistence.This will also facilitateclarifying thedifferencesbetweenQasim's interpretationsandthoseofhispupils. 'AmmaraconsidersIbn Rushd's "terminologicalcompromise," which definesthe world as awhole as "perpetuallycoming into existence"(R huduthda'im), ashis most importantand original contributionto the universalhistoryof ideas. QuotingIbn Rushd, however,he underlinesthe fact thatthe apparentmeaningof the Qur'anicversescannotbe understoodas thecompletetruthand refers in thiscontextto someof Ibn Rushd'sphilosophicalarguments.102He givesspecialconsiderationto Ibn Rushd'stheorythattheworldneeds a substrate whichexistspotentially-thatGod can actualize.This wouldmeanthatGod is notomnipotentand hencehas no powerto act arbitrarily,as theAsh'aritesclaim,whilehe wouldstillbe theCreator insofaras He is theagentbestowingexistenceon thingsbyconnecting them,i.e., by drawingtheexistentout of thestateof possibilityinto Alif16 (1996) 112 This content downloaded from 90.198.175.10 on Sat, 04 Jul 2015 22:43:18 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionsthat of reality,an act which Heexecutes continuously.103For 'Ammara,this"theoryof never-endingcreation"(nag.ariyyatal-khalq al-mustamirr),as he calls it, is also an expressionof thepossibility thattheworldcouldbe differentthanit is.104Hence,he does notlink Ibn Rushd'stheorywitha deterministicviewof theworld. 'Ammaragoes on to affirma greatresemblancebetweenthe materialisttheoryand thatof Ibn Rushd's theory,thoughwithout givinganydetails.105He also assertsan almostcompleteconformity withthepositionof theMu'tazilites.As proof,he adducestheirtheory of the impossibilityof absolute nothingness,which he obviously deemssufficient.106 Even thoughonlya fewdetailshave beenexpoundedhere,it is clearthat'Ammara'sIbn ltushdstandsprimarilyfortheunityof the umma.He is presentedas an integratingfigure,one who is rational while keepinghis faith,a philosopherwitha sense of realismand pragmatism,one who bringsMan "downto earth"so thathe can use his forcesforthesake of thecommunity. V. MUHAMMAD 'ABID AL-JABIRI Duringthe same periodin which'Ammarawas advancinghis Islamicsocialistview of Ibn Rushd,theSyrianscholarTayyibT1z1n1 was presentinga challengingMarxistone. In particular,he interpreted thetheoryof theworld'seternityas a firstexpressionof materialism and atheismand left the theological-philosophicaltreatisesaside, consideringthema cloak.The BerberMoroccansocialistMuh.ammad 'Abid al-JabirlspreadT1z1n1'sMarxistinterpretationof Ibn Rushdand otherIslamicphilosophersas a teacherof philosophyat a secondary schoolin theseventies.At theend of thisdecade,he replacedT1z1n1's Marxistapproachto Islamicphilosophywithan epistemologicalone and began to distinguishbetweenthe "irrational"thinkingof the Mashriqandthe"rational"thoughtof theMaghrib,takingIbn S1naand Ibn Rushdas representativesrespectively.In whatfollowsI willfocus upon al-Jabirland the mainpointsof his interpretation,a procedure thatwill permitsome reflectionaboutthereasonsforhis changeof position. Al-Jabir1belongsto thegenerationschooledthroughuniversity in Moroccoand thusnotgoingto anotherArabor Europeancountry. Since the beginningof the eighties,withhis novel assessmentof Islamic philosophyinWe andthe Heritage anditsfurther developmentintoan extensiveCritiqueofArab Reason,he has been Alif16 (1996)113 This content downloaded from 90.198.175.10 on Sat, 04 Jul 2015 22:43:18 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionscountedamongthemostimportantand well-knownintellectualsof a secularisttendencyin theArabworld.l07In Moroccoitself,he gained prominencein theseventiesas an activesocialistand as a secondary schoolteacherand,morerecently,universityprofessorin theFaculty of Artsat Rabat'sUniversiteMohammedV.108 Al-Jabirl'smain work onIbn Rushd isthe article "The PhilosophicalSchool in theMaghriband in al-Andalus:Projectfora New Reading of Ibn Rushd's Philosophy,"originallypublishedin Nahnuwa-'l-Turath.109He also deals withhimin his The Genesisof Arab Reason (abbr.Takwln),wherethemostimportantissues raised in Nahnuare summarized.1l0 In The StructureofArab Reason (abbr. Bunya),he focusesespeciallyon Ibn Rushdas a theologian,an aspect merelytouchedupon in theotherbooks.111 Thoughthepublications on Ibn Rushd are relativelysmall, he plays an importantrole in al-Jabirl'scritique.Apartfromthis,Ibn Rushd servesas proofthat Islam,viz. Islamicculture,entertainstheidea of a completeseparation of religionand philosophy.The substanceof Ibn Rushd'sphilosophy scarcelyconcernshim, for he regardsit asoutdated.The only exceptionis thetheoryof causality.Like Antunand theother"Arab Averroists,"al-Jabirltakes it asadefense against the alleged theologicalnegationof theprincipleofcausality.112 Givenhis limitedinterestin Ibn Rushd,thatis, one focusedon discoveringthe "ideologicalpurposes"forwhichGreekphilosophy was used in an Islamiccontext,al-Jabirldeemsit sufficientto relyon Fasl, al-Kashf,and T-T.1l3One wonderswhyhe does not take the commentarieson Plato'sRepublic and Aristotle'sRhetoric and Poetics into accountsince theywould have suitedhis purposes.It wouldseemthatapartfromthedifficultyof languageand thefactthat theseare relativelyunknowncommentaries,he wantsto avoid any suspicionabout the "originality"of Ibn Rushd's arguments,which mightlead an opponentof Westernthoughtto contestthem.Unlike 'Ammara,who is recognizedas an Islamistand can thusmorereadily referto theAristotelianIbn Rushd,al-Jabirlapparentlyhas to be more careful if hewants to have his criticismaccepted among the challengersofWesternculture. Al-Jabirlfocusesmainlyon Ibn Rushdthecritic.He adoptsthe latter's attackon the analogy betweenthe suprasensibleand the sensible(qiyas al-gha'ib sala al-shahi) of themutakallimunand of fonSma-underliningthe need to separatethe physicalfromthe metaphysical,l14as well as Ibn Rushd's criticismof the theoryof Alif 16 (1996)114 This content downloaded from 90.198.175.10 on Sat, 04 Jul 2015 22:43:18 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionsemanation, which heunderstandsasarefutationof"the Arabic-Islamiclogic of theMashriq.''1l5He also pointsemphatically to Ibn Rushd'scriticismof thethirdmodusof being,whichIbn Slna introducesin order to describe the nature of the world asa whole-namely, as"the existentpossible by itselfand necessary throughanother"(mumkinal-wujudmindhatihiwajibminghairihi). He understandsthisthirdmodusor "thirdvalue" (qlmathalitha),as he calls it, asan offenseagainst the premise of the excluded middle.1l6Accordingto al-Jabirl,thesefeaturesformone partof the "theoretical,philosophical-religiousstmctureof thought"inthe Mashriq,withthe attemptto unitereligionand philosophyforming the otherpart.1l7For him,Ibn Rushd is occupiednot only witha critiqueof thefirst,butalso of thesecondpart.Thus he understands Ibn Rushd asintendingto develop aseparationof religionand philosophyby devotinghimselfto threequestionsof methodology. Thefirsttwo,playingupontheFrenchwordfor reading "lecture" ask how the Qur'an and the philosophyof Aristotle,"thesourceof all philosophy,"shouldbe read;and thethird asks how the relationbetweenreligionand philosophyshould be definedso thattheirindependenceis guaranteed.118 His summarydistillationof whathe presentsas Ibn Rushd's answersis thatIbn Rushdalwaystriedto understandboththeQur'an and philosophyimmanently.Al-Jabirlcalls thisbasic approach"the axiomatictendencyin Ibn Rushd's thinking.''1l9Ibn Rushd,al-Jabiri emphasizes,was fullyaware of thefactthatreligionand philosophy each has its own principlesand foundationsand thatit is notvalid to advancephilosophicalissuesagainstreligiousones.He regardedthem astwo axiomatic and deductive(istintajl)constructionswhose correctness(sidq) could be provenonly withinand not outsidethe respectiveconstructions.By "correctness"al-Jabirlmeansfaultlessness in thepresentationof proofs(istidlal),notin theprinciples(mabadi) and premises,fortheseare posited(mawdu'a)in bothreligionand philosophyand thereforehave to be acceptedwithoutproof(burhan). Thus,accordingto al-Jabirl'sreadingofIbnRushd,thephilosopherhas to accepttheprinciplesof religionifhe wantsto discussitsquestions, just as thetheologianhas to acknowledgephilosophicalprinciplesif he wantsto deal withphilosophy.l20 He adduces severalcitationsto provethesetheses.The major ones are takenfromtheseventeenthand twentiethdiscussionsin T-T whereIbn Rushd statesthatphilosophershave no rightto discuss Alif16 (1996) 115 This content downloaded from 90.198.175.10 on Sat, 04 Jul 2015 22:43:18 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionsreligiousprinciplesand pointsout thateveryscience has its own principleswhichmustbe accepted.Fromthesestatements,it couldbe inferredthatIbnRushdtreatsreligionlikea science.Butal-Jabirlomits the contextof the remarks,namely,Ibn Rushd's declarationthat miraclesand all foundationsof religionare principleseveryonemust acknowledgesince they are the root of practicalvirtueand that anyone who denies themis ahereticwho must be sentencedto death.12lIn his exposition,al-Jabirlgives the impressionthatthe acceptanceof religiousprinciplesis placed on the same level as the acknowledgmentofphilosophicalones. Additionalevidenceforthisthesisadvancedby al-Jabirlis Ibn Rushd's havingdeliveredAristotlefromthe misunderstandingsof previouscommentators,on theone hand,and his preciserulesforthe allegoricalinterpretationof the Qur'an on the other that is, his insistencethatta'wllis an instrumentfor givingmeaningto one apparentmeaning(gahir)in the lightof another.l22He clearlydoes notadoptIbn Rushd'sruleof interpretingthoseverseswhichdo not confirmrationalproofsin a philosophicalsense123as a reason to doubtthe "independence"of religion.Thus he does not regardIbn Rushd'sQur'anicproofsof God's existenceandofman's"conditioned freedomof will and act" on thebasis of thetheoryof causality124as a mixtureof religionand philosophy.Rather,he accepts them as rationalreligiousproofsand assignsthemthe task of overthrowing "the power of the ideathat [everything]ispossible" (sultat al-tajwl:).l25Nordoes al-Jabirlcall Ibn Rushd'sassertionof theunity of truthinto question.But he does interpretthis unityin quite an unusualmanner one in whichreligionand philosophyare unitedby theircommonaimofteachingand spreadingvirtue.126 The Moroccanphilosopherdoes notconsiderIbn Rushdto be the firstto have adopteda criticalrationalismand an "axiomatic view."Indeed,he seeksto establisha new,Maghrebitraditionof this kindofrationalismwithIbn Tumartas itsinitiator.127Nonetheless,he regardsIbn Rushdas theone who broughtthiskindof thinkingto its apex withinthefieldsof philosophyand theology.l28His critiqueand alleged separationof religionand philosophyconstituteforal-Jabirl morethana simpleshiftin methodsand concepts.Indeed,he calls it a "rupture"or "epistemologicalbreak"(qa.tl'aibislmulujiyya)with"the spiritof Avicenna.''129In this formulation,Ibn Slna stands for "irrationalism"because of his influenceonal-Ghazall and the illuminationistschoolsof Persia.Al-Jabirldoes not completelydeny 116 Alif16 (1996) This content downloaded from 90.198.175.10 on Sat, 04 Jul 2015 22:43:18 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionsthe Aristotelianismof Ibn Slna, but he does explicitlyjudge the philosopherby the schoolhe producedand not by its authentic thinking,130somethingthatmustalso be keptin mindwhendealing withhisinterpretationofIbnRushd.131Thusal-Jabirlcharacterizesthis "rupture"as aseparationof two "moments"(lahgatan)in the consciousnessof Arab-Islamicsociety,withthe second having "abolished"thefirst,as thehistoricaldevelopmentoftheArabicand Europeanworldshows.Accordingtoal-Jabirl,theArabslivetheirlife outsideof history,whiletheEuropeans,havingfollowedthepathof IbnRushd,shapeit.132 Al-Jabirlcalls upon the Arabsto bringabouta"complete epistemologicalbreakwiththestructureof theArabicreasonof the periodofdescentandwithitsoffshootsin modernandcontemporary thinking,"andabove all, with wronglyused qiyasandwith mysticism.133In oppositiontoWesternizedArabintellectualswhotry to modernizeArabthinkingby directlyapplyingWesternideas,he declaresit necessaryin view of thefailureof theirattemptto appropriate(imtilak)theArabs'own historyin orderto overcome (tajawu:)its obstaclesand lay thefoundationsfora "newcreative age" ('asr tadwlnjadld).134It follows,then,thatthe"resumptionof old fights"withmodernprinciples,thatis, thecarryingon of Ibn Rushd'scriticismin combinationwiththeconceptsofBachelardand Foucault,wouldestablishthisfoundation.The "appropriation"of someof Ibn Rushd'sideas is thusonlya meansto an end. Yet al-Jabirl'sshiftfromTlzlnl's Marxistinterpretationof Islamic philosophyto a somewhatmoremoderateposition,leavingroomfor the religiouslegitimationof scientificthinkingas in the case of causality,looks verymuchlike aconcessionto the Islamists. VI. CONCLUSION The motivesof thevariousauthorswho seek to reviveIbn Rushd,albeitin asomewhatmutilatedmanner,have onlybeen touchedon here.Theydiffer,ofcourse,fromauthorto author.Yet it seems to me that the decisive inducementto actualizeand instrumentalizeIbnRushdis thedesiretoprovethatIslamiccultureis equalin valueto Westernculture.As longas thisproofhasnotbeen furnished,Arabscan neitherfeelthemselvesto be equalin rank,nor will theybe acceptedby the West as equal partners.However, whereasmanyIslamiststryto provetheequalrankor frequentlythe superiorityof Islamic cultureby arguingthatit is completely Alif16 (1996) 117 This content downloaded from 90.198.175.10 on Sat, 04 Jul 2015 22:43:18 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionsdifferent,the "Averroists" who continuethe traditionof "Islamic rationalism" seek to furnishthis proof by means of apartial similaritybetweenthetwo.Andthosewhotakethe"LatinAverroists" as models seek to do so by means of an essentialsimilarity.It is thereforeimportantforthemto findthatattributeof progresswhich theWestclaimsforitself,viz. autonomous,discursivereason,in their own culture.However,in view of the historicalchanges-except perhaps with respect to some theologicalquestions thedirect continuationof Ibn Rushd'sthinkingis moreor less impossible.The authorspresentedhere seem,therefore,to be engagedin a moreor less Sisypheantask. In the end, nonetheless,one must ask what alternativescontemporarythinkerswhodonotwant tobe characterizedas mereimitatorsoftheWestreallyhave. NOTES 1 A morethoroughaccountof thissubjectmaybe foundin mybook, Averroes unddiearabische Moderne -Ansatze zueiner Neubegrundungdes Rationalismusim Islam (Leiden: E. J. Brill [IslamicPhilosophy,Theologyand Science 19], 1994). 2 GeorgeF. Hourani,ed., Ibn Rushd(Averroes),KitabFasl al-Maqal withitsAppendix(Damlma)and an extractfromKitabal-Kashf'an Manahijal-Adilla,ArabicText(Leiden:E. J.Brill,1959). I citethe page numbersin the margins,whichcorrespondto those in the originalArabiceditionof MarcusJosephMuller,ed., Philosophie und TheologievonAverroes(Munich:G. Franz,1859),whichalso containsthe treatisesal-Kashfand Damima (see below, notes 17 and 18). 3 MauriceBouyges,ed., Averroes:Tahafotat-tahafot,Textearabe (Beirut:ImprimerieCatholique,1930). 4 One mayask whether,givensuch differentoptions,it makessense to speak of "Arab Averroists"insofaras the label suggestssome kind of homogeneousgroup. Comparedto the so-called Latin Averroists(see thenextnote),theArab Averroistsseem no more heterogeneousand have even morerightto be designatedas such. Afterall, it is not Aristotlebut Ibn Rushd on whomtheymodel themselves. 5 Averroeset l averroisme,Essai historique,in Oeuvrescompletes d'ErnestRenan,vol. 3 (Paris: Calmann-Levy,1949). It has been translatedintoArabicby'Abdal-Zu'aitar, IbnRushd 118 Alif16 (1996) This content downloaded from 90.198.175.10 on Sat, 04 Jul 2015 22:43:18 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionswa-'l-Rushdiyya(Cairo: 'Isa al-Halab1,1957). I shallnotenterinto thediscussionabouttheidentification"LatinAverroism."(See, e. g., F. van SteenberDie Philosophieim13. Jahrhundert,ed. by Dr. Max A. Roesle, trans..fromthe Frenchby Dr. RaynaldWagner (Munich:Schoeningh,1977) 370 ff.;and Maurice-RubenHayoun and Alain de Libera,Averroeset l'Averroisme(Collection "Que Saisje," no. 2631; Paris: PressesUniversitairesde France,1991) 80-82. The importantthingto notein thiscontextis thatRenan's viewis takenseriously. 6 For authorsnotdiscussedlater,I wantat leastto give thetitlesof theirwritingsthatdeal primarilywithIbn Rushd.Al-'Iraq1,whois a memberof theFacultyof Artsat Cairo University,has two books relevantto ourpurposes:al-Naz'aal-'AqliyyaffFalsafatIbnRushd (Fourthedition;Cairo: Daral-Ma'arif,1984); and al-Manhaj al-NaqdlfF FalsafatIbn Rushd (Second edition; Cairo: Dar al-Ma'arif,1984). 7 Tayyib T1z1n1,"Ibn RushdQimmatal-Fikral-Maddlal-'Aqlarii al-Waslt..Talashlal-Thuna'iyyabainaal-'Alamwa-'l-IlAh,"inMashru' Ru'yaJadldali-al-Fikral-'ArablfFal-'Asral-Waslt(Damascus:Dar Dimashq,1971) 355-388; Tayeb Tisini,"Ibn Roschd;Einheitvon Materieund Form,von Weltund Gott,"in Die MaterieauJfassung in der islamisch-arabischenPhilosophiedes Mittelalters(Berlin: Akademie-Verlag,1972) 89-101. Tayyib T1z1n1is Professorof Philosophyin theFacultyof Artsat DamascusUniversity. 8 Or 'Imara; accordingto him,his name means "excellentmaster builder"(personalinterview,27 January,1989). 9 Hasan Hanaf1,"Ibn Rushd Sharihan Aristu,"in Mu'tamarIbn Rushd:al-Dhikraal-Mi'awiyyaal-Thaminali-Wafatihi(4-9 Nov. 1978) vol.1(Algiers, al-Mu'assasa al-Wataniyyali-al-Funun al-Matba'iyya,1985/86)57-120; thisarticlehas also been included in the collectionDirasatIslamiyya(Beirut:Dar al-Tanwlr,1982) 157-206. 10 Salina Musa,Hurriyyatal-Fikrwa Ibtaluhafi al-Ta'rlkh(Cairo: IdSratal-Hilal,1927)103-108. 11Lutfi Jum'a, Ta'rlkh Falasifat al-Islam 4al-Mashriq wa-'l-Maghrib(Cairo:Mat.ba'atal-Ma'arif,1927) 112-224. 12 In the introductionto 'Abduh's refutationof Antun's article, MuhammadRash1dRida notes thatsome Muslimsappealed to himas the editorof al-Manar to replyto Antun,because he hadinsultedIslam.SinceRida considered'Abduhmorecompetent, Alif16 (1996) 119 This content downloaded from 90.198.175.10 on Sat, 04 Jul 2015 22:43:18 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshe was relievedwhen 'Abduh agreedto fulfillthe request;see MuhammadRashldRida, "al-FailasufAbu al-WalldMuhammad ibnRushd,Qadl al-Qudatfial-Andalus,"in _l-Manar5(1902) 361 ff. 13SeeKitab al-Tahafutli-Abl al-Walld IbnRushd al-Malikl al-Andalusl(Cairo: al-Matba'aal-I'lamiyya,1302-1303/1885);it also containstheTahafutal-Falasifaby al-Ghazalland anotherby Khawaja Zada. For furthereditions,see PhilippW. Rosemann, "Averroes:A catalogueof editionsand scholarlywritingsfrom 1821 onwards,"in Bulletinde philosophieme'die'vale30 (1988): 153-221,esp. nos. 102-109. 14 fJawami'lMaBa dal-fabl'a(Cairo: al-Matba'a al-I'lamiyya, 1303/1885),at least accordingto Salvador (Salvator) Gomez Nogales,"Bibliografiasobrelas obrasde Averroes,"in Multiple Averroes,Actesdu Colloque Internationalorganise'a l occasion du 850e anniversairede la naissance dnAverroes(Paris 20-23 sept.,1976) (Paris:Les Belles Lettres,1978) 367. Unfortunately,I havenothad theopportunityto consultthisworkmyself. 15 For a bibliography,see Rosemann,"Averroes";and CharlesE. Butterworth,"The Study of Arabic PhilosophyToday" and "Appendix(1983-87)," in Arabic Philosophyandthe West: Continuity andInteraction, ed.Therese-Anne Druart (Washington:Center for ContemporaryArab Studies, 1988) 55-140,esp. pp. 81-90and 131-137. 16 In Saudi Arabia,the teachingof Westernas well asIslamic philosophyis stillforbidden;see Adlb NayifDhiyab,"Dirasatuna al-Akadlmiyyawa-Mawlidal-Falsafaal-'Arabiyyaal-Mu'asira,"in al-FalsafafFal-Watanal-'Arablal-Mu'asir:Buhuthal-Mu'tamar al-Falsafi al-'Arabl al-Awwal alladhl naggamathual-Jami'a al-Urdunniyya(Beirut:Markaz Dirasat al-Wahda al-'Arabiyya, 1985) 151-169,esp. 152). 17 In whatfollows,I shallreferbothto Muller'sedition(see above,n. 2) andto thatof MahmudQasim;see Manahij al-Adillafi 'Aqa id al-Milla li-IbnRushd,Ma'aMuqaddimafF Naqd Madaris 'Ilm al-Kalam(Second edition;Cairo: Maktabatal-Anglual-Misriyya, 1964). A good criticaleditionofthistreatiseis stillneeded. 18 Icite fromthe editionof George F.Hourani with Muller's pagination(see above,n. 2). 19SeeFernand vanSteenberghen,"Leprobleme del'entree d'Averroes enOccident," inConvegnointernazionale: 120 Alif16 (1996) This content downloaded from 90.198.175.10 on Sat, 04 Jul 2015 22:43:18 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and ConditionsL'Averroismoin Italia (Roma, 18-20 aprile 1977) (Rome: AccademiaNazionaledei Lincei,1979) 82-89. 20 The ShortCommentaryon theMetaphysicsalreadymentionedis especiallypopular.The besteditionis thatof 'UthmanAm1n,Ibn Rushd,TalkhlsfJawami']Ma Ba'd al-Tabl'a (Cairo: Mustafa al-Bablal-Halab1wa-Awladuhu,1958). For additionaleditions,see Rosemann,"Averroes,"esp. nos. 83-86; and Gomez Nogales, "Bibliografia,"367. The Large Commentaryis less widespread; see Averroes,TafslrMa Ba'd al-Tabl'a,ed. Maurice Bouyges (Beirut:ImprimerieCatholique,1938-1952). 21 OnlytheSummaryor Mukhtasar,as Jamalal-D1nal-'Alaw1calls it (al-Matnal-Rushdl,Madkhalli-Qiraa Jadlda[Casablanca:Dar Tubqal, 1986] 52-55),is knownand entirelyedited(in 1947, 1950 and 1985; see Rosemann,"Averroes,"nos. 76, 77, 22). An extract fromthe Middle Commentarywas publishedonly in 1985; see HelmutGatje,Das Kapiteluberdas Begehrenaus demmittleren KommentardesAverroeszurSchriftuberdie Seele(Amsterdam, Oxford,New York: North-HollandPublishingCompany,1985). And only a few passages of the originalArabic versionof the LargeCommentaryhavecomedownto us; see al-'Alaw1,al-Matn al-Rushdl108 ff.). Unfortunately,these have not yet been published. 22 Accordingto al-'Alaw1,who re-examinedthisold question,Ibn Rushd'scorpusconsistedof 108 writings.Of these,a good third are lost in theArabicoriginal;see al-'Alaw1,al-Matnal-Rushdl, 14-45; see also Miguel Cruz Hernandez,Abu-l-WalldIbn Rushd (Averroes):Vida, obra, pensamiento,influencia(Cordova: Publicacionesdel Montede Piedady Caja de Ahorrasde Cordoba, 1986) 44-51. 23Forthe edited writingsseeRosemann, "Averroes"; and Butterworth"TheStudy of Arabic PhilosophyToday" and "Appendix." 24 They appeared in Alexandriain al-Jami'a,Majalla'Ilmiyya TahdhlbiyyaTa'rlkhiyyaSihhiyya3 (1902): 517-540, 568-571, and 626-639. 25 Farah Antun,Ibn Rushdwa- Falsafatuhu:Wa-fidhailal-Kitab Rududal-Ustadh'ala al-Jami'afi SittMaqalatbi-Sha'nMaqala MukhtasaraNasharathaal-Jami'amundhuAshhurfi Hadha al-Maudu' wa-Ajwibatal-Jami'a fFSitt Maqalatai.dan (Alexandria:Dar al-Tal1'ali-al-Tiba'a,1903).It was re-issuedtwice Alif16 (1996) 121 This content downloaded from 90.198.175.10 on Sat, 04 Jul 2015 22:43:18 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionsin the eighties,once by Adunlsal-'Akrah(Beirut:Dar al-Tall'a, 1981) and a secondtimeby the above mentionedTayyibTlzln (Beirut:Daral-Farabl,1988). 26 See, e. g., AlbertHourani,ArabicThoughtin theLiberalAge: 1798-1939(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress, 1984) 254 ff.,and MouradWahba,"Rationalismin theContemporaryArab World,"in GuttormF10istad,ed., ContemporaryPhilosophy:A NewSurvey,vol. 5: AfricanPhilosophy(Dordrecht,1987) 265. 27 Al-Jami'a,523. 28Al-Jami'a,537-539,519-521. 29 "FalsafatJamalal-Dmal-AfghaniHal li-al-AfghamFalsafa?,"in al-Jami'a5(1906):145-157, esp. 151 ff. It should be noted, however,thatAntunrefersto no specificstatementbyIbn Rushd. 30 Ibn Rushd,137-140, and 185. 'Abduh develops this view on several occasions; see,e.g.,Muh.ammad 'Abduh, Risalat al-Tawhld,ed. MahmudAbu Rayya (Fourthedition;Cairo: Dar al-Ma'arif,1971) 160 ff.;and al-Manar5 (1902) 433 ff.;see also Rotraud Wielandt,Offienbarungund Geschichteim Denken modernerMuslime(Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag Gmbh, 1971) 57 ff. 31 Antun,IbnRushd,74. He refersespeciallyto Ibn Rushd,T-T,581: 8-10,14 ff.,582:10-12,and583.1-3. 32 Antun,IbnRushd,121-124;al-Jami'a,626. Yet, Antundoes not express this view consistently.Elsewhere, while criticizing 'Abduhforhis Islamicapologetics,AntuncomplimentsIbn Rushd forremainingnon-committalaboutsuchreligiousquestionsas the after-lifeandtheattributesofGod andequateshimwithal-Ghazall; see Ibn Rushd,167 ff.and note thatAntuncites passages from T-T,whereIbn Rushdforbidstheinvestigationof miraclesandthe principlesof religion(see, e. g., T-T,503:8-10,514:8-14, 16 ff., 527:1-5,9-15,and528:2-5). 33 IbnRushd,121-124;al-Jami'a,626 and638. 34Al-Jami'a,525-527 and 629; IbnRushd,67-69 (followingAlfred Gary,"Averroes"in La GrandeEncyclopedie,Inventaireraisonne des sciences,des lettres,et des arts[Paris: H Lamirault,n. d.], 880; and Renan,Averroes,107 ff.and 115-127).Contraryto the commonview, Antundid not relydirectlyon Renan in his first articleon Averroes,buton thisnoticeby AlfredGary,a "licencie en droit"and "professeurd'economiepolitique,"who summarizes Renan and Salomon Munk (Me'langesde Philosophiejuive et 122 Alif 16 (1996) This content downloaded from 90.198.175.10 on Sat, 04 Jul 2015 22:43:18 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionsarabe [Paris:A. Franck,1859]). Only in Antun'ssupplementto his firstarticle("'Aud ila Ibn Rushd,"in al-Jami'a3[1902]: 568-571) and in thefollowingmonographdoes Renanbecomehis pr1marysource. 35 It existsonly in Latin and Hebrewand has been translatedinto Englishtwiceonlyrelativelyrecently(1956 by E. I. J. Rosenthal and 1974 by Ralph Lerner[see Rosemann,"Averroes,"nos. 100 and101])and once into Spanish (Miguel Cruz Hernandez, Averroes,Exposicionde lade Platon: Estudio preliminar,traducciony notas[Madrid:EditorialTecnos, 1986]). In Arabic, only translationsof Renan'ssummariesof some passages(Renan,Averroes,133 ff.)and of a special summaryby Rosenthal("Ara' Ibn Rushdal-Siyasiyya:Katabahali-al-Bayyina al-DukturA. J.Rujantal,"al-Bayyina1 [1972]: 94-103) areknown. 36 For theeditions,see Rosemann,"Averroes,"nos. 19, 32-34,49-55, and 57-60; Butterworth,"The Studyof ArabicPhilosophyToday" and "Appendix,"82 ff.and 131. 37 Ibn Rushd,77 ff. (followingRenan,Averroes,133 ff.). Antun commentson neitherIbnRushd's norQasim's position. 38Ibn Rushd,107-113. Antundoes not follow the course of the "debate"as Ibn Rushd presentsit, but sets fortheach position separately.Thus,at pp. 109 ff.he citeslongpassagesfromthelast discussionof al-Ghazall'sTahafutal-Falasifa,which Ibn Rushd neglected;seeal-Ghazall, Tahafutal-Falasifa, ed.Maurice Bouyges(Beirut: ImprimerieCatholique, 1927)369:7-11, 371:6-9,and 372:1-375:11. 39 IbnRushd,107. 40 Al-Jami'a, 523 ff.and629-633. 41Josefvan Ess, DieErkenntnislehredes 'Adudaddlnal-lcl : .. UbersetzungundKommentardes erstenBuchesseinerMawaqif (Wiesbaden:FranzSteinerVerlagGmbH, 1966) 212 and 216 ff. Concerningal-Ghazall's"concessions"to thephilosophers,Simon van den Berghstates:"The theologiansand Ghazaliadmita scala naturae,a necessaryorderand succession. . . in all things";see Averroes TahafutAl-Tahafut:(TheIncoherenceofthe Incoherence),trans.withintro.and notes(E. J.W. GibbMemorial Series;London:Luzac & Co., 1954) vol. 2, p.183, n. 6 (to vol. 1, p. 327). Cf. LennEvan Goodman,"Did al-Ghazalldenycausality? To thememoryof RichardWalzer,"in StudiaIslamica47 (1978): 83-120. Alif16 (1996)123 This content downloaded from 90.198.175.10 on Sat, 04 Jul 2015 22:43:18 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions42 IbnRushd,106. 43 Al-Manar5 (1902): 361-380.The restof thearticlesappearedalso in al-Manar 5(1902):401-434, 441-465, 481-501, 521-538, 538-545,and 561-577. In the same year,Rash1dRida published theselatterarticles,togetherwith'Abduh's criticismof the way Gabriel Hanotaux viewed Islam, under the title al-Islam wa-'l-Nasraniyyama'aal-'Ilmwa-'l-Madaniyya. Inthe introduction,Rida explainedthathe had not includedthe first articledealingwithIbn Rushdbecauseits highlytheoreticallevel madeitofuse onlyto theelite. 44 See al-Manar, 367-370 and 371 ff. 'Abduh divides the Greek philosophersintotwogroups:metaphysiciansandmaterialists. 45 In contrastwithhis laterwritings,Ibn Rushdembracesin thisearly workmoreor less thetheoryof Ibn Slna; see TalkhlsfJawami'] Ma Ba'd al-Tabl'a, esp. pp. 148-156,paras. 53-65. Cf. BarryS. Kogan, "Averroesand theTheoryof Emanation,"in Mediaeval Studies43 (1981): 384-404,esp. pp. 387-392. 46See al-Manar, 373 and 374-376. 'Abduh'sexpositionof the humanpathto knowledgerevealsthathe was not,or better,could onlywithdifficultyhave been,acquaintedwiththecommentaries on De anima and withotherworksin whichIbn Rushddiscusses thisissue (HeinrichC. Kuhn,Die Erkenntnistheoriedes Averroes im Kontextseines philosophischenSystems(Munich,1988 [self-printing]).'AbduhconsidersIbn Rushd's teachingto be in conformitywiththetheoriesofal-Farab1andIbnS1na. 47 AI-Manar,378. 48 Al-Manar, 495.Cf.histotally differentdescriptionofthe persecutionof the"LatinAverroists,"whichhe equateswiththe crueltiesoftheInquisition(Al-Manar,423 ff.). 49 Al-Manar,367 ff. 50 PartsI and II werepublishedin ArabicunderthetitleNag.ariyyat al-Ma'rifa 'inda Ibn Rushdwa- Ta'wlluhalada Tumasal-Akwlnl (Second edition;Cairo: Maktabatal-Anglual-Misriyya,1969). It was also publishedin French,along withPartIII: The'oriede la connaissanced'apresAverroeset son interpre'tationchez Thomas d'Aquin(Algiers:Etudeset Documents,1978). 51 LesMe'thodesde'monstrativesdesdogmes religieux d'apres Averroes.As faras I know,ithas neverbeenpublished. 52 al-Failusuf al-Muftara 'alaihi-IbnRushd(Cairo:Maktabat al-Anglual-Misriyya,probably1954). This workis identicalwith Alif16 (1996)124 This content downloaded from 90.198.175.10 on Sat, 04 Jul 2015 22:43:18 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and ConditionsIbn Rushd wa-Falsafatuhual-DIniyya(Third edition;Cairo: Maktabatal-Anglual-Misriyya,1969).Otherworksin whichIbn Rushdis discussedare:Fl al-Nafswa-'l-'Aqlli-Falasifatal-lghrlq wa-'l-lslam(Secondedition; Cairo:Maktabat al-Anjlu al-Misriyya,1954);Nusus Mukhtaraminal-Falsafa al-lslamiyya (Thirdedition;Cairo: Maktabatal-Anglual-Misriyya,1969); Dirasat fial-Falsafa al-Islamiyya(Fifthedition;Cairo: Dar al-Ma'arif,1973);"IbnRushd(Abual-Wal1d),''in:Mu'jam A'lam al-Fikral-lnsanl,I'dad: Nukhbatminal-Asatidhaal-Misriyyln, vol.1 (Cairo:GEBO, 1984)139-147. 53 See Rosemann,"Averroes,"nos.14-19. 54 SeeQasim,Dirasat,8, 16,and20; al-Failasuf,138.In Fl al-Nafs,4 ff.,Qasim'sassessmentis somewhatmilderwithregardtoal-Farab1's and Ibn S1na'stheoriesof thesoul,butIbn Rushd'stenetsare preferredas morereasonableandclosertoIslam. 55 See Dirasat,18. 56 Dirasat,8 and20 ff. 57 See al-Kashf,ed.Qasim,126and120-126. 58 Cf. for instanceal-Kashf, ed. Muller,35:8-10 and passim; al-Kashf,ed.Qasim,141:13-15;Damlma,130:13-15;T-T,351:1-5, 425:10-16,andpassim. 59 Dirasat, 10; cf.al-Failusuf,46 and112(QasimpresentsIbnRushd hereas almosttheonlyMuslimthinkerwhocompletelyavoided thiskindofanalogy);Nagariyyatal-Ma'rifa,25. 60 See al-Failasuf,39,53-55,and58 ff. 61 See T-T,584:9-585:4with583:6-8. 62 See al-Kashf,ed.Muller,102;al-Kashf,ed.Qasim,219-222. 63 See Qasim,al-Failasuf, 142 (followingal-Kashf, ed. Qasim, 220:7-10;ed.Muller,102:12-15).I quotefromthetranslationofJ. WindrowSweetman,Islam and ChristianTheology:A Studyof theInterpretationof TheologicalIdeas in theTwo Religions,Part II, Volume2, Mediaeval Scholastic Developments(London: ButterworthPress,1967)159. 64 See al-Kashf,ed.Qasim,220:10-221:7;ed.Muller,102:15-103:7. 65 For example,the Azhar scholarsMuhammadYusuf Musa (1899-1963),Ibn Rushd al-Failasuf (Cairo:Dar Ihya'al-Kutub al-'Arabiyya,'Isa al-Bablal-Halabl,1945);andMuhammad'Abd al-RahnianBaisar(1910-1981),Fl Falsafat Ibn Rushd,al-Wujud wa-'l-Khulud(Thirdedition;Beirut:Daral-Kitabal-Lubnam,1973). 66 See Fl al-Nags,110 ffand 131;andNagariyyatal-Ma'rifa,33 and Alif16 (1996) 125 This content downloaded from 90.198.175.10 on Sat, 04 Jul 2015 22:43:18 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions36. Qasim insiststhatIbn Rushddoes not tryto makethis distinctionhimselfduetoan overwhelmingsenseofmodesty;see Fl al-Nafs,231and250. 67 See Fasl, 12:7-8. 68 See T-T,162:9(fihuduthda'im)and172:15(al-huduthal-da im). AlsoFasl, 12:14-13:3. 69 See Fasl, 13:7-12; Iquote here fromHourani's translation, Averroeson the Harmonyof Religionand Philosophy,A Translation,withIntroductionand Notes,ofIbn Rushd'sKitab Fasl al-Maqal,withitsAppendix(Damlma)and an Extractfrom Kitabal-Kashf'an Manahijal-Adilla(London:Luzac &Co., 1976) 56. Cf. al-Kashf,ed. Muller,90; ed. Qasim,205; T-T, 396:1-13. 70 See al-Kashf,ed.Muller,90; ed.Qasim,205;T-T,396:1-5,7-9. 71 T-T,396:7-9(quotingfromvandenBergh'stranslation,Averroes' TahafutAI-Tahafut,238). 72 ThoughIbnRushd'spointofviewinthetheological-philosophical treatisesis subjectto differentinterpretationsby scholars,none sharesQasim'sopinion.See, forexample,RogerArnaldez,"La penseereligieused'Averroes:I. La doctrinede la creationdansle Tahafut,"in StudiaIslamica7(1957): 99-114,esp. pp. 110 ff; Hourani,Harmony,100,n. 107; ErnstBehler,Die Ewigkeitder Welt:ProblemgeschichtlichUntersuchungenzu denKontroversen umWeltanfangundWeltunendlichkeitimMittelalter,ErsterTeil: DieProblemstellunginderArabischenundJudischen PhilosophiedesMittelalters(Munich: VerlagFerdinand Schoningh,1965)235. 73 See Qasim,al-Failasuf,79. Qasimobviouslyunderstands'adamas "absolute nothingness"or"absolute non-existence";see al-Failasuf,71 and132ff.ForAristotle'sandIbnRushd's"proof frommotion,"see HerbertA. Davidson,Proofsfor Eternity, Creationand the Existenceof God in MedievalIslamicand JewishPhilosophy(New York:OxfordUniversityPress,1987) 237-240. 74 SeeQasim,al-Failasuf,133and,79 ff. 75 For Ibn Rushd'srefutation,see T-T,179-182,184-194,245 ff., 259-262,and passim;cf. Kogan,"Averroesand theTheoryof Emanation,"392ff. 76 See Qasim,Dirasat, 11; al-Failasuf,131; Fl al-Nafs, 151; Nag.ariyyatal-Ma'rifa,114.HereQasimimputesto IbnRushdan 126 Alif16 (1996) This content downloaded from 90.198.175.10 on Sat, 04 Jul 2015 22:43:18 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionsargumentthathe neverexpressed:Ibn Rushddid no refutethe theoryof emanationin orderto assureGod's directcreationof the world,but rejectedit mainlybecause he consideredit illogical (see thereferencesin theprecedingnote). 77 See Baisar,Fl FalsafatIbn Rushd,193-195 and 200 ff. 78 See Qasim,al-Failasuf,38 ff.;Fl al-Nafs,132 ff.;Dirasat, 127 ff.; Nag.ariyyatal-Ma'rifa,26 ff.,64 ff.,andpassim. 79 For example,Qasim scarcelydiscussesthe undeniablefactthat some of Ibn Rushd'stenets are not free from Neoplatonic elements; see,e.g.,Jean Jolivet,"Divergences entre les metaphysiquesd'Ibn Rushd et d'Aristote,"in Mu'tamar Ibn Rushd:al-Dhikraal-Mi'awiyyaal-Thaminali-Wafatihi,387-371, esp. 379 ff.and 374 ff.(re-issuedinArabica29 [1982]: 225-245). 80 'Ammarafirstfrequenteda kuttaband thenpassed throughone of the religiousinstitutesof the Azhar, finallyenteringthe Dar al-'Ulum.The informationabout'Ammara'sbiographyis basedon an interviewI had withhimon 27 January,1989. 81 Agood, thoughnot exhaustive,bibliography(the articlesfor instance,are notincluded)can be foundin al-'Arabwa-'l-Tahadd (Secondedition;Damascus:DarQutaiba,1987)303-310. 82 'Ammarahas published"completeeditions"oftheworksofbothof them: al-A'mal al-Kamila li-Jamal al-DInal-AfghanlMa'a Dirasa 'an al-Afghanl- al-Haqlqa al-Kulliyya(Cairo:Dar al-KitSb al-'Arabl, 1967); al-A'mal al-Kamila li-al-lmamMuhammad 'Abduh, (3vols.;Secondedition; Beirut:al-Mu'assasa al-'Arabiyyali-'l-Dirasatwa-'l-Nashr,1979-80). 83 See 'Ammara,al-lslam wa-'l-Mustaqbal(Cairo: Dar al-Shuruq, 1984) esp. 87-96 and 244-247; al-Islam wa-Qa.dayaal-'Asr, (Secondedition;Beirut:Dar al-Wah.da, 1984)5 ff. 84'Ammara,"Ibn Rushd wa-'l-Falsafaal-'Aqliyya fi al-Islam," al-Tall'a, Nov. 1968, 135-153(it appearedas an appraisalon the occasionof the770thanniversaryof Ibn Rushd'sdeath);"al-'Aql al-'ArablfXal-Qimma,"in MuslimunThuwwar(Second edition; Beirut:al-Mu'assasaal-'Arabiyyali-al-Dirasatwa-'l-Nashr,1974) 69-110. In whatfollows,I shallreferto botharticlesunderthetitle "al-Falsafa,"the first-mentionedpage numberbeingthe one for al-Tall'a, thesecond,in brackets,theone forMuslimunThuwwar. 85 As a proofhe adduces,amongothers,a passage fromtheMiddle Commentaryon Aristotles RhetoricwhereIbn Rushdstatesthat themostconvincingrepresentativeof a law is theone who fulfills Alif16 (1996)127 This content downloaded from 90.198.175.10 on Sat, 04 Jul 2015 22:43:18 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionsit himself;see 'Ammara,"al-Falsafa,"144 [p. 91] and Salim MuhammadSal1m,ed.,Ibn Rushd,Talkhlsal-Khataba,(Cairo: al-Majlisal-A'lali-'l-Shu'unal-Islamiyya,1967)140:11-141:1]). 86 See 'Ammara,al-Maddiyyawa-'l-MithaliyyaftFalsafatIbnRushd (Cairo:Daral-Ma'arif,1971). 87 See 'Ammara,"al-Mawqifniinal-Turathal-'Aqlamli-IbnRushd,"in al-Katib(Aug. 1973) 80-100. Withsome minorchanges,the articlewas includedin NagraJadldaila al-Turath(Second edition;Beirut:al-Mu'assasaal-'Arabiyyali-al-Dirasatwa-'l-Nashr, 1979)37-63,underthetitle"IbnRushd:al-'Aqlaniyyaf1al-Falsafa wa-'l-Adabiyyat."In whatfollows,I shallreferto botharticlesas "al-Mawqif,"withthe firstcitationreferringto the al-Katib paginationand the second,in brackets,to the Nag.raJadlda pagination. 88 See 'Ammara,al-Mu'tazilawa-Mushkilatal-Hurriyyaal-lnsaniyya (Beirut:al-Mu'assasaal-'Arabiyyali-al-Dirasatwa-'l-Nashr,1972) 129-135(M.A.thesis);al-'Arabwa-'I-Tahaddl,esp.99-110. 89 See IbnRushd,Fasl al-Maqalfma baynaal-Sharl'a wa-'l-Hikma minal-lttisal(Cairo:Dar al-Ma'arif,1972);I citeherefromthe secondedition,Beirut:al-Mu'assasaal-'Arabiyyali-'l-Dirasat wa-'l-Nashr,1981. 90 See Fasl, ed. 'Ammara,p. ba'. Thoughhe mentionsBidayat al-Mujtahidhere,thisworkplaysno rolein hisinterpretationand presentationofIbnRushd. 91 See 'Ammara,al-Maddiyya,21-27. 92 See 'Ammara,"al-Falsafa,"136[p.72];cf.Fasl,2:8. 93 See 'Ammara,al-Maddiyya,21. 94 See al-Maddiyya,13and21. 95 See 'Ammara,"al-Mawqif,"89 [p.49]. 96 See 'Ammara,"al-Falsafa,"138 ff.[pp.77-80],followingFasl, 6:17-21,21:3-8;al-Maddiyya,15 and 18 ff.,followingFasl, 21:3-8,8:10-12. 97 See 'Ammara,al-'Arab,86 ff. 98 See 'Ammara,"al-Falsafa,"136-137.[pp.72-73].Yet 'Ammara's understandingof al-FarablandIbn S1nais notas one-sidedas it seems.He states,forexample,thatafterthe"eliminationof the Mu'tazilites,"thesephilosophershadtriedtorestore,thoughonly partially,theroleofreason("al-Falsafa,"136[p.73]). 99 'Ammara,"al-Falsafa,"140[p.82];al-Maddiyya,18. 100See 'Ammara,al-'Almaniyyawa-Nah.datunaal-Hadltha(Second Alif16 (1996) 128 This content downloaded from 90.198.175.10 on Sat, 04 Jul 2015 22:43:18 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionsedition;Cairo:Dar al-Shuruq,1986) 34; al-lslam wa-Qa.daya al-'Asr,6. 101See 'Ammara,al- 'Arab,84-85;al-lslamwa-'I-Mustaqbal,15-21. Cf. al-lslam wa-'I-Wahdaal-Qawmiyya(Beirut,1982) 50-86, wherehe underlinesthe similaritiesamongthe monotheistic religionsin theiressentials;also LeonardBinder,Islamic Liberalism,A Critiqueof DevelopmentIdeologies(Chicago:The UniversityofChicagoPress,1988)94 ff. 102'AXllmual-Maddiyya,67-68ff. 103 See 'Ammara,al-Maddiyya,66-71,followingT-T,100:7-10, 102:4-10, 105:2-106:1,131:9-132:3, 143:14-144:1,146:2-6, 164:5-165:3,and333:15-334:2);"al-Falsafa,"141ff.[pp.84 ff.], followingT-T, 131:9-12,131:12-132:1,144:13-15,152:14-16, 186:8-10,333:15-334:2,and396:9-13. 104See 'Ammara,al-Maddiyya,65 and69-71. 105'AXllmual-Maddiyya,47. 106See 'Ammara,al-'Arab, 102.IbnRushddeemsthistheoryofthe Mu'tazilitestobe inconformitywithhisown-thatis,withthatof thephilosophers-toa certaindegree;see T-T,105-107. 107 See al-Jabirl,Nahnu wa-'l-Turath:Qira'a Mu'asira fF Turathina al-Falsaft (Fifth edition;Casablanca: al-Markazal-ThaqafX al-'Arabl,1986).His Naqd al-'Aql al-'Arablis thetitleofa series of threevolumes:1. Takwlnal-'Aql al-'Arabl (Second edition; Beirut:Dar al-T.all'a, 1985);2. Bunyatal- 'Aql al- 'Arabl: Dirasa Tahllliyya Naqdiyyali-Nugum al-Ma'rifafFal-Thaqafa al-'Arabiyya(Secondedition;Beirut:MarkazDirasatal-Wahda al-'Arabiyya,1987);3.al-'Aqlal-Siyaslal-'Arabl: Muhaddadatuhu wa-Tajjalliyatuhu (Beimt:Markaz Dirasat al-Wahdaal-'Arabiyya,1990).Also to be reckonedamongthese workscontaininga"Critiqueof Arab Reason"is al-Khitab al-'Arabl al-Mu'asir: DirasaTahllliyyaNaqdiyya (Second edition;Beirut:Dar al-Tall'a,1985),sinceit is presentedas an introductiontoit. 108He belongstothosemembersofthe"UnionNationaledesForces Populaires"whowereimprisonedin July1963andsoonreleased onthebasisofan amnesty.From1975to 1982,he wasa member of thepolitburoof the"UnionSocialistedes ForcesPopulaires," of whichhe was one of thefounders.Afterwards,he withdrew fromthisactivityand devotedhimselfmainlyto thestudyand criticismofthehistoryofArabideas.(Thesebiographicaldataare Alif16 (1996)129 This content downloaded from 90.198.175.10 on Sat, 04 Jul 2015 22:43:18 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionstakenfroman interviewal-Jabirlgave to thejournalal-Karmal ["Muh.ammad 'Abid al-Jabirl:Masar Katib,"in al-Karmal1 1 (1984)152-169]andfrom personal correspondencewith the author). 109 "Al-Madrasaal-Falsafiyyafi al-Maghribwa-'l-Andalus:Mashru' Qira'a Jadldali-FalsafatIbn Rushd,"in Naknu,211-260. (Icite Nahnu).The articlewas writtenfortheconferenceon Ibn Rushd held in Rabat in 1978 and publishedin its Acts,A'mal Nadwa: Ibn Rushdwa-Madrasatuhufi al-Gharbal-lslamlbi-Munasabat MururThamaniyyaQurun 'alaWafatIbn Rushd,21-23 April, 1978 (Rabat: Jami'atMuh.ammad al-Khamis,Kulliyatal-Adab wa-'l-'Ulumal-Insaniyya,1981) 85-139. In addition,thereis a slightlyrevised Frenchversionof this article,writtenby the authorhimself,which appeared in three installmentsin the MoroccanweeklypaperLiberation,nos. 171-173,June1978. llSeeal-Jabirl,Takwln,316-323andpassim. 111 See al-Jabirl,Bunya,529-538andpassim. 112 See al-Jabirl,Nahnu,223-226;Bunya,534-537,561-565,570-572, andpassim. 113 His referencesto secondaryliteratureare veryscarce: T. J. de Boer's Historyof Philosophyin Islam and Qasim'sNagariyyat al-Ma'rifaare theonlyworkshe mentionsby name.It is difficult to say whetherhe has consultedothersources;except for his obvious knowledgeof Renan's Averroes,his interpretationis highlyidiosyncratic. 114 See al-Jabirl,Nahnu,213-218;he refershereto al-Kashf,35:8-10. He also adduces, for once, argumentsfromcommentarieson Aristotle(Nahnu,213), in this case fromthe TafslrMaBa'd al-Tabl'a, vol. 1, 313:6-9and fromtheLarge Commentaryon the PhysicsafterCarlo AlfonsoNallino, "Filosofia od d'Avicenna?,"in 'Abd al-RahmanBadawl,ed. and trans.,al-Turathal-Yunanlfi al-Ha.dara al-Islamiyya:Dirasat li-Kibar al-Mustashriqln(Secondedition; Cairo:Maktabat al-Nahdaal-Misriyya,1946) 285, n. 1. 115 See al-Jabiri,Nahnu, 84and 221, followingT-T,179:9-12, 180:4-8,180:12-181.6,and 246:10; Takwln,319, followingT-T, 246:10. 116 See al-Jabiri,Nahnu,221 ff.,followingT-T, 198:1 ff.,246:5-10, 395:6-10; al-Jabirialso pointsto al-Kashf,ed. Muller, 39; ed. Qasim,146.In Takwln,319, he refersto T-T,395:6-10;cf.Nahnu, 130 Alif 16 (1996) This content downloaded from 90.198.175.10 on Sat, 04 Jul 2015 22:43:18 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions84 ff.and 218 ff. 117 See al-Jabirl,Nahnu,43, 48, 84 ff.,and 218 ff. 118 Naknu,237. 119 Nahnu,239 ff. 120 Nahnu,238 ff. 121 See Averroes,T-T,527:3-13and 584:1-8. 122 See al-Jabirl,Nahnu, 245. Al-Jabirltries to corroboratethe "text-immanentunderstanding"bymeans ofIbnRushd's explanation"thatwhenevera statementin Scriptureconflictsin its apparentmeaningwitha conclusionof demonstration,if Scripture is consideredcarefully,and therestof its contentssearchedpage by page, therewill invariablybe foundamongtheexpressionsof Scripturesomethingwhichin its apparentmeaningbearswitness to that allegorical interpretationor comes close to bearing witness"(Fasl, 8:4-6,followingHourani'stranslation,Harmony, 51). 123 Averroes,Fasl, 7: 10-15. 124 See Averroes,al-Kashf,ed. Muller,43 and 104-113;ed. Qasim, 150 and 223-233. 125 See al-Jabiri,Bunya,533, 561, and 570; andNahnu,224 and 238. 126 See al-Jabiri,Nahnu,246. He does notexplainhow he reachesthis conclusion, butcontents himself with quotesfrom Ibn Rushdamong othersthat "truthdoes not oppose truthbut accords withit and bears witnessto it" (Fasl, 7:6-9) and that "philosophyis thefriendand milk-sisterof religion"(Fasl, 26:3). (I quotefromHarmony,51 and70). 127 See al-Jabirl,40, 211, and 251-260;and Takwln,311-316; cf. the followingnote. 128 Heconsiders Ibn H.azmasaforetunnerof the "cultural revolution"withrespectto itscriticismof qiyas,withal-Shat.lblin the fieldsof usul al-dln and usul al-fiqhand Ibn Khaldun in historiographybeing regardedas its continuators;see Bunya, 513-553and Takwln,299-310. 129 See al-Jabirl,Nahnu,50-52. 130 See Nahnu,39 ff.and passim.The articleon Ibn Slna is themost extensiveof al-Jabirl'sstudieson an Islamicphilosopher;see "Ibn Slna wa-Falsafatuhual-Mashriqiyya:Hafriyyatfi Judhural-Falsafa al-'Arabiyyaal-Islamiyyafial-Mashriq,"inNahnu,87-166. 131 Forexample,al-JabirltakesitforgrantedthatIbnRushd's treatises dealing with the relationshipbetweenreligionand philosophy Alif16 (1996) 131 This content downloaded from 90.198.175.10 on Sat, 04 Jul 2015 22:43:18 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionswereknownto Medievaland RennaissanceEuropeand tracesthe conflictsthat occurredbetween freethinkersand the Church directlyback to theinfluenceof thesewritings;see Takwln,349 andcf.Nahnu,236. 132 See al-Jabin,Nahnu,43 and 49. Cf. Bunya,551-553and Takwln, 349. 133 See al-Jabin,Nahnu,20. He definesthe"epistemologicalbreak"as an irrevocablerenunciationof theapparatusof cognition(methods and terms),the networkof problems,and the fieldof cognition (haql ma'rif),but not of the object of cognition(mawdu' al-ma'rifa); see Nahnu, 20and alsoGaston Bachelard,La Formation del'espritscientifique: Contributionaune psychoanalysede la connaissanceobjective(Paris: Vrin, 1938) and Michel Foucault,Les motset les chosesUne arche'ologie des scienceshumaines(Paris:Gallimard,1966). 134Seeal-Jabin, Khitab,187-191andBunya,555-573. 132 Alif 16(1996) This content downloaded from 90.198.175.10 on Sat, 04 Jul 2015 22:43:18 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions