HISTORY of POLITICAL

THOUGHT
Chapter 5
Islamic Political Thought

Lecture 11
“Ibn Rushd”

Doç. Dr. Buğra ÖZER

 Ibn Rushd

• Abü-l Walid Ibn Rushd (1126-1198) was born in Cordoba.

• Both his father and his grand father were jurists and held
Office as Qadi (judge).
• Ibn Rushd like his grandfather was Grand Qadi of
Cordoba.
• Trained in Fiqh and representing the school of Malik, Ibn
Rushd was equally well versed in theology, philosophy and
medicine.
• He succeeded Ibn Tufail as the doctor of Caliph Abu
Ya’qub Yusuf.
●
He owed this position because of his medical skill.
●
After having long discussions with Ibn Tufail, he
was charged to write commentaries on Aristotle
principal works.
●
This position followed by Ibn Rushd’s appointment
to Seville as Qadi.
●
He was appointed to the same office at Cordoba and
in 1182 he became the doctor the to caliph at
Marakkesh and subsequently Grand Qadi in
Cordoba.
●
Indeed, during the time of Ibn Rushd the atmosphere
in Muslim Spain was not favorable to the pursuit of
philosophy.
●
The jurists (faqih) and the theologians (kelamci)
were to attack to the philosophy.
●
Ibn Rush joined battle with them all his life and most
of his studies bear witness from his struggle.
●
His most important book Fasl al Maqal was written
by him to reconcile philosophy and religion.
●
In other words, he tried to legitimate the philosophy
in the eyes of the theologians and Sufis of the time.
●
He claimed in this book that the genuine
understanding o the inner meaning of the Shari’a or
revealed message can be understood through
philosophy.
●
Only metaphysician is capable of understanding the
true meaning of the revelation.
●
This book has been translated into English as with
the name Decisive Treatise by Hourani.
●
He also wrote Tahafat al Tahafut against Ghazali’s
Tahafut al Felasifun.
●
Here he defended philosophy against Sufi author
Ghazali’s attach to the philosophy.
●
Other important books written by him are Fasl
Damima and Manahij.
●
Although he defeated his opponents with his
philosophy indeed, he could not be able to prevent
his exile to Lucena.
●
But after a short time he went to the Marakkesh as
the doctor of the caliph.
●
After a wile he turned back to Cordoba and here he
served as the chief Qadi until he passed away.
●
After his death indeed, philosophy declined in
Islamic world.
●
No strong philosopher came in Islamic world like
him to defend philosophy in this world.
 Religion and Philosophy in Ibn Rushd

●
He believed that there were two meanings of the
revelation: one inner, and one physical.
●
While the Shari’a dealt with the physical meaning
the philosophy dealt with the inner meaning.
●
Defending philosophy and philosophers against Al-
Ghazali and particularly against the Mutakallimun
(the dialectic theologians, kelamcilar) he claimed
that the intention of philosophy is identical with that
of the Shari’a.
●
For him the philosopher or metaphysician alone has
right and duty to develop a rational interpretation of
revelation.
●
The dialectical arguments of theology are inadequate
and sometimes misleading and even dangerous.
●
For him the metaphysician is alone qualified correctly
to interpret those beliefs and convictions of the Shari’a.
●
For him “philosophy is the sister of the Shari’a”.
●
The intention of what God had sent to humanity
through Prophet is essentially the same as that of
philosophy in respect to the purpose.
●
The true knowledge, for Ibn Rushd, is philosophical
knowledge arrived at by demonstrative argument
only.
●
The revealed law, as the essence of religion teaches
the same truth as that which the metaphysician seeks
to find out by rational inquiry.
●
There is only one truth.
●
The religion and philosophy have the same truth but
with different claims.
●
Philosophy teaches the elite (special men), however,
religion teaches the masses.
●
This is the only difference between the two.
Philosophy is the province of the philosopher;
religion is for all: both philosophers and masses
alike.
●
The “abstract knowledge” contained in the law can
be fully acquired and understood only by the
philosophers who apply demonstrative proof.
●
For him human reason of the ordinary men cannot
capture the hidden truth completely.
●
Therefore, certain statements of the law must be
accepted in their literal meaning.
●
For him the revelation sets reason certain limits.
●
Man has a duty, imposed upon by law, (sunetullah,
eşyanın tabiati), to seek a rational explanation.
●
This is the task of philosophers.
●
Similar to Plato he believes that the masses cannot
see the truth with naked eye.
●
They are amenable to persuasion only, not to
demonstration.
●
But he also believes that there are some elements in
the Shari’a of Islam to be shared by philosophers and
masses.
●
The basic teachings about God and the hereafter are
clear for all and must be accepted by all.
●
Who denies them is an unbeliever.
●
Right beliefs and convictions and moral conduct
secure the happiness of all: both philosophers and
masses.
●
Despite these common responsibilities or values for
all, philosophers are elect who are capable of
capturing the ultimate truth.
●
For Ibn Rushd, the Shari’a, as the divinely revealed
prophetic law is the constitution of the ideal state.
●
The philosopher, who alone can be able to penetrate
to the inner meaning o this law by means of
demonstrative arguments (ispatlayıcı tartışmalar)
has thus the most important political function in the
Muslim state.
●
There are about three classes in the Islamic state: the
rulers, philosophers and masses.
●
It is the task of the rulers to rule and task of the
philosophers to find out the identity of the infallible
truth of the revealed law by means of the
demonstrating arguments and teach these to the
rulers as well as to the masses.
●
And the task of the masses is to follow the middle
way.
●
He contrasts the method of philosophers with that of
the jurist and the dialectic theologian: the former has
certain knowledge on the basis of demonstrative
proof, the “syllogism of certainty” (the comparison,
kiyas).
●
However, the latter lack certainty since they rely on
the “syllogism of (subjective) opinion”.
●
The philosopher, alone, possesses the knowledge and
the means to interpret the Shari’a.
●
The institution of prophecy is important in Ibn
Rushd.
●
Only prophecy can declare and elucidate the will of
God, and it does so by means revelation which takes
the form of law.
●
This law tells man what his highest good is and how
to attain it.
●
Since men are diverse in their natural dispositions
and capabilities, happiness is relative to their
disposition.
●
But each individual is guaranteed his share of
happiness and perfection by the Prophet’s law.
●
This law enables man to acquire the practical arts by
means of which he attained the speculative virtues
needed in this world an in the thereafter and the
ethical virtues whose possession provides the basis
for man’s perfection.
 State and Rulership in Ibn Rushd’s
Philosophy
●
Accepting Aristotle’s statement that “man is a
political animal” Ibn Rushd believed that it was
impossible for man to live without a state.
●
The state is needed for the ethical accomplishment of
man.
●
This is, indeed, the reason why he is known as the
Medieval commentator of Aristotle.
●
But similar to Al-Farabi he tried to combine
Aristotle’s and Plato’s theory with Islamic principles.
●
He is also strongly under the influence of Al-Farabi.
What are to be the principles of the ideal Islamic
state is a critical question for Ibn Rushd.
●
His answer is simple:
●
He believed into the supremacy of the Shari’a as the
authority in the ideal state.
●
One should be reminded that he gave this answer not
as a Qadi, but indeed, as a philosopher.
●
During his time the state was under the influence of
theology and law, the ulama and the fuqaha who
were strongly opposed to the philosophy.
●
This is perhaps the reason why he accepted the
Shari’a principles as the supreme rules of the state.
●
He accepted that the aim of Shari’a is the same with
that of political science, a branch of practical
philosophy as defined by his master Aristotle.
●
The prophecy, the metaphysics and politics all have
the same aim: man’s happiness.
●
The purpose of the state is to lead its citizens to their
goal by the observance of a law.
●
But only the prophetic lawgiver who is also a
philosopher can lay down a law which guarantees the
two-fold happiness in the ideal Shari’a- state, ruled
by the Imam.
●
The Islamic state is the ideal polity.
●
It is the highest expression of Islamic civilization,
just as the Republic or the polis of the Ancient
civilization.
●
Here he makes a comparison with Plato’s law
dominating the state.
●
The Shari’a, as revealed prophetic law, is superior to
the Nomos of Plato.
●
But for him Plato’s system is the most supreme
secular system.
●
For Ibn Rushd, the ruler of the ideal state must have
at least five conditions: wisdom, perfect intelligence,
good persuasion, good imagination, and capacity to
manage the holy war (jihad).
●
If a ruler has these characters all together he is an
ideal ruler and his state is, indeed, a truly happy
government.
●
But it cannot always be possible to have a ruler
having all these characters.
●
Therefore these characters might be distributed to
different men in the ruling.
●
He argues that if he ruler has no five preconditions
together, he must rule at least together with one who
has philosophical character.
●
The education is very important for him both for the
members of an ideal state and for the ruler of this
state.
●
He sees logic as an indispensable element of the
education for statesmen.
●
For him logic comes first and then mathematics.
●
Shortly, the ruler of his ideal state must necessarily
be educated over the principles of philosophy.
●
Logic and mathematics are two parts.
●
Similar to Plato and Al-Farabi Ibn Rush also has an
ideal form of the state and degenerated form of the
states.
●
For him the ideal state is the Golden Age of the reign
of the four caliphs following and developing the
prophet’s legacy.
●
Following Al-Farabi, Ibn Rush’s model of the ideal
state is the imam-state.
●
The imam-state is based on the Shari’a and the imam
tries to implement it.
●
The ruler of the ideal state of Ibn Rushd is imam who
is identified with the philosopher-king and lawgiver.
●
The period of the four caliphs seems to be an ideal
Golden Age.
●
The ideal state has two important parts for him: the
ideal caliph and the ideal polity.
●
Although he accepts the reign of four caliph as the
Golden Age, he accepts that this age is the
counterpart of Plato’s imperfect state, which has not
accomplished its perfectness yet.
●
Ibn Rushd considers Plato’s method of bringing the
ideal state into being as the best after the Shari’a
state.
●
For him Plato’s is indeed impossible, since nobody
could posses all the qualities demanded of the
philosopher-king.
●
He is also aware of the fact that the ideal state is
possible only through the “general law”.
●
The Shari’a gives an opportunity for the emergence
of the ideal state
●
He separated the ignorant or degenerated states into
eight categories.
●
Six of them are Plato’s, one Al-Farabi’s and one his
own addition.
●
Plato’s six are monarchy, aristocracy, timocracy,
oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny. The seventh one
is “state of necessity,”
●
Al-Farabi’s classification. The eight one he added is
the “government of the pleasure-seeker.”
●
When he evaluates the Islamic states of his time he
compares them either with the ideal form or with the
degenerated ones.
●
He argues that the latter Arabic states, beginning
with Muawiya have been deviated from the ideal
form.
●
This deviation tells about the deviation of the Plato’s
ideal state into timocratic state. Here he is clearly
under the influence of Plato.
●
He blamed Muslim states on the basis of the claim that
they have generated from the Islamic principle of Jihad,
holy war.
●
The basic aim of jihad is the dissemination of the Islamic
way of life, however Arabic states seems to make jihad for
the interest of their own.
●
And this results in the decline of the principle of the rule
of law.
●
Moving from this argument that peace is sometimes
preferable to war.
●
It is therefore the duty of the lawgiver to protect the
position of peace.
●
Ibn Rush also criticizes the Islamic states of his time
in respect to the situation of women.
●
He asserts that although the number of women is
twice that of men they are not known; because, they
are taken only for procreation.
●
They are placed at the service of their husbands and
to the business of procreation, for rearing and breast-
feeding.
●
Women are not being fitted for any of the human
virtues.
●
They do not support any necessary activities.
●
Nor they are trained to do so.
●
This is the reason behind the poverty of the states.
 Justice and Law in Ibn Rushd

●
In defining the concept of justice Ibn Rushd is under
the influence of both Aristotle and Plato.
●
Similar to Aristotle he accepts that the chief function
of the ruler is his guardianship of justice.
●
“When he guards justice, he guards equality”.
●
He developed two sorts of justice: “absolute justice”
and “political justice”.
●
The absolute justice went beyond the political
justice.
●
The first one is related to the relationship between
men, however the latter one is related to the
relationship between rulers and ruled.
●
His definition of political justice is similar to that of
Aristotle.
●
Similar to Aristotle who divided justice into the
general justice and particular justice, he asserts that
the political justice is partly natural, and partly
conventional.
●
He also accepts the Plato’s assertion that “a justice
state is based on law”.
●
Again similar to him, Ibn Rushd argued that the
division of labor is a genuine political justice in an
ideal state.
●
In a just state every body should play his due.
●
Only in such a situation the state is based on the
principle of fairness.
●
Similar to Aristotle, Ibn Rushd divides law into two:
the “general” and the “particular” laws.
●
The general laws are common to all nations and
necessary to their political organization.
●
The particular belongs to a certain society.
●
They change from society to society, and from time
to time.
●
Every religion, nation, time and space has its own
law according to its specific needs.
●
He calls these laws “necessary political institutions”
in Tahafat al Tahafut.
●
Man reaches to the general laws with his own effort
by means of particular laws.
●
Through particular laws and good disciplines, such
as honoring their parents, remaining silent before
their elders, respecting elders, aiding those who
needed help man can be able to reach to the general
laws.
●
It should be remembered once that for Ibn Rushd it is
the Shari’a that guarantees a ruler’s excellence in
virtue.
●
In respect to the place of law, Ibn Rushd believes
into the supremacy of the Islamic law, although he is
under the influence of Plato and Aristotle.
●
This is the reason why he prefers Shari’a law, rather
than Greek’s Nomos as the law of the ideal state.
●
Likewise, he prefers the Khilafa, not Politeia of the
Greek as the ideal model.
●
Although he believes that the divinely revealed law
(Shari’a of Islam) and the human law Nomos have
ultimately common features he prefers the former
one.
●
A well prepared set of Nomos can also be accepted
as a way of life.
●
But his preference goes for the former one, that is,
Shari’a of Islam.
 References

●
An Introduction to Political Philosophy, Ömer Çaha
●
A History of Political Theory, George H. Sabine
Thomas L. Thorson
Thank You So Much