Ibn Rushd, The Decisive Treatise
The treatise examines whether the study of philosophy and logic is allowed by the Law, or prohibited or commanded
1. The Law Makes Philosophic Studies Obligatory
• The Law commands the study of philosophy
• “Reflect, you {who} have vision” (Quran, 59:2): this is textual authority
for the obligation to use intellectual reasoning
• This study must be conducted in the best manner, by demonstrative
reasoning
• The obligation to acquire a knowledge of intellectual reasoning
• But if someone other than ourselves has already examined that
subject, it is clear that we ought to seek help towards our goal from what has been said by such a predecessor on the subject, regardless of whether this other one shares our religion or not. (so long as it fulfils the conditions for validity)
• After logic we must proceed to philosophy proper. Here too we have to learn from our predecessors
○ Thus, it is wrong to forbid the study of ancient philosophy. Harm from it is accidental, like harm from taking medicine, drinking water, or studying law.
• When a thing is beneficial by its nature and essence, it ought not to be shunned because of something harmful contained in it by accident
• For every Muslim the Law has provided a way to truth suitable to his nature, through demonstrative, dialectical, or rhetorical methods
• That [end] is appointed for every Muslim by the method of assent that his temperament and nature require
2. Philosophy Contains Nothing Opposed to Islam
• Demonstrative truth and scriptural truth cannot conflict
• If the apparent meaning of Scripture conflicts with demonstrative
conclusions it must be interpreted allegorically, that is, metaphorically
• All Muslims accept the principle of allegorical interpretation; they only
disagree about the extent of its application ○ Ashari and Hanbali
• But it is recorded in Tradition that many of the first believers used to hold that Scripture has both an apparent and an inner meaning, and that the inner meaning ought not to be learned by anyone who is not a man of learning in this field and who is incapable of understanding it
• The situation is different in practical matters: everyone holds that the truth about these should be disclosed to all people alike
• This is enough to establish the occurrence of unanimity on matters of practice, but on matters of doctrine the case is different
• Such a charge (Avicenna and al-Farabi are unbelievers) cannot be definite, because there has never been a consensus against allegorical interpretation. The Quran itself indicates that it has inner meanings that it is the special function of the demonstrative class to understand
• For the unlearned believers are those whose belief in Him is not based on demonstration
• In reality they (Peripatetic philosophers) hold that God the Exalted knows them (particulars) in a way that is not of the same kind as our way of knowing them
• Thus the conclusion to which demonstration leads is that His Knowledge transcends qualification as “universal” or “particular.”
○ Consequently there is no point in disputing about this question, that is, whether to call them unbelievers or not
• Concerning the question whether the world is pre-eternal or came into existence, the disagreement between the Asharite theologians and the ancient philosophers is in my view almost resolvable into a disagreement about naming
○ For they agree that there are three classes of beings: two extremes and one intermediate between the extremes. They agree also about naming the extremes; but they disagree about the intermediate class
• Two extremes: originated (being that is brought into existence from something other than itself and is preceded by time); pre-eternal (being which is not made from or by anything and {is} not preceded by time), (being which is not made from or by anything and {is} not preceded by time)
• The class of being that is between these two extremes is that which is not made from anything and not preceded by time, but which is brought into existence by something, that is by an agent. This is the world as a whole
○ They only disagree about past time and past being: the theologians hold that it is finite (this is the doctrine of Plato and his followers), while Aristotle and his school hold that it is infinite, as is the case with future time
• So he who makes judgments about beings without having the proper qualifications for [such] judgments is not excused but is either a sinner or an unbeliever
• Texts of Scripture fall into three kinds with respect to the excusability of error
○ Texts that must be taken in their apparent meaning by everyone ○ Texts that must be taken in their apparent meaning by the lower
classes and interpreted allegorically by the demonstrative class ○ Texts that must be taken in their apparent meaning by the lower
classes and interpreted allegorically by the demonstrative class
• God has been gracious to those of His servants who have no access to demonstration, on account of their natures, habits, or lack of facilities
for education: He has coined for them images and likenesses of these things, and summoned them to assent to those images, since it is possible for assent to those images to come about through the indications common to all men, that is the dialectical and rhetorical indications
• The unlearned classes must take such texts in their apparent meaning. It is unbelief for the learned to set down allegorical interpretations in popular writings
○ By doing this {al-}Ghazali caused confusion among the people. Demonstrative books should be banned to the unqualified but not to the learned.
• This is as much as we see fit to affirm in this field of study, that is, the correspondence between religion and philosophy and the rules for allegorical interpretation in religion. If it were not for the publicity given to the matter and to these questions that we have discussed, we should not have permitted ourselves to write a word on the subject; and we should not have had to make excuses for doing so to the interpretative scholars, because the proper place to discuss these questions is in demonstrative books
3. Philosophical Interpretations of Scripture Should Not Be Taught to the Majority. The Law Provides Other Methods of Instructing Them
• The purpose of Scripture is to teach true theoretical and practical science and right practice and attitudes
○ Right practice consists in performing the acts that bring happiness and avoiding the acts that bring misery; and it is knowledge of these acts that is called “practical science.”
• Now some of the methods of assent comprehend the majority of people, that is, the occurrence of assent as a result of them [is comprehensive]: these are the rhetorical and the dialectical [methods]—and the rhetorical is more comprehensive than the dialectical
• Where symbols are used, each class of men, demonstrative, dialectical, and rhetorical, must try to understand the inner meaning symbolized or rest content with the apparent meaning, according to their capacities
• Thus, people in relation to Scripture fall into three classes
○ One class is these who are not people of interpretation at all:
these are the rhetorical class. They are the overwhelming mass,
for no man of sound intellect is exempted from this kind of assent
○ Another class is the people of dialectical interpretation: these are
the dialecticians, either by nature alone or by nature and habit
○ Another class is the people of certain interpretation: these are the
demonstrative class, by nature and training, that is, in the art of philosophy. This interpretation ought not to be expressed to the dialectical class, let alone to the masses
• He is unable to make them all doctors, because a doctor is one who knows by demonstrative methods the things that preserve health and cure disease
• It was due to the wrong use of allegorical interpretation by the Mutazilites and Asharites that hostile sects arose in Islam
○ One group saying, “The primary obligation is theoretical study,” another group saying, “It is belief”
• Philosophy is the friend and milk-sister of religion; thus injuries from people related to philosophy are the severest injuries [to religion]
The very aim of the book is to prove there is no constriction to philosophical study by the Law of God. Ibn Rushd also asserts that regardless of their religion we should learn from ancient philosophers. Intellectual study of things is obligated because by understanding the art and the product we will understand the Artisan, who is the god himself. I do not agree with his idea of not explaining allegorical interpretations of the Scripture to the rhetorical or dialectic class because it raises the question of who will decide whether someone belong to the dialectic class or not?
Keywords: particulars, universals, Scripture, reason, religion, philosophical study, intellectual reasoning, belief, examination, demonstrative, dialectical, rhetorical, allegorical interpretation, man of learning, originated, pre-eternal, Artisan, product
The treatise examines whether the study of philosophy and logic is allowed by the Law, or prohibited or commanded
1. The Law Makes Philosophic Studies Obligatory
• The Law commands the study of philosophy
• “Reflect, you {who} have vision” (Quran, 59:2): this is textual authority
for the obligation to use intellectual reasoning
• This study must be conducted in the best manner, by demonstrative
reasoning
• The obligation to acquire a knowledge of intellectual reasoning
• But if someone other than ourselves has already examined that
subject, it is clear that we ought to seek help towards our goal from what has been said by such a predecessor on the subject, regardless of whether this other one shares our religion or not. (so long as it fulfils the conditions for validity)
• After logic we must proceed to philosophy proper. Here too we have to learn from our predecessors
○ Thus, it is wrong to forbid the study of ancient philosophy. Harm from it is accidental, like harm from taking medicine, drinking water, or studying law.
• When a thing is beneficial by its nature and essence, it ought not to be shunned because of something harmful contained in it by accident
• For every Muslim the Law has provided a way to truth suitable to his nature, through demonstrative, dialectical, or rhetorical methods
• That [end] is appointed for every Muslim by the method of assent that his temperament and nature require
2. Philosophy Contains Nothing Opposed to Islam
• Demonstrative truth and scriptural truth cannot conflict
• If the apparent meaning of Scripture conflicts with demonstrative
conclusions it must be interpreted allegorically, that is, metaphorically
• All Muslims accept the principle of allegorical interpretation; they only
disagree about the extent of its application ○ Ashari and Hanbali
• But it is recorded in Tradition that many of the first believers used to hold that Scripture has both an apparent and an inner meaning, and that the inner meaning ought not to be learned by anyone who is not a man of learning in this field and who is incapable of understanding it
• The situation is different in practical matters: everyone holds that the truth about these should be disclosed to all people alike
• This is enough to establish the occurrence of unanimity on matters of practice, but on matters of doctrine the case is different
• Such a charge (Avicenna and al-Farabi are unbelievers) cannot be definite, because there has never been a consensus against allegorical interpretation. The Quran itself indicates that it has inner meanings that it is the special function of the demonstrative class to understand
• For the unlearned believers are those whose belief in Him is not based on demonstration
• In reality they (Peripatetic philosophers) hold that God the Exalted knows them (particulars) in a way that is not of the same kind as our way of knowing them
• Thus the conclusion to which demonstration leads is that His Knowledge transcends qualification as “universal” or “particular.”
○ Consequently there is no point in disputing about this question, that is, whether to call them unbelievers or not
• Concerning the question whether the world is pre-eternal or came into existence, the disagreement between the Asharite theologians and the ancient philosophers is in my view almost resolvable into a disagreement about naming
○ For they agree that there are three classes of beings: two extremes and one intermediate between the extremes. They agree also about naming the extremes; but they disagree about the intermediate class
• Two extremes: originated (being that is brought into existence from something other than itself and is preceded by time); pre-eternal (being which is not made from or by anything and {is} not preceded by time), (being which is not made from or by anything and {is} not preceded by time)
• The class of being that is between these two extremes is that which is not made from anything and not preceded by time, but which is brought into existence by something, that is by an agent. This is the world as a whole
○ They only disagree about past time and past being: the theologians hold that it is finite (this is the doctrine of Plato and his followers), while Aristotle and his school hold that it is infinite, as is the case with future time
• So he who makes judgments about beings without having the proper qualifications for [such] judgments is not excused but is either a sinner or an unbeliever
• Texts of Scripture fall into three kinds with respect to the excusability of error
○ Texts that must be taken in their apparent meaning by everyone ○ Texts that must be taken in their apparent meaning by the lower
classes and interpreted allegorically by the demonstrative class ○ Texts that must be taken in their apparent meaning by the lower
classes and interpreted allegorically by the demonstrative class
• God has been gracious to those of His servants who have no access to demonstration, on account of their natures, habits, or lack of facilities
for education: He has coined for them images and likenesses of these things, and summoned them to assent to those images, since it is possible for assent to those images to come about through the indications common to all men, that is the dialectical and rhetorical indications
• The unlearned classes must take such texts in their apparent meaning. It is unbelief for the learned to set down allegorical interpretations in popular writings
○ By doing this {al-}Ghazali caused confusion among the people. Demonstrative books should be banned to the unqualified but not to the learned.
• This is as much as we see fit to affirm in this field of study, that is, the correspondence between religion and philosophy and the rules for allegorical interpretation in religion. If it were not for the publicity given to the matter and to these questions that we have discussed, we should not have permitted ourselves to write a word on the subject; and we should not have had to make excuses for doing so to the interpretative scholars, because the proper place to discuss these questions is in demonstrative books
3. Philosophical Interpretations of Scripture Should Not Be Taught to the Majority. The Law Provides Other Methods of Instructing Them
• The purpose of Scripture is to teach true theoretical and practical science and right practice and attitudes
○ Right practice consists in performing the acts that bring happiness and avoiding the acts that bring misery; and it is knowledge of these acts that is called “practical science.”
• Now some of the methods of assent comprehend the majority of people, that is, the occurrence of assent as a result of them [is comprehensive]: these are the rhetorical and the dialectical [methods]—and the rhetorical is more comprehensive than the dialectical
• Where symbols are used, each class of men, demonstrative, dialectical, and rhetorical, must try to understand the inner meaning symbolized or rest content with the apparent meaning, according to their capacities
• Thus, people in relation to Scripture fall into three classes
○ One class is these who are not people of interpretation at all:
these are the rhetorical class. They are the overwhelming mass,
for no man of sound intellect is exempted from this kind of assent
○ Another class is the people of dialectical interpretation: these are
the dialecticians, either by nature alone or by nature and habit
○ Another class is the people of certain interpretation: these are the
demonstrative class, by nature and training, that is, in the art of philosophy. This interpretation ought not to be expressed to the dialectical class, let alone to the masses
• He is unable to make them all doctors, because a doctor is one who knows by demonstrative methods the things that preserve health and cure disease
• It was due to the wrong use of allegorical interpretation by the Mutazilites and Asharites that hostile sects arose in Islam
○ One group saying, “The primary obligation is theoretical study,” another group saying, “It is belief”
• Philosophy is the friend and milk-sister of religion; thus injuries from people related to philosophy are the severest injuries [to religion]
The very aim of the book is to prove there is no constriction to philosophical study by the Law of God. Ibn Rushd also asserts that regardless of their religion we should learn from ancient philosophers. Intellectual study of things is obligated because by understanding the art and the product we will understand the Artisan, who is the god himself. I do not agree with his idea of not explaining allegorical interpretations of the Scripture to the rhetorical or dialectic class because it raises the question of who will decide whether someone belong to the dialectic class or not?
Keywords: particulars, universals, Scripture, reason, religion, philosophical study, intellectual reasoning, belief, examination, demonstrative, dialectical, rhetorical, allegorical interpretation, man of learning, originated, pre-eternal, Artisan, product