Ibn Rushd on Philosophy and Religion relationships [Fasl al-Maqal]

The quiddity of relationship between philosophy and religion has always been a question throughout history at least starting from Early Apologetic Christian thinkers like Justin Martyr, Tertullian who stated that “Credo quia absurdum1” perhaps rhetorically, when Christians wanted to create space for themselves in Roman Empire and had to find a mental peace for being philosopher which necessitates questioning, and religion(Christianity) which necessitates having faith in Jesus. Generally speaking in Islamic Tradition, this has never been the main concern for that had to be with Christian thinkers for Muslims already having a tradition of Kalam, Fiqh, Tafsir before the astonishing translation movement which took place during 8th to 10th century2. Though it was not mainly the case, Islamic Tradition, of course, was not free from such discussions and rhetorics3. The widely known controversy was started by Abu Hamid al-Ghazali -who was the student of great Ash’ari theologian Imam al-Haramain al-Juwayni– with his Tahafut al-Falasife(Incoherence of Philosophers)4. The response to this work of Ghazali was written by Ibn Rushd(Averroes) 12th-century Andalusian philosopher who is the author of book Tahafut al-Tahafut(Incoherence of Incoherence) later on known as The Great Commentator(Sharih al-Akbar) for writing immense commentaries on Aristotle’s books. He never became an effective figure later Islamic Tradition but in the Latin, world created a brand-new flow called Averroism which had been effective up until 18th century in Europe. I think I’ve already given much info to build up people’s mind who are purely new to this topic for my only intention was to share the quote below by Ibn Rushd. As much as he is not one of my favorite philosophers and I’m not quite in agreement with his view of religion and philosophy5, I enjoyed reading this quote and as everyone likes to share what they like with those they like, I wanted to share the quote as well.

“Some people forbidding reading philosophy books because of the supposition of ragtag going astray only for them being interested in philosophy is like, looking at the people who died for the water they were drinking got stuck in their throats, and preventing a thirsty man from drinking clean and cool water which causes that person to die as well. In fact, though water getting stuck in one’s throat which causes that person die is an accidental case, dying for thirst is natural and inevitable.” (Ibn Rushd, Fasl al-Maqal, p. 72-73.)6

Footnotes

1- “I believe because it is absurd.”

2- In order to learn about this movement in details, you can begin with the work of Dimitri Gutas called “Greek Thought Arabic Culture” where he tries to understand the impetus of this movement.

3- Not to forget that in Islamic Tradition the word “Falsafa” was not purely understood in its etymological sense as “love for wisdom” but rather wisdom which was inherited from Greeks, especially the Peripatetics.Unfortunately, for this topic being immense one, I have to stop here with a short reminder.

4- Ghazali himself after his works on Philosophy was not able to escape from objections of stricter scholars of his time for being involved in philosophical discussions. Again to remind, here the word Falasife mainly refers to a group of thinkers and even a group of philosophers and moreover two philosophers: Ibn Sina(Avicenna) and Farabi.

5- Meaning, what he thinks religion is and what he thinks philosophy is.

6- The translation is from Turkish a book called İbn Rüşd Felsefesi by Hüseyin Sarıoğlu from Klasik Yayınları, not from original Arabic text for Arabic is yet to be learned by me.