the decisive treatise notes

Averroes: The Decisive Treatise

Reconcile religion (Divine Law) and philosophyMakes a series of claims, and then proceeds to support said claims

CHAPTER 1

1. Teleological study of the world is philosophy, and [divine] law commands such a study of the world, then the law commands philosophy

^Aristotelian logic^

“Philosophy” is the study of existing beings & reflections on them (through the ‘Artisan’ = philosopher?) Divine law has “encouraged and urged” such reflection Therefore the law commands philosophy

2. The Law commands such a study (philosophy)

References biblical texts (Qur’an)

“Reflect, you have vision” = ‘textual authority for the obligation to use intellectual reasoning/legal reasoning’

“Have they not studied the kingdom of the heavens and the earth, and whatever things God has created?” = Urges the study of the totality of beings

3. This study must be conducted in the best manner, by demonstrative reasoning

Reflection: inference and drawing out of the unknown from the known^This is reasoning/done by reasoning Therefore we must carry on study of beings by intellectual reasoning

Most perfect kind of study with most perfect kind of reasoning : “demonstration” (demonstrative reasoning)

4. “To master this instrument,” the religious thinker must first make a study of logic. This is no more heretical in one case than in the other. And logic must be learned from the ancient masters, regardless of the fact that they were not Muslims.

Necessary for those who want to understand God and other beings demonstratively to first understand the first kinds of demonstration & their conditions/what makes them valid. & how demonstrative reasoning differs from dialectical, rhetorical, and fallacious reasoning.

Must first know what reasoning is/the different kinds/which are valid.[This part works backwards. Fairly confusing]

Must have first learned the premises and kinds of reasoning.

[He who believes in divine law must first study and understand all of these things before he can truly understand divine law (?)]

Likens religious person to a lawyer with similar obligations (3-4) Obligation to study IR and its kinds, just as there is with LR.

Objection: “This kind of study of intellectual reasoning is a heretical innovation since it did not exist among the first believers.”Answers that the objector should believe the same of intellectual reasoning as he does of legal reasoning

Of looking to our ancestors despite the fact they were not Muslim:

One cannot find all he needs to know by himself. So if someone other than ourselves has already examined the subject, we should look to him for help towards our goal, regardless of whether said predecessor shares our religion

[Averroes is a very modern thinker]

**Sacrifice analogy regarding predecessors**

5. After logic we must proceed to philosophy in the right way. So we must learn from our predecessors, just as in math and law. Therefore, study of ancient philosophy should not be forbidden. “Harm from it is accidental…”

Examine beings in the way we learned from the demonstrative syllogisms

Successive examinations of beings by one man after another, the later seeking the help of the earlier in that task

Accept from predecessors whatever accords with the truth, and call into question and warn against whatever does not (at the same time excusing them)

Anyone who forbids the study to those fit to study such is “blocking people from the door by which the Law summons them to knowledge of God, the door of theoretical study which leads to the truest knowledge of him.^Such an act is of extreme ignorance & estrangement to God

Just because some may not understand does not mean the study should be forbidden to all, aka to those who are fit to study such without causing harm

**Water analogy regarding forbiddance**

Accidental harm may occur in other arts as well, so why forbid only philosophy/treat it differently?

6. For every Muslim the Law has provided a way to truth suitable to his nature, through demonstrative, dialectical, or rhetorical methods.

Different men find God in different manners

“Summon to the way of your Lord by wisdom and by good preaching, and debate with them in the most effective manner.”

CHAPTER 2

Philosophy contains nothing opposed to Islam

1. Demonstrative truth and scriptural truth cannot conflict.

The religion is true and summons us to study philosophy. “Truth does not oppose truth but accords with it and bears witness to it.”

2. If the apparent meaning of Scripture conflicts, then it must be interpreted allegorically.

If study leads to knowledge about a being, that being is inevitably mentioned or unmentioned in Scripture. If unmentioned, no contradiction. If mentioned & accords, no argument. If mentioned & conflicts, allegorical interpretation.

3. If a lawyer can do this, a religious thinker certainly can. Such allegorical interpretations are always confirmed by Scripture.

Better done by one who has demonstrative knowledge

“Whenever a statement in Scripture conflicts in its apparent meaning with a conclusion of demonstration, if Scripture is considered carefully, and the rest of its contents searched page by page, there will invariably be found among the expressions of Scripture something in which in its apparent meaning bears witness to that allegorical interpretation or comes close to bearing witness.”

4. All Muslims accept the principle of allegorical interpretation; they only disagree about the extent of its application.

5. The double meaning has been given to suit people’s diverse intelligence. The apparent contradictions are meant to stimulate the learned to deeper study.

Scripture has both apparent and inner meaning to suit one’s natural capacities and challenge (?) their minds.

6. In allegorical interpretations we must never violate Islamic consensus, when it is certain, But to establish it with certainty with regard to theoretical texts is impossible, because there have always been scholars who would not divulge their interpretation of such texts.

No one should definitely be called an unbeliever for violating unanimity on a point of such interpretation. Interpretation is subjective, opinionated. So there should not be only one way to interpret. We cannot be sure that our ancestors agreed unanimously on one interpretation, so how can we? (as a single interpretation was not handed down to us)

7. Ghazali’s charge of unbelief against Farabi and Ibn Sina, for asserting the world’s eternity and God’s ignorance of particulars and denying bodily resurrection, is only tentative, not definite.

He made it clear in his book that calling people unbelievers on the grounds of violating unanimity is only tentative.

8. Such a charge cannot be definite, for there has never been a consensus against allegorical interpretation.

Refer to 6 (same premise) Refer to lines 87-92

9. Ghazali was mistaken in that they [Peripatetics] believed God holds no knowledge of particulars. They simply meant that his knowledge of universals and particulars is different from our own, in being the cause, not the effect, of an object known. They hold that God sends premonitions in dreams of particular events.

Our knowledge of them begins when an object comes into existence and changing when it changes Whereas God’s knowledge of existence is the opposite of this: the cause of the existent being. There is no definition embracing both kinds of knowledge at once (opposites).

His knowledge transcends “universals” and “particulars”.

10. Ancient philosophers believe that time began with the creation of the world. Peripatetics disagree, as they believe that past time is infinite. This difference is insufficient to justify a charge of unbelief.

I. One being brought into existence by something other than itself and it existence is preceded by time = “originated”

II. Opposite: A being which is not made from or by anything and not preceded by time = “pre-eternal” (God)

III. Between 2 extremes: A class of being not made from or by anything but brought into existence by something other than itself

Disagree only about past-time and past-being Opinions must be divergent in the extreme for one to be called an unbeliever

11. The apparent meaning of Scripture is that there was a being and time before God created the present being and time. And so the theologians’ interpretation is allegorical and does not command unanimous agreement.

Line 107 The throne and the water etc. APPARENTLY imply that there was a being before this current being and a time before this time Next line about change implies that there will be another being after this current beingNext line APPARENTLY implies that the heavens were created from something

So clearly the theologians interpret the meaning of the Scripture, as well

12. On such difficult questions, God excuses error committed by a qualified judge, while error by am unqualified person is not excused.

Those with a different interpretation, if qualified (scholarly), are excused. Those that are unqualified are not excused to have a different interpretation/dispute interpretation. Assent to an error. Agree with an error. Error from those that are not scholarly is considered sin.

Texts of Scripture fall into three kinds with respect to the excusability of error. [1] Texts which must be taken in their apparent meaning by everyone. Since the meaning can be understood plainly by demonstrative, dialectical and rhetorical methods alike, no one is excused for the error of interpreting these texts allegorically. [2] Texts which must be taken in their apparent meaning by the lower classes and interpreted allegorically by the demonstrative class. It is inexcusable for the lower classes to interpret them allegorically or for the demonstrative class to take them in their apparent meaning. [3] Texts whose classification under the previous headings is uncertain. Error in this matter by the demonstrative class is excused.

Error excused for a scholar, not excused for a non-scholar Heresy, if concerning something subordinate in principles

Heresy Matters, knowledge of which is provided by all the different methods of indication, so that knowledge of the matter in question is in this way possible for everyone. Whoever denies such when it is a principle of law, is an unbeliever

For those that have no access to demonstration: God has coined 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, i.e. the dialectical and rhetorical indications. This is the reason why Scripture is divided into apparent and inner meanings: the apparent meaning consists of those images which are coined to stand for those ideas, while the inner meaning is those ideas [themselves], which are clear only to the demonstrative class. 

If an apparent text refers to principles, and one interprets it allegorically, he is an unbeliever.

** There are [1] apparent texts of Scripture which it is not permitted to interpret allegorically; to do so on fundamentals is unbelief, on subordinate matters, heresy. 

** There are also [2] apparent texts which have to be interpreted allegorically by men of the demonstrative class; for such men to take them in their apparent meaning is unbelief, while for those who are not of the demonstrative class to interpret them allegorically and take them out of their apparent meaning is unbelief or heresy on their part.

** In between texts (reminiscent of in between originated and pre-eternal)

For anyone whose duty it is to believe in the apparent meaning, allegorical interpretation is unbelief, because it LEADS to unbelief.

Therefore allegorical interpretations should be set down only in demonstrative books

[Platonism in that he advocates censorship]

CHAPTER 3

Purpose of Scripture is to teach true science and right practice.

True science: Knowledge of God and all other beings & knowledge of happiness and misery in the next life

Rhetorical is easier to understand for most people than dialectical or demonstrative. Since Scripture wants to teach majority, majority should be taught using the rhetorical.The Four Classes: [P. 14]

With symbolism, the inner meaning must be understood or the text should be read literally (according to their capacity/qualifications).

Explaining the inner meaning to those unqualified (unable to understand) will only destroy their belief in the apparent meaning and thus create unbelievers.The learned must “profess ignorance.”

False allegorical interpretation injures the masses. Doctor analogy**

It was due to false allegorical interpretations by the Mu’tazlites and Ash’arites that hostile sects to arise in Islam

Make a study of the Qur’an’s teaching at the apparent level in order to correct the harm done by false allegorical interpretations

EXTRACT

Bodily symbols are more effective than spiritual symbols when instructing the masses/majority (Why they are utilized in the Qur’an)

“God’s foreknowledge of all change does not solve the problem, as the theologians think, for the actual occurrence of the change presumably adds something new to His Knowledge.” (?)

“Nor is Ghazali’s solution satisfactory. He regards God’s Knowledge as a term in a relation, which does not change in itself when that to which it is related, the known object, changes its relation to it. But knowledge is a relation, not a related.” (?)

The eternal Knowledge is the cause of beings not their effect as originated knowledge is. It does not change when they change. [CAUSE not EFFECT]

Symbols:

1. Afterlife is the same as this life, but eternal/permanent. Not limited in duration.2. Afterlife is different: Wholly spiritual. 3. Afterlife is different: Corporeal, but bodies are different, immortal bodies, not the perishable

ones we have in life.

Qur’an equates death with sleep. Since the soul is not dissolved in sleep, it is therefore the body, not the soul, which ceases.

Allegorical Interpretation

i. Some texts: Apparent meaning is the intended meaning. No allegorical interpretation is appropriate for these texts.

ii. Where there is symbolism:

Difficult to understand. Should be interpreted only by those qualified to do so.

Easy to see the symbolism and what is meant by it. All should interpret such texts allegorically.

Easy to see symbolism but not what is meant by it. In such cases, the masses should take the apparent meaning, or given a simple allegorical interpretation of the text.

Difficult to see symbolism, but easy to know what is being symbolized. Existence of symbolization should be denied.