What has law to do with philosophy ?
On any legal issue, there are ten different opinions,”
Abou El Fadl, University of California
Condemnation by religious law1
Philosophers who reject the creatio ex nihilo are not only sinners but
unbelievers. That was the opinion of Al-Ghazali, an important jurist and
soefi in the Golden Age of Islam. Following the metaphysics of ancient
Greeks contradicts Islam. According to law philosophers who do this
have to be condemned to death. Their arguments don’t survive
philosophical criticism, their claims cannot be proofed by demonstrative
reason.
Al-Ghazali, not only jurist but also philosopher in Bagdad (1058-1111),
proofed this on twenty points by logic in his Incoherence of the
Philosophers. In the last lines of this book he demanded the death penalty for rejecting Gods
creation of the world and two other positions the philosophers held. Al-Ghazali gained a
supreme position in the Muslim world and has kept this position until now.
However, in 1179, the chief Qadi (Judge) of Cordoba, Ibn
Rush or Averroes, wrote a legal defence of the Islamic
philosophers, The decisive treatise. He defended exactly the
positions Ghazali claimed to be heretical: the eternity of the
world, the limitation of God’s knowledge to universals and
the denial of bodily resurrection. Averroes claims that this
philosophy contains nothing opposed to Islam.
So, in the Golden Age of Islam (9th-12th century), two
important jurists and philosophers had opposing ideas about
the relation between law and philosophy. The opposition concerned Aristotelian philosophy
about eternity, Gods knowledge and resurrection on the one hand and Islamic law on the
other. What then is the link between law and philosophy?
Do the methods of the Philosophers undermine the sacredness of divine revelation?
You would think that Islamic belief was satisfied with its own sources and didn’t need any
additions from philosophers. Only the Law is able to promote a life of morality, virtue and
righteousness, and thus the happiness of people and the well-being of the state are contingent
upon the obedience of the Law.
However as Islam spread over a large region of the world it came in contact with the ancient
Greek and the Persian culture, that had a lot to offer. A tradition of translators occurred. But
the role of philosophical methods and the place of reason in the study of religion was
controversial. Many Islamic scholars believed such approaches undermined the sacredness of
divine revelation. So, the relation between law and philosophy became questioned. Al Ghazali
and Ibn Rushd seemed to have been each at a different pole of the relation between law and
philosophy. Al Ghazali argued in The Revival of Religious Sciences that prayers and rituals
1 The term law can be misleading . Here “Law” is
revealed law of Islam
1
, law in this context only refers to the
could provide direct knowledge of God, while theological arguments (kalam) and falsafa
(philosophy) could not offer certainty. This had a profound impact on later generations of
Muslims.
Inb Rushd’s aim
Ibn Rushd on the other hand wrote The Decisive Treatise which he directed to the staunchest
opponents of Greek philosophy. He addressed this group in direct terms, describing them as a
small minority of ‘gross literalists’. They ‘could be refuted by sacred texts and further claims
that ‘most masters of this religion support intellectual reasoning’
Ibn Rushd was a main jurist and high judge of the Almohads in Andalusia. He was an expert
in Islamic law (Qurʾān exegesis, Hadith 2, and Fiqh 3 ) and he admired the works of
Aristoteles. He wrote very influential short, middle and line by line commentaries on almost
all Aristotle’s works. Christian scholars, as Aquino, called him the commentator. So, he
defended the agreement between religious law and philosophy.
What the law has to say about philosophy
in his defence of philosophy in The Decisive Treatise Ibn Rushd started directly by
focussing om the law and the link with philosophy. His aim is to clarify this link, as he
opens with: ‘To examine, from the standpoint of the study of the Law, whether the
study of philosophy and logic is allowed by the Law, or prohibited, or commanded,
either by way of recommendation or as obligatory.’ In the next step he not only
argues, citing the Qor ‘an, that both can be reconciled, but claims, that the Law
actually obligates this study of philosophy and logic upon its followers. (point 2 of The
Decisive Treatise). So, philosophy is compulsory according to the law.
Philosophers are the preferred class to interpret the law
Averroes states that logic promotes the knowledge of God, as legal reasoning study
enhances the knowledge of the law. People should have a mastery of logic to provide
the best arguments. There are different people and they have different capabilities.
Here an elitist position for philosophers is claimed. Only few can master logic and
demonstrative reason, others, like the theologians use dialectics. Then there are
people who need rhetoric and similarities to assent to the Qor ‘an.
“This is the reason for the Law being divided into an apparent sense and an inner
sense”. “The divine Law accommodated different approaches. In accordance with the
different classes of understanding.” Not everybody can understand the Qor’an in the
deepest way. There is an apparent meaning, accessible to all. This serves as the surface
understanding of the text. It is often symbolic and straightforward. The inner meaning, on the
other hand, is hidden and requires deeper insight. An insight that is reserved only for
philosophers. In paragraph 35 Ibn Rush states:
“This is why it is obligatory that interpretations be established only in books using
demonstrations: for if they are in books using demonstrations, no one but those adept in
demonstration will get at them.
Al Ghazali was wrong to share his interpretations with everybody, Ibn Rushd argues: “
2 Hadith refers to the sayings and actions of the Prophet Muhammad, while sunnah refers to his way
of life and the example he set for his followers (thecontentauthority.com/blog/hadith-vs-sunnah)
3 Fiiqh is Islamic jurisprudence. Fiqh is often described as the human understanding and practices of
the sharia, that is human understanding of the divine Islamic law as revealed in the Quran and the
sunnah (the teachings and practices of the Islamic prophet Muhammad and his companions)
(Wikipedia)
2
Whereas if they are established in other than demonstrative books with poetical and rhetorical
or dialectical methods used in them, as Abū H.āmid [al-Ghazālī] does, that is an error against
the Law and against wisdom.”
So, Ibn Rushd has turned the table and claims that philosophers are not incoherent, but they
have a capacity others (theologians and ordinary people) are lacking to understand the Law
and the Qor ‘an its deeper meaning.
Errors are possible, but that does not mean that the philosopher is to be forbidden and
condemned, but that the claim that is an error should be discussed and improved.
To conclude, Ibn Rushd demonstrated that the study of philosophy and logic is not only
accepted, but obliged by the Law and necessary, because only philosophers are capable of the
demonstrative reason that is needed for understanding not only the apparent meaning but also
the inner meaning of the Qor ‘an. Law and philosophy are not opposed. Interpretation of the
Law is dependent on philosophy.
Medieval Philosophy
The Commentator
Marianne Beelaerts
S 4070097
5 mei 2024
3