What prompts Ibn Rushd to compose the Decisive Treatise.?
The decisive treatise is a form of written work written by Ibn Rushd, which boldly portrays the contribution of philosophy to Islamic theology.Notably, Ibn Rushn, often Romanized as Averroes, wrote the decisive treatise with the aim of demonstrating that the study of philosophy is not only logically legal from the religious law perspective but also obligatory for profession point of view. In the decisive treatise, Ibn critically examined the supposed tension between philosophy and Islamic religion, where he challenged the anti-philosophical beliefsthat existed within the Sunni tradition.
What position had Ibn Rush taken in his ruling on the study of philosophy? How does he come to this decision?
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Ibn Rush affirmed the claim made by multiple Muslim theologians stating that philosophers were outside the Islamic grasps and that they had no foundation in scripture. He further offered three ways that can be used for discerning doctrinal truth. Among the three reasons that Ibn Rushd gave, he put an emphasis on philosophy as the best approach, hence claiming that it should not be precluded. He further argued that Philosophy is a discourse that exclusively relies on expository reasoning, which builds on existing knowledge thus helping philosophers to draw hypothesis that broadens the apprehension of prevailing beings.
What does Ibn Rushd mean when he says, “Truth cannot contradict truth?”
Subsequently, Ibn Rushd came up with influential commentaries that ignited the revival of Western scholarly in ancient Greek philosophy. One of such commentary is where he stated, “Truth cannot contradict truth.” Ibn Rushd used this statement to imply that philosophy is logical. Further, this statement demonstrates how philosophy aims at attaining religious literalism, hence, the possibility of attaining a double truth.
If scripture contradicts logical analysis, what does Ibn Rushd say one must conclude? How does this recourse to metaphor/allegory allow for the possibility of a plurality of interpretations of scripture?
Consequently, Ibn Rushd’s critique led to the revival of the examination of Christian tradition, which had a lasting influence on philosophical tradition. Ibn Rushd further maintains a distinction regarding the logical analysis matters related to creation, after life, and divine forethought. He pointed out that the issue regarding personal immortality should be a matter of eminent discourse over its comprehensive meaning and intent. As a result, matters relating to scripture should not be shared with the mass since they could lead to confusion and harm due to constant questioning. Therefore, Ibn Rushd argued that of matters related to the scripture should be restricted to evident apprehension.
Will all scholars agree on what is and is not allegory/metaphor? What must they do if they cannot all agree?
Ibn Rushd stated that scholars who believe in and are followers of the law ought to possess knowledge of the various kinds of logical reasoning, their conditions, and the conditions that distinguish logical reasoning from dialectic persuasiveness beforehand. Nevertheless, it is acceptable for legal scholars and students of divinity to have different opinions regarding creation and the existence of God. However, Ibn Rush provided a course to follow in case of any dispute regarding creation. He argued that, the same way a student would discover the significance of possessing beforehand knowledge to legal reasoning together with all its forms of necessities, would also be the same way that he discovers the necessity of philosophical reasoning by observing creation. Therefore, concluding that if a legal scholar is able to establish the necessity of legal reasoning from the scripture, then a student of divinity should have be in a better position of proving the same through philosophical apprehension. Thus such a conflict should be solved by the interpretation of the scripture allegorically.
Does Ibn Rushd allow believers to interpret the text as they like? How does Decisive Treatise set the stage for the possibility for the difference in religious beliefs?
In conclusion, Ibn Rushd denied believers interpretation of religious teaching as they like stating that God’s providence should be perceived as the accident God’s self-apprehension. Hence, the accurate perception of the scripture and interpretation should be kept away from the mass. Nevertheless, although the Ibn Rush agrees that expository truth cannot conflict with the scripture decisive treatise provides a possibility for diverse religious beliefs since it emphasizes on logical reasoning whereas religious beliefs mainly analyzes religious concepts.
