This book describes the correlation which exists between religion and philosophy, the nature of external knowledge, and methods of argument and faith. It reveals the in-depth knowledge based on a collection of short works on religion by Averroës.

The Decisive Treatise is perhaps the most controversial work of Averroes (Ibn Rushd, 1126-1198) and belongs to a trilogy which boldly represent the philosophical contribution to Islamic theology of this famous Andalusian commentator on Aristotle. The Decisive Treatise is a fatwa (a legal opinion) that the judge, Averroes, promulgated for his fellow Malikite jurists in order to demonstrate that the study of philosophy is not only licit from the point of view of religious law, but even mandatory for the skilled people. However, many subjects are dealt with in this comparatively short book: An epistemology aimed to show that philosophical truth and religious truth are not in contradiction; a sociology of knowledge pointing out that humans are classified in three classes (philosophers, theologians, common folk); a Qur'anic hermeneutics suggesting how to approach philosophically the Holy Book in agreement with religious requirements and linguistic rules.

This book examines the question whether medieval Muslim philosophers Avicenna (Arabic Ibn Sīnā 980-1037) and Averroes (Arabic Ibn Rushd 1126-1198) are determinists. With a focus on physics and metaphysics it studies their views on chance events in nature, as well as matter, in particular prime matter, and divine providence. In addition it sets their positions against the historical/philosophical background that influenced their response, the Greco-Arabic philosophical tradition - Aristotelian and Neoplatonic - on the one hand, and the tradition of Islamic theology (kalām) on the other. In comparing their philosophical systems, it lays emphasis on the way in which Avicenna and Averroes use these traditions to offer an original answer to the problem of determinism.

Available for the first time in the English language, this is a complete and annotated translation of a key work by the twelfth-century Muslim philosopher, Averroes (Ibn Rushd). Acknowledged as the leading transmitter of Aristotelian th ought, Averroes also held controversial views about the re lationship between faith and reason, arguing that religion should not be allowed to impose limits on the exercise of rational thought. His theory of rationality, along with others on language, justice and the interpretation of religious texts, is clearly presented here, in a work that provides the most comprehensive picture available of Averroes's great intellectual achievements.

Engages with all aspects of Averroes' philosophy, from his thinking on Aristotle to his influence on Islamic law.

CONTENTS Paul J.J.M BakkerIntroduction Cristina CeramiL’éternel par soi Jean-Baptiste BrenetAlexandre d’Aphrodise ou le matérialiste malgré lui Dag Nikolaus HasseAverroes’ Critique of Ptolemy and Its Reception by John of Jandun andAgostino Nifo Silvia DonatiIs Celestial Motion a Natural Motion? Cecilia TrifogliThe Reception of Averroes’ View on Motion in the Latin West Edith Dudley SyllaAverroes and Fourteenth-Century Theories of Alteration Craig MartinProvidence and Seventeenth-Century Attacks on Averroes Bibliography Index Codicum Manu ScriptorumIndex Nominum

This book examines the contrasting interpretations of Islam and the Qur’an by Averroes and Al-Ghazali, as a way of helping us untangle current impasses affecting each Abrahamic faith. This has traditionally been portrayed as a battle between philosophy and theology, but the book shows that Averroes was rather more religious and Al-Ghazali more philosophical than they are usually portrayed. The book traces the interaction between two Muslim thinkers, showing how each is convinced of the existence of a Book in which God is revealed to rational beings, to whom He has given commandments, as well as of the excellence of Islamic society. Yet they differ regarding the proper way to interpret the sacred Book. From this point of view, their discussion does not address the contrast between philosophy and religion, or that between reason and revelation that is so characteristic of the Middle Ages, but rather explores differences at the heart of philosophical discussion in our day: is there a level of discourse which will facilitate mutual comprehension among persons, allowing them to engage in debate? This interpretation of sacred texts illustrates the ways religious practice can shape believers’ readings of their sacred texts, and how philosophical interpretations can be modified by religious practice. Moreover, since this sort of inquiry characterizes each Abrahamic tradition, this study can be expected to enhance interfaith conversation and explore religious ways to enhance tolerance between other believers.