FANDOM



Ibn Rushd (known in European literature as Averroes)
File:AverroesColor.jpg
Born 1126
Cordoba, Al-Andalus
Died 10 December 1198 (aged 71–72)
Marrakech, Morocco
Era Medieval Philosophy
Region Muslim scholar
School Maliki, Sunni Islam.
Averroism.
Main interests Islamic theology, Islamic law, Islamic philosophy, Geography, Medicine, Mathematics, Physics
Notable ideas Existence precedes essence; inertia; rejected epicycles; arachnoid mater; Parkinson's disease; photoreceptor; secular thought; and the reconciliation of reason with faith, philosophy with religion, and Aristotelianism with Islam

Abū 'l-Walīd Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad ibn Rushd (Arabic: أبو الوليد محمد بن احمد بن رشد‎), better known just as Ibn Rushd (Arabic: ابن رشد‎), and in European literature as Averroes (IPA: /əˈvɛroʊ.iːz/) (1126 – December 10, 1198), was an Andalusian Muslim polymath; a master of Islamic philosophy, Islamic theology, Maliki law and jurisprudence, logic, psychology, politics, Arabic music theory, and the sciences of medicine, astronomy, geography, mathematics, physics and celestial mechanics. He was born in Córdoba, Al Andalus, modern-day Spain, and died in Marrakesh, modern-day Morocco. His school of philosophy is known as Averroism. He has been described by some[2] as the founding father of secular thought in Western Europe and "one of the spiritual fathers of Europe,"[3] although other scholars oppose such claims.[4][5]

His name is also seen as Averroës, Averroès or Averrhoës, indicating that the "o" and the "e" form separate syllables. Averroes is a Latinate distortion of the actual Arab name Ibn Rushd.[6]

According to Ernest Renan, he was also called as Ibin-Ros-din, Filius Rosadis, Ibn-Rusid, Ben-Raxid, Ibn-Ruschod, Den-Resched, Aben-Rassad, Aben-Rois, Aben-Rasd, Aben- Rust, Avenrosdy Avenryz, Adveroys, Benroist, Avenroyth, Averroysta, etc. "Averroès et l'Averroïsme : essai historique"[1]

BiographyEdit

Ibn Rushd came from a family of Islamic legal scholars; his grandfather Abu Al-Walid Muhammad (d. 1126) was chief judge of Qurtabah (Córdoba) under the Almoravid dynasty. His father, Abu Al-Qasim Ahmad, held the same position until the coming of the Almohad dynasty in 1146.[7]

Ibn Rushd began his career with the help of Ibn Tufail ("Aben Tofail" to the West), the author of Hayy ibn Yaqdhan and philosophic vizier of Almohad amir Abu Yaqub Yusuf. It was Ibn Tufail who introduced him to the court and to Ibn Zuhr ("Avenzoar" to the West), the great Muslim physician, who became Ibn Rushd's teacher and friend.[8] Ibn Rushd later reported how it was also Ibn Tufail that inspired him to write his famous commentaries on Aristotle:

Abu Bakr ibn Tufayl summoned me one day and told me that he had heard the Commander of the Faithful complaining about the disjointedness of Aristotle's mode of expression — or that of the translators — and the resultant obscurity of his intentions. He said that if someone took on these books who could summarize them and clarify their aims after first thoroughly understanding them himself, people would have an easier time comprehending them. “If you have the energy,” Ibn Tufayl told me, “you do it. I'm confident you can, because I know what a good mind and devoted character you have, and how dedicated you are to the art. You understand that only my great age, the cares of my office — and my commitment to another task that I think even more vital — keep me from doing it myself.”[9]

Ibn Rushd was also a student of Ibn Bajjah ("Avempace" to the West), another famous Islamic philosopher who greatly influenced his own Averroist thought. However, while the thought of his mentors Ibn Tufail and Ibn Bajjah were mystic to an extent, the thought of Ibn Rushd was purely rationalist. Together, the three men are considered the greatest Andalusian philosophers.[7]

In 1160, Ibn Rushd was made Qadi (judge) of Seville and he served in many court appointments in Seville, Cordoba, and Morocco during his career. At the end of the 12th century, following the Almohads conquest of Al-Andalus, his political career was ended. Ibn Rushd's strictly rationalist views which collided with the more orthodox views of Abu Yusuf Ya'qub al-Mansur led to him banishing Averroes though he had previously appointed him as his personal physician. Averroes was not reinstated until shortly before his death. He devoted the rest of his life to his philosophical writings.

WorksEdit

Ibn Rushd's works were spread over 20,000 pages covering a variety of different subjects, including early Islamic philosophy, logic in Islamic philosophy, Arabic medicine, Arabic mathematics, Arabic astronomy, Arabic grammar, Islamic theology, Sharia (Islamic law), and Fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence). In particular, his most important works dealt with Islamic philosophy, medicine and Fiqh. He wrote at least 67 original works, which included 28 works on philosophy, 20 on medicine, 8 on law, 5 on theology, and 4 on grammar, in addition to his commentaries on most of Aristotle's works and his commentary on Plato's The Republic.[7]

He wrote commentaries on most of the surviving works of Aristotle. These were not based on primary sources (it is not known whether he knew Greek), but rather on Arabic translations. There were three levels of commentary: the Jami, the Talkhis and the Tafsir which are, respectively, a simplified overview, an intermediate commentary with more critical material, and an advanced study of Aristotelian thought in a Muslim context. The terms are taken from the names of different types of commentary on the Qur'an. It is not known whether he wrote commentaries of all three types on all the works: in most cases only one or two commentaries survive.

He did not have access to any text of Aristotle's Politics. As a substitute for this, he commented on Plato's The Republic, arguing that the ideal state there described was the same as the original constitution of the Arab Caliphate,[7] as well as the Almohad state of Ibn Tumart.

File:AverroesAndPorphyry.JPG

His most important original philosophical work was The Incoherence of the Incoherence (Tahafut al-tahafut), in which he defended Aristotelian philosophy against al-Ghazali's claims in The Incoherence of the Philosophers (Tahafut al-falasifa). Al-Ghazali argued that Aristotelianism, especially as presented in the writings of Avicenna, was self-contradictory and an affront to the teachings of Islam. Averroes' rebuttal was two-pronged: he contended both that al-Ghazali's arguments were mistaken and that, in any case, the system of Avicenna was a distortion of genuine Aristotelianism so that al-Ghazali was aiming at the wrong target. Other works were the Fasl al-Maqal, which argued for the legality of philosophical investigation under Islamic law, and the Kitab al-Kashf, which argued against the proofs of Islam advanced by the Ash'arite school and discussed what proofs, on the popular level, should be used instead.

Averroes is also a highly-regarded legal scholar of the Maliki school. Perhaps his best-known work in this field is Bidāyat al-Mujtahid wa Nihāyat al-Muqtaṣid ( بداية المجتهد و نهاية المقتصد), a textbook of Maliki doctrine in a comparative framework.

In medicine, Averroes wrote a medical encyclopedia called Kulliyat ("Generalities", i.e. general medicine), known in its Latin translation as Colliget. He also made a compilation of the works of Galen (129-200) and wrote a commentary on The Law of Medicine (Qanun fi 't-tibb) of Avicenna (Ibn Sina) (980-1037).

Jacob Anatoli translated several of the works of Averroes from Arabic into Hebrew in the 1200s. Many of them were later translated from Hebrew into Latin by Jacob Mantino and Abraham de Balmes. Other works were translated directly from Arabic into Latin by Michael Scot. Many of his works in logic and metaphysics have been permanently lost, while others, including some of the longer Aristotelian commentaries, have only survived in Latin or Hebrew translation, not in the original Arabic. The fullest version of his works is in Latin, and forms part of the multi-volume Juntine edition of Aristotle published in Venice 1562-1574.

ContributionsEdit

PhilosophyEdit

File:Giovanni di Paolo St. Thomas Aquinas Confounding Averroës.JPG
See also: Averroism and The Incoherence of the Incoherence

According to Ibn Rushd, there is no conflict between religion and philosophy, rather that they are different ways of reaching the same truth. He believed in the eternity of the universe. He also held that the soul is divided into two parts, one individual and one divine; while the individual soul is not eternal, all humans at the basic level share one and the same divine soul. Ibn Rushd has two kinds of Knowledge of Truth. The first being his knowledge of truth of religion being based in faith and thus could not be tested, nor did it require training to understand. The second knowledge of truth is philosophy, which was reserved for an elite few who had the intellectual capacity to undertake this study.

The concept of "existence precedes essence", a key foundational concept of existentialism, can also be found in the works of Ibn Rushd, as a reaction to Ibn Sina's concept of "essence precedes existence".[11] Ibn Rushd's most famous original philosophical work was The Incoherence of the Incoherence, a rebuttal to Al-Ghazali's The Incoherence of the Philosophers. In medieval Europe, his school of philosophy known as Averroism exerted a strong influence on Jewish philosophers such as Gersonides and Maimonides[7], and was opposed by Christian philosophers such as Thomas Aquinas.[4][5]

AstronomyEdit

At the age of 25, Ibn Rushd conducted astronomical observations near Marrakech, Morocco, during which he discovered a previously unobserved star.[12]

In astronomical theory, Ibn Rushd rejected the eccentric deferents introduced by Ptolemy. He rejected the Ptolemaic model and instead argued for a strictly concentric model of the universe. He wrote the following criticism on the Ptolemaic model of planetary motion:[13]

"To assert the existence of an eccentric sphere or an epicyclic sphere is contrary to nature. [...] The astronomy of our time offers no truth, but only agrees with the calculations and not with what exists."

Ibn Rushd also argued that the Moon is opaque and obscure, and has some parts which are thicker than others, with the thicker parts receiving more light from the Sun than the thinner parts of the Moon.[14] He also gave one of the first descriptions on sunspots.[15]

Celestial mechanicsEdit

See also: Celestial spheres

In celestial mechanics, while discussing the celestial spheres, Averroes rejected John Philoponus' 'anti-Aristotelian' solution to his refutation of Aristotelian celestial dynamics, and instead restored Aristotle's law of motion by adopting the 'hidden variable' approach to resolving apparent refutations of parametric laws that posits a previously unaccounted variable and its value(s) for some parameter, thereby modifying the predicted value of the subject variable. For, he posited a non-gravitational, previously unaccounted, inherent resistance to motion, as hidden within the celestial spheres. This was a non-gravitational inherent resistance to motion of superlunary quintessential matter, whereby R > 0 even when there is neither any gravitational, nor any media resistance, to motion.

Hence, in refuting the prediction of Aristotelian celestial dynamics:

[ (i) v α F/R & (ii) F > 0 & (iii) R = 0entail v is infinite

the alternative logic of Averroes' solution was to reject its third premise "R = 0" instead of rejecting its first premise as Philoponus had.

Thus Averroes most significantly revised Aristotle's law of motion "v α F/R" into "v α F/M" for the case of celestial motion with his auxiliary theory of what may be called celestial inertia M, whereby R = M > 0. But Averroes restricted inertia to celestial bodies and denied sublunar bodies have any inherent resistance to motion other than their gravitational (or levitational) inherent resistance to violent motion, just as in Aristotle's original sublunar physics.

However, Thomas Aquinas, also a student of Aristotelianism, rejected this denial of sublunar inertia and extended Averroes' innovation in the celestial physics of the spheres to all sublunar bodies. He posited all bodies universally have a non-gravitational inherent resistance to motion constituted by their magnitude or mass.[16] In his Systeme du Monde, the pioneering historian of medieval science Pierre Duhem, stated:

"For the first time we have seen human reason distinguish two elements in a heavy body: the motive force, that is, in modern terms, the weight; and the moved thing, the corpus quantum, or as we say today, the mass. For the first time we have seen the notion of mass being introduced in mechanics, and being introduced as equivalent to what remains in a body when one has suppressed all forms in order to leave only the prime matter quantified by its determined dimensions. Saint Thomas Aquinas's analysis, completing Ibn Bajja's, came to distinguish three notions in a falling body: the weight, the mass, and the resistance of the medium, about which physics will reason during the modern era....This mass, this quantified body, resists the motor attempting to transport it from one place to another, stated Thomas Aquinas."[17]

Some five centuries after Averroes' and Aquinas' innovations, it was Johannes Kepler who first dubbed this non-gravitational inherent resistance to motion in all bodies universally 'inertia'.[18] Hence the crucial notion of 17th century early classical mechanics of a resistant force of inertia inherent in all bodies was born in the heavens of medieval astrophysics, in the Aristotelian physics of the celestial spheres, rather than in terrestrial physics or in experiments.[19]

However, having discounted the possibility of any resistance due to a contrary inclination to move in any opposite direction or due to any external resistance, in concluding their impetus was therefore not corrupted by any resistance, Jean Buridan also discounted any inherent resistance to motion in the form of an inclination to rest within the spheres themselves, such as the inertia posited by Averroes and Aquinas. For otherwise, that resistance would destroy their impetus, as the anti-Duhemian historian of science Annaliese Maier maintained the Parisian impetus dynamicists were forced to conclude, because of their belief in an inherent inclinatio ad quietem (tendency to rest) or inertia in all bodies.[20] But in fact, contrary to that inertial variant of Aristotelian dynamics, according to Buridan, prime matter does not resist motion.[21]

Law and jurisprudenceEdit

As a Qadi (judge), Ibn Rushd wrote the Bidāyat al-Mujtahid wa Nihāyat al-Muqtasid, a Maliki legal treatise dealing with Sharia (law) and Fiqh (jurisprudence) which, according to Al-Dhahabi in the 13th century, was considered the best treatise ever written on the subject.[7] Ibn Rushd's summary the opinions (fatwa) of previous Islamic jurists on a variety of issues has continued to influence Islamic scholars to the present day, notably Javed Ahmad Ghamidi.[22] While Ibn Rushd himself claimed that women in Islam were equal to men in all respects and possessed equal capacities to shine in peace and in war,[7] he summarized the opinions of previous jurists and Imams on the status of women's testimony in Islam as follows:[22]

"There is a general consensus among the jurists that in financial transactions a case stands proven by the testimony of a just man and two women on the basis of the verse: ‘If two men cannot be found then one man and two women from among those whom you deem appropriate as witnesses’. However; in cases of Hudud, there is a difference of opinion among our jurists. The majority say that in these affairs the testimony of women is in no way acceptable whether they testify alongside a male witness or do so alone. The Zahiris on the contrary maintain that if they are more than one and are accompanied by a male witness, then owing to the apparent meaning of the verse their testimony will be acceptable in all affairs. Imam Abu Hanifah is of the opinion that except in cases of Hudud and in financial transactions their testimony is acceptable in bodily affairs like divorce, marriage, slave-emancipation and raju‘ [restitution of conjugal rights]. Imam Malik is of the view that their testimony is not acceptable in bodily affairs. There is however a difference of opinion among the companions of Imam Malik regarding bodily affairs which relate to wealth like advocacy and will-testaments which do not specifically relate to wealth. Consequently, Ash-hab and Ibn Majishun accept two male witnesses only in these affairs, while to Malik Ibn Qasim and Ibn Wahab two female and a male witness are acceptable. As far as the matter of women as sole witnesses is concerned, the majority accept it only in bodily affairs, about which men can have no information in ordinary circumstances like the physical handicaps of women and the crying of a baby at birth."

He also discussed Islamic economic jurisprudence, particularly the concept of Riba (usury). He reported that Ibn ‘Abbas, a sahaba (companion) of Muhammad, did not accept Riba al-Fadl (interest in excess) because, according to him, the Prophet Muhammad had clarified that there was no Riba except in credit.[23] He also discussed the role of Islamic criminal jurisprudence in the Islamic dietary laws in regards to the consumption of alcohol. He stated that physical punishment for alcoholic consumption was not originally established as part of the Sharia in Muhammad's time but was later decided by the Shura (consultive council) of the Rashidun Caliphate. He wrote:[24]

"The general opinion in this regard is based on the consultation of ‘Umar (rta) with the members of his Shura. The session of this Shura took place during his period when people started indulging in this habit more frequently. ‘Ali (rta) opined that, by analogy with the punishment of Qadhf, its punishment should also be fixed at eighty stripes. It is said that while presenting his arguments, he had remarked: ‘When he [– the criminal –] drinks, he will get intoxicated and once he gets intoxicated, he will utter nonsense; and once he starts uttering nonsense, he will falsely accuse other people’."

LogicEdit

Ibn Rushd was the last major Muslim logician from Al-Andalus. He is known for writing the most elaborate commentaries on Aristotelian logic.[25]

MedicineEdit

As a physician, Ibn Rushd wrote twenty treatises on Arabic medicine, including a seven-volume medical encyclopedia entitled Kitābu’l Kulliyāt fī al-Tibb (General Rules of Medicine), better known as Colliget in Latin. This encyclopedic work was completed at some time before 1162 and elaborated on physiology, general pathology, diagnosis, materia medica, hygiene and general therapeutics. He argued that no one can suffer from smallpox twice, and fully understood the function of the retina.[7] He improved on Alhazen's Book of Optics (1021) which, though providing a largely correct optical theory on vision, incorrectly assumed the lens of the eye to be the organ of sight. Averroes corrected this by showing that sight is the function of the retina.[26]

His Colliget was largely overshadowed by the earlier medical encyclopedias, Continents by Muhammad ibn Zakariya ar-Razi (Rhazes) and The Canon of Medicine by Ibn Sina (Avicenna). As a result, Averroes' fame as a physician was eclipsed by his own fame as a philosopher. His Kulliyāt was translated into Latin by the Jewish translator Bonacosa in the late 13th century and again by Syphorien Champier in circa 1537, and it was also translated into Hebrew twice. Max Meyerhof notes that the prototypes for the physician-philosophers that predominated in Spain were "Ibn Zuhr (Avenzoar) and Ibn Rushd (Averroes)".[7]

Ibn Rushd discussed the topic of human dissection and autopsy. Although he never undertook human dissection, he was aware of it being carried out by some of his contemporaries, such as Ibn Zuhr (Avenzoar), and appears to have supported the practice. Ibn Rushd stated that the "practice of dissection strengthens the faith"[27] due to his view of the human body as "the remarkable handiwork of God in his creation."[28] Despite his criticism of Al-Ghazali's theological views, Ibn Rushd agreed with him on the issue of anatomy and dissection, and wrote:[29]

"Whoever has been occupied with the science of anatomy/dissection (tashrfh) has increased his belief in God."

In urology, Ibn Rushd identified the issues of sexual dysfunction and erectile dysfunction, and was among the first to prescribe medication for the treatment of these problems. He used several methods of therapy for this issue, including the single drug method where a tested drug is prescribed, and a "combination method of either a drug or food." Most of these drugs were oral medication, though a few patients were also treated through topical or transurethral means.[30]

In neurology and neuroscience, Ibn Rushd suggested the existence of Parkinson's disease, and in ophthalmology and optics, he was the first to attribute photoreceptor properties to the retina.[31] In his Colliget, he was also the first to suggest that the principal organ of sight might be the arachnoid membrane (aranea). His work led to much discussion in 16th century Europe over whether the principal organ of sight is the traditional Galenic crystalline humour or the Averroist aranea, which in turn led to the discovery that the retina is the principal organ of sight.[32]

Music theoryEdit

As an Arabic music theorist, Ibn Rushd contributed to music theory with his commentary on Aristotle's On the Soul, where Ibn Rushd dealt perspicuously with the theory of sound. This text was translated into Latin by Michael Scot (d. 1232).[7]

PhysicsEdit

In Averroes' commentary on Aristotle's Physics, he commented on the theory of motion proposed by Ibn Bajjah (Avempace) in Text 71, and also made his own contributions to physics, particularly mechanics. Averroes was the first to define and measure force as "the rate at which work is done in changing the kinetic condition of a material body"[33] and the first to correctly argue "that the effect and measure of force is change in the kinetic condition of a materially resistant mass."[34] It seems he was also the first to introduce the notion that bodies have a (non-gravitational) inherent resistance to motion into physics, subsequently first dubbed 'inertia' by Johannes Kepler. But he only attributed it to the superlunary celestial spheres, and in order to explain why they do not move with infinite speed as was predicted by the application of Aristotle's general law of motion v α F/R to celestial motion, given the assumption that the spheres have movers and thus F > 0, but no resistance to their motion, whereby R = 0.[35]

John Philoponus had earlier rejected Aristotle's theory of motion because of this celestial empirical refutation in favour of his alternative theory v α F - R that avoided it because v is finite even when R = 0 and when F > 0 and is finite. But contra Philoponus, Averroes restored it by positing inertia instead, whereby R > 0 even in the absence of any external resistance to motion and of any inherent gravitational resistance, as in the quintessential heavens in Aristotelian cosmology. But Averroes denied sublunar bodies have inertia, and it was Thomas Aquinas, also a student of Aristotelianism, who extended this inherent force to terrestrial bodies as well, thus also rejecting Aristotle's prediction that the speed of gravitational fall of all bodies in a vacuum would be infinite because there would be no resistance to motion in the absence of an external resistant medium (i.e. R = 0). For Aristotle had assumed the only inherent resistance to motion in bodies is that of gravity, without which bodies would not inherently resist any motion, and which does not resist gravitational (i.e. 'natural') motion where it acts as the motor rather than as a brake as it does in violent motion. The Averroes-Aquinas notion of inertia was eventually adopted by Kepler, but not by scholastic Aristotelian impetus dynamics nor Galileo Galilei who maintained like Jean Buridan, for example, that prime matter does not inherently resist any motion and so is indifferent to motion or rest. It eventually became the central concept of Newton's dynamics in its notion of the inherent force of inertia in all bodies, with the minor revision that the force of inertia resists all motion except for uniform straight motion, a purely fictitious ideal motion whose perseverance it would cause. But Newton's inherent force of inertia resists all actual motion, given it is all accelerated motion in the Newtonian cosmos populated by many gravitationally attractive massive bodies. Thus on this analysis Averroes is creditable with one of the two most crucial innovations in the history of the development of Aristotelian dynamics into Newtonian dynamics, namely its two auxiliary notions of the force of impetus and of the force of inertia.

PoliticsEdit

Ibn Rushd did not have access to any text of Aristotle's Politics. As a substitute for this, he commented on Plato's The Republic, arguing that the ideal state there described was the same as the original constitution of the Islamic Caliphate,[7] as well as the Almohad state of Ibn Tumart.

Ibn Rushd also claimed that women were equal to men in all respects and possessed equal capacities to shine in peace and in war, citing examples of female warriors among the Arabs, Greeks and Africans to support his case.[7] In Muslim history, examples of notable female Muslims who fought as soldiers or generals included Nusaybah Bint k’ab Al Maziniyyah,[36] Aisha,[37] Kahula and Wafeira,[38] and Um Umarah.

PsychologyEdit

H. Chad Hillier writes the following on Ibn Rushd's contributions to psychology:[39]

There is evidence of some evolution in Ibn Rushd's thought on the intellect, notably in his Middle Commentary on De Anima where he combines the positions of Alexander and Themistius for his doctrine on the material intellect and in his Long Commentary and the Tahafut where Ibn Rushd rejected Alexander and endorsed Themistius’ position that "material intellect is a single incorporeal eternal substance that becomes attached to the imaginative faculties of individual humans." Thus, the human soul is a separate substance ontologically identical with the active intellect; and when this active intellect is embodied in an individual human it is the material intellect. The material intellect is analogous to prime matter, in that it is pure potentiality able to receive universal forms. As such, the human mind is a composite of the material intellect and the passive intellect, which is the third element of the intellect. The passive intellect is identified with the imagination, which, as noted above, is the sense-connected finite and passive faculty that receives particular sensual forms. When the material intellect is actualized by information received, it is described as the speculative (habitual) intellect. As the speculative intellect moves towards perfection, having the active intellect as an object of thought, it becomes the acquired intellect. In that, it is aided by the active intellect, perceived in the way Aristotle had taught, to acquire intelligible thoughts. The idea of the soul's perfection occurring through having the active intellect as a greater object of thought is introduced elsewhere, and its application to religious doctrine is seen. In the Tahafut, Ibn Rushd speaks of the soul as a faculty that comes to resemble the focus of its intention, and when its attention focuses more upon eternal and universal knowledge, it becomes more like the eternal and universal. As such, when the soul perfects itself, it becomes like our intellect.
Ibn Rushd succeeded in providing an explanation of the human soul and intellect that did not involve an immediate transcendent agent. This opposed the explanations found among the Neoplatonists, allowing a further argument for rejecting of Neoplatonic emanation theories. Even so, notes Davidson, Ibn Rushd’s theory of the material intellect was something foreign to Aristotle.

SignificanceEdit

File:Averroes closeup.jpg

In the West Averroes is most famous for commentaries on Aristotle's works, most of which had been inaccessible to Latin Europe during the Early Middle Ages. Before 1100 only a few of Aristotle's logical works had been translated into Latin by Boethius, although the entire extant Greek corpus was known in Byzantium. After Latin translations of Aristotle's other works from Greek and Arabic were made in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, Aristotle became more influential on medieval European philosophy. Averroes' commentaries on Aristotle contributed to his growing influence in the medieval West.

In medieval Europe, Averroes' school of philosophy, known as Averroism, exerted a strong influence on Christian philosophers such as Thomas Aquinas and Jewish philosophers such as Gersonides and Maimonides. Despite negative reactions from Jewish Talmudists and the Christian clergy, Averroes' writings were taught at the University of Paris and other medieval universities, and Averroism remained the dominant school of thought in Europe through to the 16th century.[7]

Averroes' argument in The Decisive Treatise provided a justification for the emancipation of science and philosophy from official Ash'ari theology, thus Averroism has been regarded as a precursor to modern secularism,[40][41] and Averroes has been described as one of the founding fathers of secular thought in Western Europe.[2]

George Sarton, the father of the history of science, writes:

"Averroes was great because of the tremendous stir he made in the minds of men for centuries. A history of Averroism would include up to the end of the sixteenth-century, a period of four centuries which would perhaps deserve as much as any other to be called the Middle Ages, for it was the real transition between ancient and modern methods."[42]

Averroes's work on Aristotle spans almost three decades, and he wrote commentaries on almost all of Aristotle's work except for Aristotle's Politics, to which he did not have access. Averroes' philosophical works had less influence on the medieval and early modern Islamic world than the contemporaneous Latin Christian world, as indicated by the fact many of them works did not survive in the original Arabic but rather in Latin and Hebrew translation. However, his works on specifically Islamic topics such as fiqh (Islamic law), which were not translated into Latin, naturally influenced the Islamic world rather than the West. His death coincides with a change in the culture of Al-Andalus. In his work Fasl al-Maqāl (translated a. o. as The Decisive Treatise), he stresses the importance of analytical thinking as a prerequisite to interpret the Qur'an; this is in contrast to orthodox Ash'ari theology, where the emphasis is less on analytical thinking but on extensive knowledge of sources other than the Qur'an, i.e. the hadith.

Hebrew translations of his work also had a lasting impact on Jewish philosophy, in particular Gersonides, who wrote supercommentaries on many of the works. In the Christian world, his ideas were assimilated by Siger of Brabant and Thomas Aquinas and others (especially in the University of Paris) within the Christian scholastic tradition which valued Aristotelian logic. Famous scholastics such as Aquinas believed him to be so important they did not refer to him by name, simply calling him "The Commentator" and calling Aristotle "The Philosopher." Averroes's treatise on Plato's Republic has played a major role in both the transmission and the adaptation of the Platonic tradition in the West. It has been a primary source in medieval political philosophy. On the other hand he was feared by many Christian theologians, who accused him of advocating a "double truth" and denying orthodox doctrines such as individual immortality, and an underground mythology grew up stigmatising him as the ultimate unbeliever; these accusations were largely based on misunderstandings of his work.[43]

A later importation of Averroism into Europe is associated with the University of Padua in the early Renaissance, important names being Zabarella, Cremonini and Niphus.

Cultural influencesEdit

File:Bnf lat16151 f22.jpg

Reflecting the respect which medieval European scholars paid to him, Averroes is named by Dante in The Divine Comedy with the great pagan philosophers whose spirits dwell in "the place that favor owes to fame" in Limbo.

Averroes appears in a short story by Jorge Luis Borges, entitled "Averroes's Search", in which he is portrayed trying to find the meanings of the words tragedy and comedy. He is briefly mentioned in the novel Ulysses by James Joyce alongside Maimonides. He appears to be waiting outside the walls of the ancient city of Cordoba in Alamgir Hashmi's poem In Cordoba. He is also the main character in Destiny, a Youssef Chahine film. The Muslim pop musician Kareem Salama composed and performed a song in 2007 titled Aristotle and Averroes.

Averroes is also the title of a play called "The Gladius and The Rose", written by Tunisian writer Mohamed Ghozzi, and which had the first price in the theater festival in Charjah in 1999.

The asteroid "8318 Averroes" was named in his honor.

List of worksEdit

LogicEdit

Short CommentaryEdit

  • [1] Short Commentary on Aristotle's Organon / Tajrīd al-ʾaqāwīl al-ḍarūrīya min ṣināʿat al-manṭiq (Aka: Al-ḍarūrī; Al-ḍarūrī fī l-manṭiq; Kitāb fī l-manṭiq; Muḫtaṣar fī l-manṭiq) ca. 552/1157

Middle CommentariesEdit

  • [2] Middle Commentary on the Isagoge / Talḫīṣ madḫal fī Fūrfūrīyūš (Aka: Talḥīṣ kitāb ʾĪsāġūjī)

Talḫīṣ kitāb ʾArisṭū fī l-manṭiq

  • [3] Middle Commentary on the Categories / Talḫīṣ kitāb al-maqūlāt
  • [4] Middle Commentary on Peri hermeneias / Talḫīṣ kitāb al-ʿibāra
  • [5] Middle Commentary on the Prior Analytics / Talḫīṣ kitāb al-qiyās
  • [6] Middle Commentary on the Posterior Analytics / Talḫīṣ kitāb al-burhān (Aka: Talḫīṣ kitāb al-burhān li-ʾArisṭūṭālīs; Talḫīṣ kitāb al-burhān lahū)
  • [7] Middle Commentary on the Topics / Talḫīṣ kitāb al-jadal
  • [8] Middle Commentary on the Sophistici Elenchi / Talḫīṣ kitāb al-safsaṭa
  • [9] Middle Commentary on the Rhetoric / Talḫīṣ al-ḫiṭāba [570/1175 or 571/1176]
  • [10] Middle Commentary on the Poetics / Talḫīṣ kitāb al-šiʿr

Long CommentariesEdit

  • [11] Long Commentary on the Prior Analytics (?) / Šarḥ kitāb al-qiyās li-ʾArisṭūṭālīs (Aka: Kitāb šarḥ kitāb al-qiyās li-ʾArisṭū)
  • [12] Long Commentary on the Posterior Analytics / Šarḥ kitāb al-burhān

QuestionsEdit

  • [13] Questions on Logic / Quæsita in libros logicæ Aristotelis (Part of: Masāʿil fī l-ḥikma, aka: Muqaddimāt fī l-ḥikma)
Questions on the IsagogeEdit
  • [13.1] On Alfarabi on the Isagoge about genus and differentia / Kalām ʿalā qawl ʾAbī Naṣr fī l-madḫal wa-l-jins wa-l-faṣl yuštarikān
Questions on the CategoriesEdit
  • [13.2] On substantial and accidental universals / Al-qawl fī kullīyāt al-jawhar wa-kullīyāt al-ʾaʿraḍ (Aka: Bāb ʿalā maqūla ʾawwal kitāb ʾAbī Naṣr (?), Maqāla ʿalā ʾawwal maqūla ʾAbī Naṣr (?))
Questions on Peri hermeneiasEdit
  • [13.3] On the copula and on derived nouns / Maqāla fī l-kalima wa-l-ism al-muštaqq (Aka: Kalām lahū ʿalā l-kalima wa-l-ism al-muštaqq, Min kitāb al-ʿibāra li-ʾAbī Naṣr)
  • [13.4] On compound and simple predicates / Min kitāb al-ʿibāra (Aka: De prædicatis compositis et divisis)
Questions on the Prior AnalyticsEdit
  • [13.5] On the definition: Critique of the positions of Alexander and Alfarabi / Al-qawl fī l-ḥadd wa-naqd mā ḏahaba ʾilayhī al-ʾIskandar wa-ʾAbū Naṣr (Aka: Maqāla fī l-ḥadd (juzʾ al-qiyās) wa-naqd maḏahabay al-ʾIskandar wa-ʾAbī Naṣr; De definitione termini)
  • [13.6] Critique of Avicenna's position on the conversion of premises / Naqd maḏhab Ibn Sīnā fī inʿikās al-qaḍāyā (Aka: Maqāla fī naqd maḏhab Ibn Sīnā fī ʿaks al-qaḍāyā; De conversionibus)
  • [13.7] Critique of Themistius's position on the contingent syllogisms in the first and second figure / Naqd maḏhab Tāmisṭiyūs fī l-maqāyīs al-mumkina fī l-šaklayn al-ʾawwal wa-l-ṯānī (Aka: De conditione syllogismorum contingentium circa duo eorum attributa, videlicet de numerositate illationis, et de figura in qua non concludunt)
  • [13.8] Chapter on absolute premises / Maqāla fī l-muqaddima al-muṭlaqa (Aka: Quid sit propositio absoluta id est de inesse)
  • [13.9] On the types of conclusions in compound syllogisms / Al-qawl fī jihāt al-natāʾij fī l-maqāyīs al-murakkaba wa-fī maʿnā al-maqūl ʿalā l-kull
  • [13.10] Chapter on the dependency of the types of conclusions from the types of premises / Maqāla [...] fī luzūm jihāt al-natāʾij li-jihāt al-muqaddimāt
  • [13.11] On the mixing of contingent and necessary premises / De mistione contingentis et necessarii
  • [13.12] Chapter on the dependency of the conclusions from mixed syllogisms
  • [13.13] Chapter on the meaning of "predicated on everything" / Maqāla [...] fī maʿnā al- maqūl ʿalā l-kull wa-ġayr ḏālika
  • [13.14] Chapter on conditional syllogisms / Maqāla fī l-maqāʾis al-šarṭīya (Aka: Maqāla fī l-qiyās; De conditionali, an per ipsum ostendatur quæsitum primum ignotum)
  • [13.15] Exposition of Alfarabi's commentary on the first book of the Prior Analytics / Talḫīṣ šarḥ ʾAbī Naṣr [li-]l-maqāla al-ʾūlā min al-qiyās li-l-ḥakīm
Questions on the Posterior AnalyticsEdit
  • [13.16] On the predicates in demonstrations / Al-qawl fī l-maḥmūlāt al-barāhīn (Aka: Epistola de primitate prædicatorum in demonstrationibus)
  • [13.17] On Alfarabi's Book on Demonstration / Min kitāb al-burhān li-ʾAbī Naṣr
  • [13.18] On the definition of individuals / Al-qawl fī ḥadd al-šaḫṣ (Aka: An definitio sit particularis aut universalis tantum)
  • [13.19] On the three types of definition in relation to demonstrations / De triplici genere diffinitionum in ordine ad demonstrationem
  • [13.20] On whether the middle term is the cause of the major term / De medio demonstrationis an sit causa maioris extremi
  • [13.21] Treatise on the disagreement of Alfarabi and Aristotle on the order of the Posterior Analytics and the rules of demonstrations and definitions / Kitāb fī mā ḫālafa ʾAbū Naṣr li-ʾArisṭū fī kitāb al-burhān min tartībihī wa-qawānīn al-barāhīn wa-l-ḥudūd (Aka: De conditionibus præmissarum demonstrationis)
  • [13.22] On the conditions for the necessity of the premises of demonstrations / De conditionibus quæ requiruntur ad necessitatem præmissarum demonstrationum
  • [13.23] On how a demonstration can be transferred from one science to another / Quomodo fiat translatio ab una arte in aliam
  • [13.24] On demonstrations quia / De demonstrationibus quia
  • [13.25] On the sense in which the definition is better known than the thing defined / Quomodo definitio sit notior ipso definito
  • [13.26] On the definitions which are said to differ from demonstrations in their order / De definitionibus quæ dicuntur positione differentes a demonstratione

Philosophy of NatureEdit

PhysicsEdit

  • [14] Short Commentary on the Physics / Jawāmiʿ al-samāʾ al-ṭabīʿī (Part of: Al-jawāmiʿ fī l-falsafa; Jawāmiʿ kutub ʾArisṭūṭālīs fī l-ṭabīʿīyāt wa-l-ʾilāhīyāt)
  • [15] Middle Commentary on the Physics / Talḫīṣ kitāb al-samāʾ al- al-ṭabīʿī (Aka: [...] li-ʾArisṭūṭālīs; Talḫīṣ al- ṭabīʿī; Wa-laḫaṣa kitāb al-samāʿ al-ṭabīʿī li-ʾArisṭūṭālīs)
  • [16] Long Commentary on the Physics / Šarḥ [kitāb] al-samāʾ al-ṭabīʿī

On the HeavensEdit

  • [17] Short Commentary on De cælo / Jawāmiʿ al-samāʾ wa-l-ʿālam (Part of: Al-jawāmiʿ fī l-falsafa; Jawāmiʿ kutub ʾArisṭūṭālīs fī l-ṭabīʿīyāt wa-l-ʾilāhīyāt)
  • [18] Middle Commentary on De cælo / Talḫīṣ [kitāb] al-samāʾ wa-l-ʿālam
  • [19] Long Commentary on De cælo / Šarḥ kitāb al-samāʾ wa-l-ʿālam (Aka: Šarḥ kitāb al-samāʾ wa-l-ʿālam li-ʾArisṭūṭālīs; Šarḥ al-samāʾ wa-l-ʿālam)
  • [20] De substantia orbis

On Generation and CorruptionEdit

  • [21] Short Commentary on De generatione et corruptione / Jawāmiʿ kitāb al-kaun wa-l-fasād (Part of: Al-jawāmiʿ fī l-falsafa; Jawāmiʿ kutub ʾArisṭūṭālīs fī l-ṭabīʿīyāt wa-l-ʾilāhīyāt)
  • [22] Middle Commentary on De generatione et corruptione / Talḫīṣ [kitāb] al-kaun wa-l-fasād 567/1172

MeteorologyEdit

  • [23] Short Commentary on the Meteorology / Jawāmiʿ kitāb al-ʾaṯār al-ʿulwīya (Part of: Al-jawāmiʿ fī l-falsafa; Jawāmiʿ kutub ʾArisṭūṭālīs fī l-ṭabīʿīyāt wa-l-ʾilāhīyāt)
  • [24] Middle Commentary on the Meteorology / Talḫīṣ [kitāb] al-ʾāṯār al-ʿulwīya

BiologyEdit

  • [25] Middle(?) Commentary on De animalibus / Talḫīṣ tisʿ maqālāt min kitāb al-ḥayawān (Aka: Talḫīṣ tisʿ maqālāt min kitāb al-ḥayawān wa-ḏālika min al-ḥādīya ʿašr ʾilā ʾāḫar al-diwān; Talḫīṣ fī l-maqāla al-ḥādīya ʿašara min kitāb al-ḥayawān li-ʾArisṭūṭālīs wa-ḏālika tisʿ maqālāt; Kitāb al-ḥayawān) 565/1169
  • [26] Chapter on animals / Maqāla fī l-ḥayawān (Aka: Kalām lahū ʿalā l-ḥayawān)
  • [27] Short Commentary on De plantis

QuestionsEdit

  • [28] Questions on the Philosophy of Nature / Sefer ha-derušim ha-ṭibʿiyim

PsychologyEdit

CommentariesEdit

  • [29] "Book on the Soul" or Short Commentary on De anima / Kitāb al-nafs
  • [30] Middle Commentary on De anima / Talḫīṣ kitāb al-nafs 577/1181
  • [31] Long Commentary on De anima / Šarḥ kitāb al-nafs (Aka: Šarḥ kitāb al-nafs li-ʾArisṭūṭālīs)
  • [32] Commentary on the Parva naturalia / Talḫīṣ al-ḥiss wa-l-maḥsūs. Sevilla, 13. Rabīʿ al-ʾāḫar 565 [ca. 01/04/1170]

Treatises on the IntellectEdit

  • [33] Enquiry whether the intellect in us, named the material intellect, is able to know in the end the separate forms or not =Epistle on the possibility of conjunction / Kitāb fī l-faḥṣ hal yumkin al-ʿaql ʾallaḏī fīnā wa-huwa al-musammā bi-l-hayūlānī ʾan yaʿqila al-ṣuwar al-mufāriqa bi-ʾāḫirihī ʾau lā yumkin ḏālika wa-huwa al-maṭlūb ʾallaḏī kāna ʾArisṭūṭālīs waʿadanā bi-l-faḥṣ ʿanhū fī kitāb al-nafs (Aka: ʾIggeret ʾefšarut ha-debequt)
  • [34] Chapter on the conjunction of the separate intellect with man / Maqāla fī ttiṣāl al-ʿaql al-mufāriq bi-l-ʾinsān (Aka: Masʾala fī ʿilm al-nafs suʾila ʿanhā fa-ʾajāba fīha; Epistola de connexione intellectus abstracti cum homine)
  • [35] Chapter on the conjunction of intellect with man / Maqāla fī ttiṣāl al-ʿaql bi-l-ʾinsān (Aka: Maqāla ʾaiḍan fī ttiṣāl al-ʿaql bi-l-ʾinsān; Maqāla fī ḏālika ʾaiḍan)
  • [36] Chapter on the intellect / Maqāla fī l-ʿaql (Aka: Maqāla ʾuḫrā fī ʿilm al-nafs ʾaiḍan)
  • [37] Commentary on Alexander's treatise on the intellect / Šarḥ maqālat al-ʾIskandar fī l-ʿaql
  • [38] Commentary on Avempace's epistle on the conjunction of the intellect with man / Šarḥ risālat ittiṣāl al-ʿaql bi-l-ʾinsān li-bn al-Ṣāʾiġ

ʿAbd Allāh Ibn Rušd (son of Averroes)Edit

  • [39] On whether the active intellect unites with the material intellect whilst it is clothed with the body / Hal yattaṣilu bi-l-ʿaql al-hayūlānī al-ʿaql al-faʿʿāl wa-huwa multabis bi-l-jism

AnonymousEdit

  • [40] De animæ beatudine / Tractatus Aueroys de perfectione naturali intellectus secundum mentem philosophi

MetaphysicsEdit

CommentariesEdit

  • [41] Short Commentary on the Metaphysics / Jawāmiʿ kitāb mā baʿd al-ṭabīʿa (Part of: Jawāmiʿ kutub ʾArisṭūṭālīs fī l-ṭabīʿīyāt wa-l-ʾilāhīyāt; Al-gawāmiʿ fī l-falsafa)
  • [42] Middle Commentary on the Metaphysics / Talḫīṣ mā baʿd al-ṭabīʿa (Aka: Talḫīṣ kitāb mā baʿd al-ṭabīʿa li-ʾArisṭūṭālīs; Kitāb talḫīṣ mā baʿd al-ṭabīʿa li-ʾArisṭūṭālīs; Averrois in septem libros media expositio ab Hælia Cretensi in latinum conversa, Ante hac nunquam excusa, summis vigiliis elaborata) Cordova, 25. Rabīʿ al-ʾāḫar 570 [11/23/1174].
  • [43] Long Commentary on the Metaphysics / Šarḥ mā baʿd al-ṭabīʿa.

Practical PhilosophyEdit

MathematicsEdit

See alsoEdit

NotesEdit

  1. H-Net Review: Eric Ormsby on Averroes (Ibn Rushd): His Life, Works and Influence
  2. 2.0 2.1 Majid Fakhry (2001). Averroes: His Life, Works and Influence. Oneworld Publications. ISBN 1851682694.
  3. Alain de Libera, Averroès et l'averroïsme, PUF, 1991, p.121.
  4. 4.0 4.1 Sylvain Gougenheim, Aristote au Mont Saint Michel, Seuil, 2008
  5. 5.0 5.1 Dominique Urvoy, Histoire de La Pensée Arabe et Islamique, Seuil, 2006
  6. Robert Irwin (2006). Dangerous Knowledge: Orientalism and its Discontents. The Overlook Press. ISBN 9781585678358.
  7. 7.00 7.01 7.02 7.03 7.04 7.05 7.06 7.07 7.08 7.09 7.10 7.11 7.12 Ahmad, Jamil (September 1994), "Ibn Rushd", Monthly Renaissance 4 (9), http://www.monthly-renaissance.com/issue/content.aspx?id=744, retrieved 2008-10-14
  8. Bynum, WF & Bynum, Helen (2006), Dictionary of Medical Biography, Greenwood Press, ISBN 0-31-332877-3
  9. Seyyed Hossein Nasr and Oliver Leaman (1996), History of Islamic Philosophy, p. 314, Routledge, ISBN 0415131596.
  10. "Inventions et decouvertes au Moyen-Age", Samuel Sadaune, p.112
  11. Irwin, Jones (Autumn 2002), "Averroes' Reason: A Medieval Tale of Christianity and Islam", The Philosopher LXXXX (2)
  12. Nash, Elizabeth (2005), Seville, Cordoba, and Granada: A Cultural History, Oxford University Press US, p. 202, ISBN 0195182030
  13. Owen Gingerich (April 1986). "Islamic astronomy", Scientific American 254 (10), p. 74.
  14. Roger Ariew (1992). "Theory of Comets at Paris During the Seventeenth Century", Journal of the History of Ideas 53 (3), p. 355-372.
  15. Prof. Hamed A. Ead, Averroes As A Physician, University of Cairo.
  16. For Aquinas's innovation in extending Averroes' purely celestial inertia to the sublunar region and thus universalising inertia, see Bk4.L12.534-6 of Aquinas's Commentary on Aristotle's Physics Routledge 1963.
  17. See Duhem's analysis of this development - St Thomas Aquinas and the Concept of Mass- on p378-9 of Roger Ariew's 1985 Medieval Cosmology, an extract also to be found online at <http://ftp.colloquium.co.uk/~barrett/void.html>. But Duhem notably fails to accord Averroes his originating innovatory due compared with Avempace and Aquinas, as more clearly accorded by Sorabji's 1988 Matter, Space and Motion p284. Duhem was originally refuting Mach's claim in his Science of Mechanics that Newton first discovered the crucial notion of inertial resistant mass in the 17th century. Mach's error was surprisingly still repeated by the self-professed 'Duhemian gradualist' Bernard Cohen a century later in his 2002 The Cambridge Companion to Newton article Newton's concepts of force and mass, p59.
  18. See e.g. p144 of Koyre's 1939/78 Galilean Studies. Koyre also claimed Kepler's notion of inertia "prevented him from laying the foundations of the new dynamics". But in fact the very notion of bodies having an inherent inertial resistant mass without which forced motion would be instantaneous was also fundamental in Newton's dynamics, in which otherwise the acceleration caused by an impressed force and the speed of gravitational free-fall would be infinite if m = 0, since a α F/m. Rather it was Newton who only then revised it slightly to exclude resistance to uniform straight motion, a purely ideal form of motion in Newton's cosmology. Thus Newton commented on his modification of Kepler's force of inertia in his annotation on his Definition 3 of the inherent force of inertia in his copy of the 1713 second edition of the Principia as follows: "I do not mean Kepler's force of inertia, by which bodies tend toward rest, but a force of remaining in the same state either of resting or of moving." See p404 Cohen & Whitman 1999 Principia
  19. This refutes the Kantian and Baconian experimentalist account of the origins of Newtonian physics, as distinct from celestial observation.
  20. See The significance of the theory of impetus for scholastic natural philosophy, Chapter 4 of On the threshold of exact science: Selected writings of Annaliese Maier on Late Medieval Natural Philosophy Steven Sargent (Ed) University of Pennsylvania Press 1982
  21. See e.g. Moody's statement contra Maier "What I have found in Buridan's writings...is the repeated assertion that "prime matter" does not resist motion..." in footnote 7 p32 of his essay "Galileo and his precursors" in Galileo Reappraised, Golino (ed), University of California Press 1966.
  22. 22.0 22.1 Javed Ahmad Ghamidi, Shehzad Saleem (translator) (September 2002), "The Law of Evidence", Monthly Renaissance 12 (9), http://www.monthly-renaissance.com/issue/content.aspx?id=447, retrieved 2008-10-14
  23. Dr. Zaheer, Khalid (September 2004), "Why is Riba Al-Fadl Unacceptable?", Monthly Renaissance 14 (9), http://www.renaissance.com.pk/Septrefl2y4.html, retrieved 2008-10-14 (cf. Dr. Zaheer, Khalid (1994), An Enquiry into the Basic Concept of Banking as Perceived by the Spirit of Islamic Economic Justice, University of Wales)
  24. Javed Ahmad Ghamidi, Shehzad Saleem (translator) (September 2002), "Islamic Punishments: Some Misconceptions", Monthly Renaissance 12 (9), http://www.monthly-renaissance.com/issue/content.aspx?id=445, retrieved 2008-10-14
  25. History of logic: Arabic logic, Encyclopædia Britannica.
  26. "Chapter 64: Physics and Minerology", A History of Muslim Philosophy, Journal of Islamic Philosophy, pp. 1292–1296 [1294], http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/hmp/LXIV-Sixty-four.pdf, retrieved 2010-03-10
  27. Dr. Albert Zaki Iskandar, Ibn ul-Nafees has Dissected the Human Body, Encyclopedia of Islamic World.
  28. Sami Hamarneh (1970), "Averroes, Contra Galenum by J. Christoph Burgel", Journal of the American Oriental Society 90 (2), p. 406.
  29. Savage-Smith, Emilie (1995), "Attitudes Toward Dissection in Medieval Islam", Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences (Oxford University Press) 50 (1): 67–110 [93], Error: Bad DOI specified
  30. A. Al Dayela and N. al-Zuhair (2006), "Single drug therapy in the treatment of male sexual/erectile dysfunction in Islamic medicine", Urology 68 (1), p. 253-254.
  31. Martin-Araguz, A.; Bustamante-Martinez, C.; Fernandez-Armayor, Ajo V.; Moreno-Martinez, J. M. (2002). "Neuroscience in al-Andalus and its influence on medieval scholastic medicine", Revista de neurología 34 (9), p. 877-892.
  32. Lindberg, David C. (1981), Theories of Vision from Al-kindi to Kepler, University of Chicago Press, p. 238, ISBN 0226482359
  33. Ernest A. Moody (June 1951). "Galileo and Avempace: The Dynamics of the Leaning Tower Experiment (II)", Journal of the History of Ideas 12 (3), p. 375-422 [375].
  34. Ernest A. Moody (June 1951). "Galileo and Avempace: The Dynamics of the Leaning Tower Experiment (II)", Journal of the History of Ideas 12 (3), p. 375-422 [380].
  35. See e.g. Sorabji 1988 Matter,Space and Motion p284
  36. Girl Power, ABC News
  37. Black, Edwin (2004). Banking on Baghdad: Inside Iraq's 7,000 Year History of War, Profit, and Conflict. John Wiley and Sons, 34. ISBN 047170895X. 
  38. Hale, Sarah Josepha Buell (1853). Woman's Record: Or, Sketches of All Distinguished Women, from "The Beginning Till A.D. 1850, Arranged in Four Eras, with Selections from Female Writers of Every Age. Harper Brothers, 120. 
  39. H. Chad Hillier (2006). Ibn Rushd (Averroes) (1126 - 1198 CE), Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  40. Abdel Wahab El Messeri. Episode 21: Ibn Rushd, Everything you wanted to know about Islam but was afraid to Ask, Philosophia Islamica.
  41. Fauzi M. Najjar (Spring, 1996). The debate on Islam and secularism in Egypt, Arab Studies Quarterly (ASQ).
  42. George Sarton, Introduction to the History of Science
    (cf. Prof. Hamed A. Ead, Averroes As A Physician)
  43. Renan, Averroès et l'averroïsme: "the history of 'Averroism' is the history of a misunderstanding".

Further readingEdit

External linksEdit


Ad blocker interference detected!


Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.