Averroes, Kant and the Origins of the Enlightenment

Reason and Revelation in Arab Thought

Saud M. S. Al Tamamy

• Publisher: I.B. Tauris
• Year: 2014
• Print ISBN: 9781780765709
• eBook ISBN: 9781786724427
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Philosophy
• Subtopic: Eastern Philosophy

The twelfth-century philosopher Averroes is often identified by modern Arab thinkers as an early advocate of the Enlightenment. Saud M. S. Al-Tamamy demonstrates that an historical as well as comparative approach to Averroes' thought refutes this widely held assumption. The philosophical doctrine of Averroes is compared with that of the key figure of the Enlightenment in Western thought, Immanuel Kant. By comparing Averroes and Kant, Al-Tamamy evaluates the ideologies of each thinker's work and in particular focuses on their respective political implications on two social groups: the Elite, in Averroes' case, and the Public, in the case of Kant. The book's methodology is at once historical, analytical and communicative, and is especially relevant when so many thinkers - both Western and Middle Eastern - are anxious to find common denominators between the formations of Islamic and Western cultures. It responds to a need for comparative analysis in the field of Averroes studies, and takes on the challenge to uncover the philosopher's influence on the Enlightenment.

1

THE STATE OF THE DEBATE

Enlightenment in contemporary Arab thought

Two main discourses on the question of Arab enlightenment – or modernization – have dominated the intellectual, political and public life of the Arab world since the nineteenth century. The ‘Westernized’ discourse asserts that the failure of the Arab world to achieve enlightenment is a result of the persistence and dominance of traditional Islamic modes of thinking and living. It believes that the cultural and religious heritage of the Arab-Islamic world must mostly be jettisoned in order to imitate the West and achieve the same sort of enlightenment. The ‘authentic’ discourse, on the other hand, asserts that – rather than mimicking the European Enlightenment – any Arab enlightenment can only be achieved by drawing on the cultural heritage of the Arab-Islamic world and, if it is achieved, it will be a uniquely Arab-Islamic phenomenon.

Within this ‘authentic’ discourse, there are two main currents of thought and these currents conflict with each other. The ‘Islamic authentic discourse’ argues that, rather than allowing itself to be corrupted by Western values, the Arab-Islamic world must recommit itself to its traditional values, and these are seen as authentic and innate. The ‘modernized’ discourse rejects both the intellectual authority of the West and that of religious dogma, arguing that the cultural heritage of the Arab-Islamic world can provide a valid and sufficient basis for the emergence of an Arab enlightenment.

Advocates of all these discourses have analysed, albeit sometimes superficially, the thought of Averroes and they have found in him a touchstone figure who supports their particular view of how the cultural heritage of the Arab-Islamic world interacts with the potential for Arab enlightenment.

Early advocates of the Westernized discourse

One of the first and most influential thinkers to interpret Averroes as an early advocate of an enlightenment that must of necessity replicate the Enlightenment of the Western world was Farah Anton (1874–1922). Influenced by the French philosopher Ernest Renan (1823–92), Anton presented a materialistic interpretation of Averroes’ work, seeing in the twelfth-century writer an early advocate of secularism, which was to be achieved through the separation of religion, science and philosophy.¹ He asserted that Averroes’ thought contained the seeds of European modernity, and that the rejection of it had contributed to the intellectual, and so the political, decline of the Arabs in Iberia.² Moreover, Anton interpreted Averroes’ account of the relationship between reason and revelation in a way that would make it lead to the Kantian distinction between rational religion and ecclesiastical faith.³ Representing Averroes as neutral towards religions was particularly important for Anton as a Christian who sought religious freedom. This encouraged Anton to employ Averroes’ reconciliation between reason and revelation in order to develop the idea of toleration between religions, upon which principle a secular modern state free from religious prejudice could be founded.⁴ Owing to Averroes’ principle of causality, Anton also saw in Averroes an advocate of modern science.⁵ Anton excused the undeniably dogmatic elements of Averroes’ thought by referring to the pressure of the scholar’s historical and social circumstances. He argued that Averroes was compelled to adopt some mainstream ideas of the time and hide some enlightened views in order to avoid persecution.⁶ In the political domain, Anton re-employed Averroes’ political work against feudalism and military despotism – two of the defining political and social features of the Ottoman Empire, where Anton lived.⁷ This is one of many examples of interpreters with agendas finding in Averroes the philosopher they sought.

Anton also held up Averroes’ view of the role of women in society – contained in his Commentary on Plato’s Republic – as liberal, and he was not alone in this. In fact, Averroes’ liberalism in this respect was celebrated by many advocates of the Westernized discourse. Salamah Musa (1887– 1958) described Averroes’ thought as ‘progressive’ and argued that of all the Arab-Islamic thinkers only Averroes had called for equality between men and women.⁸ Furthermore, he stated that Averroes deserved a great place in history due to his commitment to reason and rationality in spite of Ghazali, who denied their validity.⁹ Similarly, Qasim Amin (1863–1908), known for his enthusiastic calls for the liberation of women, argued that Averroes, among others, contributed through his philosophy to the rise of the Arab-Islamic civilization during the Dark Ages in Europe.¹⁰

The Islamic authentic response

Anton’s materialistic interpretation led Muhammad ‘Abduh (1849–1905), who can be seen as a main advocate of the Islamic authentic trend, to become involved in a debate with him in order to reject such an interpretation of Averroes’ work. Through this dialogue, ‘Abduh, who was the Mufti of Egypt, rehabilitated Averroes as a good Muslim, freeing him from any accusations of heresy by highlighting the dogmatic and traditional elements of his thought. The same author tried to justify the rational elements of his thought by referring to the Islamic tradition of toleration.¹¹ ‘Abduh’s rehabilitation of Averroes encouraged ever more Arab scholars to study and use his ideas.¹² Another leading Islamic authentic thinker, Jamal al-Din al-Afghani (1838–97), also celebrated Averroes’ thought.¹³ Islamic authentic thinkers resurrected Averroes’ work in order to reject the adoption of Western values, and secularism in particular, and to demonstrate that the Arab-Islamic civilization of which Averroes was such a significant and influential part contributed to the rise of the West.¹⁴

The emergence of the modernized authentic discourse

The second half of the twentieth century also witnessed the rise of the modern authentic discourse, as well as the influence of the postmodern tradition on the Westernized discourse. The growing interest in Averroes was fuelled by an attempt by some contemporary Arab thinkers to reject the intellectual authority of the West, to create a middle way between Westernized and Islamic authentic discourses, and to pave the way for modernity by reviving the enlightened elements of the Arab-Islamic heritage. This required showing, or even creating, a type of continuity between the Islamic heritage and the modern present. This approach presented Averroes’ thought as original, and not merely a good commentary on Greek philosophy. It was, and still is, accompanied by a growing recognition of the need for the restoration of philosophy in Arab thought, and for dealing with the relationship between reason and revelation.¹⁵

It is suitable to begin an evaluation of the modern authentic discourse with Hasan Hanafi (b. 1935), one of its main advocates, who has a mixed Islamist and Marxist background. He highlights the need for the continuation of the tradition of Arab-Islamic enlightened philosophy by asserting that Europe needed to reconcile revelation and reason at the beginning of its Renaissance. This was an expansion of what Islamic philosophy had undertaken before the Renaissance.¹⁶ Hanafi espouses the traditional doctrines of the modern authentic discourse by employing the Arab-Islamic heritage as a platform from which to launch the desired Arab enlightenment. He does this by creating a sort of continuity between the past and the present, which leads towards a future in which enlightenment means something different from the Enlightenment. He defines heritage as whatever has reached us from the past within the mainstream civilization. Thus, it is inherited and present at the same time.¹⁷ It is the collection of interpretations that a particular generation has given to its own situation. This means it is a historical attitude by a particular group of people towards its view of the world.¹⁸ The heritage is still alive, and this is why we need to analyse it and renew it: analysing it helps to understand public behaviour; renewing it helps push this behaviour toward modernity.¹⁹ Furthermore, renewing it means discovering the Self and liberating it from any foreign influence.²⁰ Hanafi asserts that heritage acquires importance because it represents the national culture.²¹ For him, renewing one’s heritage must be based on today’s needs: liberation from political, economic and military Western hegemony; the redistribution of wealth and the bridging of the gap between the social classes; liberty and democracy; Arab unity; the reassertion of Arab identity; progress and development; and, finally, the mobilization of the public.²² He shows that renewing it means reinterpreting it in accordance with today’s needs, and transforming it into ‘scientific theory’.²³ Therefore, for him, heritage is a means while its renewal is the end.²⁴ In brief, what Hanafi calls for is an analysis of heritage and an understanding of the relationship between that heritage and today’s public behaviour. Subsequently, there should be an analysis of the relationship between that public behaviour and the need to build a modern society.²⁵

Hanafi’s Marxist background is still influential as he seeks ultimately to transform the Arab world’s heritage into a revolutionary ideology.²⁶ For him, Third World countries must renew their heritages in order to develop. The countries’ heritages will provide a national ideology for each of them and liberate them from Western hegemony.²⁷ Hanafi states that by renewing heritage he seeks firstly to build a public revolutionary movement formed in a political party that embodies the national culture and takes the responsibility of advising the public. Secondly, he aims at changing the inherited theoretical framework to fit in with today’s needs.²⁸ He asserts that renewing a heritage does not mean reconciling it with modernity.²⁹ Rather, it means rebuilding the heritage for current needs. Here, the latter becomes the superstructure and the former becomes the infrastructure.³⁰ This is achieved by renewing language. New meanings of the heritage might be discovered through a modern and flexible language read by all strata of society, bridging the gap between the elite and the public, discovering new levels of analysis and re-reading the heritage within different environments.³¹

In order to show the importance of reintroducing philosophy into the Arab-Islamic sphere, Hanafi warns that neither heritage nor Western philosophy provides answers to today’s questions. Therefore, a systemic link between the three elements (heritage, Western philosophy and current needs) is necessary.³² For Hanafi, the crisis of philosophy in the Arab world is caused by a lack of creativity resulting from an insistence on copying philosophical ideas both from the heritage of the Arab world and from that of the West.³³ He explains that, for Arabs, heritage represents the Self, wh...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title page
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• Introduction: Averroes and the Enlightenment
• 1. The state of the debate: Enlightenment in contemporary Arab thought
• 2. Revelation and reason, and politics: Averroes’ account
• 3. Revelation and reason, and politics, in the Enlightenment: Kant’s account
• 4. General comparison: Outlining the philosophical projects of Averroes and Kant
• 5. Mutual dependency or supreme rationality? Reason and revelation in Averroes and Kant
• 6. Conclusion: Searching for enlightenment
• Notes
• Bibliography