AN ALMOHAD “FUNDAMENTALIST”? 81
Almohads were no literalists.^118 To the extent that the “revolt” refl ects
Almohad tendencies, it may rather be explained as another example of
the Almohad attitude to foundational texts. Within the corpus of au-
thoritative texts, the Almohads established a hierarchy, where some texts
enjoyed a clear supremacy over others. In the realm of religion, this place
was obviously reserved for the Quran and the hadith; and in the realm
of science, it was kept to Aristotle. This, at least, seems to be the situa-
tion regarding Maimonides.^119
In several of his writings Maimonides expresses (with varying degrees
of determination) skeptical views regarding Ptolemaic astronomy. Al-
though he is well aware of the shortcomings of Aristotelian physics, he
strives to preserve the integrity of Aristotelian science.^120 In order to navi-
gate around this diffi culty, Maimonides resorts to the con venient posi-
tion of agnosticism— as he does with regard to other sensitive issues,
such as the creation of the world in time, or divine attributes. The formu-
lation Maimonides chooses in order to express his agnostic position is
strikingly similar to the one used by Ibn Tumart: Human intellect, he
says, has a limit at which it stops.^121 It is unclear whether Maimonides’
agnosticism in astronomy refl ected his views of an inherently limited hu-
man knowledge, or whether he regarded it as a temporary state, and be-
lieved that at some point in the future human beings would be able to un-
derstand the movement of the spheres.^122 Be that as it may, the agnostic
(^118) See above, apud note 26.
(^119) On Averroes’s position on this issue, see Stroumsa, “Philosophes almohades?,” 1146;
and see also T. Langerman, “Another Andalusian Revolt? Ibn Rushd’s Critique of Al-
Kindi’s Pharmacological Computus,” in J. P. Hogendijk and A. I. Sabra, ed., The Enterprise
of Science in Islam— New Perspectives (Cambridge, Mass., and London, 2003), 363: “Ibn
Rushd stands out for his resolute commitment to Aristotle— not to Aristotelianism [... ]
but rather to a purifi ed, strict reading of Aristotle’s own writings.” The issue of Almohad
attitude to Aristotelianism and to Aristotelian science deserves a separate study.
(^120) SeeGuide 2.24; T. Langermann, “Maimonides and the Sciences,” in D. H. Frank and
O. Leaman, eds., The Cambridge Companion to Jewish Philosophy (Cambridge, 2003),
166–67; idem, “The ‘True Perplexity’: The Guide of the Perplexed, Part II, Chapter 24,” in
Kraemer,Perspectives on Maimonides, 159– 74; J. L. Kraemer, “Maimonides on Aristotle
and Scientifi c Method,” in E. L. Ormsby, ed., Moses Maimonides and His Time (Washing-
ton, D.C., 1989), 76– 84.
(^121) See, for instance, Guide, 1.31 (Dalala, 44:13 and 45: 17; Pines, 65) (li’l-aql al- insani
hadd bi- la shakk yaqifu indahu); cf. Luciani, Le Livre de Mohammed Ibn Toumert, 233
(li’l-uqulhadd taqifu indahu); M. Massé, “La profession de foi (aqida) et les guides spiri-
tuels (morchida) du Mahdi Ibn Toumart,” Mémorial Henri Basset (Paris, 1928), 110.
(^122) On this much debated question, see Pines, “Translator’s Introduction,” lxiii, cxi; Langer-
man, “The ‘True Perplexity,’ ” 165– 66; S. Pines, “The Limitations of Human Knowledge
according to Al- Farabi, Ibn Bajja, and Maimonides,” in I. Twersky, ed., Studies in Medieval
Jewish History and Literature (Cambridge, Mass., 1979), 82– 109; J. Kraemer, “How (Not)
to Read the Guide of the Perplexed,” JSAI 32 (2006): 350– 409.