CONCLUSION 191
the often seamless resulting synthesis could not have been achieved had
he been a lone venturer. Maimonides honed and perfected methods that
had been crafted by his Jewish medieval pre decessors (who often remain
unacknowledged by him). His originality and uniqueness do not lie in the
very attempt to integrate legacies, but rather in the unusual scope, bold-
ness, and authority of his synthesis. In order to account for this unique
and original case, we must adopt the same integrative approach to the
study of medieval Jewish thought in the broader world of Islam.
This claim, however, has implications beyond Jewish studies. Maimo-
nides’ erudition in subjects that are not typically Jewish could not have
been achieved in a rarefi ed Jewish environment, without extensive, per-
sonal contacts with the non- Jewish world. It is from Muslims, as well as
from Jews, that he bought and borrowed books, and also with Muslims
that he discussed and debated ideas. The snippets of information pro-
vided by Muslim biographers as well as by Maimonides himself corrobo-
rate the existence of such extensive contacts. If, then, we assume that
Maimonides met Muslim thinkers, and exchanged with them knowledge
and ideas, by the same token we must assume that Muslim thinkers met
with Maimonides, and exchanged with him knowledge and ideas.
Here again, the sources corroborate our assumption: unlike most Jew-
ish thinkers, who, by and large, remained ignored by Muslims, Maimo-
nides was read in Muslim circles and is quoted by Muslims.^4 Neverthe-
less, in the study of medieval Islamic thought, the evidence provided by
Maimonides’ writings is hardly ever adduced as part of the general argu-
ment, let alone the evidence of other Jewish thinkers. It goes without
saying that, in a world defi ned, shaped, and ruled by Islam, the weight of
Muslim thought is immeasurably greater than the intellectual contribu-
tion brought to it by the religious minorities. Ignoring this contribution
altogether, however, or relegating it to a separate drawer, is likely to re-
sult in a skewed— fl atter, monochromatic, and altogether poorer— picture
of the rich tissue of medieval Islamic thought.
As a member of a minority, Maimonides was perhaps more sensitive
to the options offered by Mediterranean culture, and more eager to avail
himself of these options. Nevertheless, the portrait that emerges from the
study of Maimonides in his cultural context indicates that, in this too, he
should not be seen as sui generis, but rather as a superb example of a
Mediterranean thinker.
(^4) These quotations refl ect his complex philosophical legacy, since it is not the Aristotelians
(either his contemporaries, like Averroes, or subsequent generations of phi losophers in the
Orient), who quote him, but rather theologians and mystics. See Davidson, Moses Maimo-
nides, 426; Schwarb, “Die Rezeption Maimonides’ in der christlich- arabischen Literatur.”