68 CHAPTER THREE
attempts to associate the two thinkers also refl ect the fact that there are
indeed some striking biographical similarities between them: two phi los-
ophers, both Andalusians and both of them physicians, both deeply im-
mersed in refl ection upon their respective religions and involved in the
practice of their law. There are also remarkable similarities in their legal
method: like Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah, Averroes’ Bidayat al- mujtahid
ignores the fi ne points of the legal discussions, attempts to transcend
the traditional division into legal schools, and disregards the large body
of accumulated casuistic literature.^68 Unlike Maimonides, however,
Averroes does not offer a substitute for the dethroned corpus. Instead,
he lays out the principles of how to get directly to the texts and do the
legal work (ijtihad). In this approach Averroes follows, on the one
hand, Ibn Tumart’s rejection of the furu; at the same time, he also con-
tradicts Ibn Tumart, by using ijtihad and by referring to ikhtilaf.^69 Like
Averroes, Maimonides assumes in the Mishneh Torah the responsibility
of making a personal decision (ijtihad), a daring act that was not re-
ceived favorably by his peers. In their original legal works, both Aver-
roes and Maimonides adopt the Almohad approach, which regarded
the preoccupation with casuistry as both wasteful and false, and which
required a return to the primary sources of the law. In their respective
legal writings, both authors are thus, in different ways, Almohads.
Maimonides, however, seems to be more receptive of Almohad think-
ing than Averroes.
The affi nity of Maimonides’ legal thinking with that of the Almohads
is not restricted to terminology and method; it is also evident in their re-
spective defi nition of the pa rameters of jurisdiction. For Maimonides as
for the Almohads, religious indoctrination was a legitimate concern of
the jurist. Maimonides therefore included in the Code thirteen principles
(qawaid) of faith, the belief in which is a precondition for belonging to
Commentary on the ‘Metaphysics’: The Case of the Doctrine of Unity,” 67– 78; and see
Y. Schwartz, “Meister Eckharts Schriftauslegung als maiminodisches Projekt,” in G. Hassel-
hoff and O. Fraisse, Moses Maimonides (1138– 2004): His Religious, Scientifi c and Philo-
sophical Wirkungsgeschichte in Different Cultural Contexts (Würzburg, 2004), 173– 208.
On Maimonides’ reception in the Latin West, see also G. Dahan, “Maïmonide dans les
controverses universitaires du XIIIe siècle,” Maïmonide: philosophe et savant, 367– 93, esp.
369; W. Kluxen, “Maïmonide et l’orientation philosophique de ses lecteurs latins,” Maï-
monide: philosophe et savant 395– 409; G. K. Hasselhoff, Dicit Rabbi Moyses: Studien zum
Bild von Moses Maimonides im lateinischen Western vom 13. bis zum 15. Jahrhundert
(Würzburg, 2004); Kraemer, “Moses Maimonides: An Intellectual Portrait,” 14– 15.
(^68) See Ibn Rushd, Bidayat al- mujtahid wa- nihayat al- muqtasid (Cairo, n.d); Ibn Rushd, The
Distinguished Jurist’s Primer— Bidayat al- Mujtahid wa Nihayat al- Muqtasid, trans. Imran
Ahsan Khan Nyazee (Reading, 2000).
(^69) See Fierro, “The Legal Policies of the Almohad Caliphs,” esp. 244.