AN ALMOHAD “FUNDAMENTALIST”? 73
Exegesis and Po litical TheoryThe extent to which Maimonides internalized the Almohad doctrine can
be best appreciated if we compare him to his contemporary Averroes. It
is usually assumed that Maimonides was not infl uenced by Averroes’ Fasl
al-Maqal (Decisive Treatise).^85 Both Shlomo Pines and Alfred Ivry dis-
cuss, and discard, the possibility that Maimonides had read Averroes’s
independent writings— that is to say, the philosophical works other than
theCommentaries—before writing the Guide.^86 Pines argues that “no
clear evidence” can be adduced for such a possibility. Contrary to this
view, there are enough indications that Maimonides did read Averroes’s
theological works, both the Decisive Treatise and the Exposition of the
Traditions of Proofs Regarding Muslim Beliefs (al-Kashfan manahij al-
adilla).^87 In fact, the Guide can in some ways be seen as a reaction and
answer to Averroes.^88 A striking example of this reaction can be seen in
Guide 2.25, where Maimonides incorporates in his discussion a Quranic
verse employed by Averroes.^89 This is not the only occasion where the
two thinkers discuss similar concerns in very similar terms, but whereas
other cases may be explained in different way, the remarkable presence
of this par ticular Qur’anic verse in the Guide would seem to clinch the
case for Maimonides’ direct familiarity with the Fasl al- Maqal. The same
chapter of the Guide (2.25) also refl ects Maimonides’ basic hermeneutical
disagreement with Averroes. As Averroes argues throughout the Kashf,
the intention of the lawgiver was to spread, as widely as possible, the best
beliefs to be accepted by all and sundry. This means that the lawgiver
must have looked for the lowest common denominator that everyone
can understand. This common denominator, says Averroes, is, more often
(^85) See Ibn Rushd, Fasl al- maqal wa- taqrir ma bayna al- sharia wa’l-hikma min al- ittisal, ed.
A. Nader (Beirut, 1973); Averroes, The Book of the Decisive Treatise Determining the
Connection between the Law and Wisdom; &, Epistle dedicatory, ed. and trans. C. E. But-
terworth (Provo, Utah, 2001); and see A. de Libera “Introduction,” in Averroès, Discours
décisif, trans. M. Geoffroy (Paris, 1996), 76.
(^86) See Ivry, “Maimonides’ Relation to the Teachings of Averroes,” 62; Pines, “Translator’s
Introduction,” cviii.
(^87) Seeal-Kashfan manahij al- adilla fiaqaid al- milla, ed. M. A. al- Jabiri (Beirut, 1998).
(^88) Ivry (“Maimonides’ Relation to the Teachings of Averroes,” 71) points out the differ-
ences between their respective opinions and audiences. He underlines Maimonides’ fre-
quent recourse to an allegorical reading of biblical verses, as opposed to Averroes’s reluc-
tance to use allegorical Quranic interpretation. This precise difference seems to me to be
part of Maimonides’ response to Averroes.
(^89) The use of this verse (Q. 59 [al-hashar]:2) was identifi ed and analyzed by Zev Harvey;
see W. Z. Harvey, “Averroes and Maimonides on the Duty of Philosophical Contemplation
(itibar),” Tarbiz 58 (1989): 75– 83 [Hebrew]; and see Stroumsa, “The Literary Corpus,”
234–37.