with Averroes; and in the rest of the Mohammedan world a rigid orthodoxy put an end to
speculation.
Ueberweg, rather amusingly, undertakes to defend Averroes against the charge of unorthodoxy--a
matter, one would say, for Muslims to decide. Ueberweg points out that, according to the mystics,
every text of the Koran had 7 or 70 or 700 layers of interpretation, the literal meaning being only
for the ignorant vulgar. It would seem to follow that a philosopher's teaching could not possibly
conflict with the Koran; for among 700 interpretations there would surely be at least one that
would fit what the philosopher had to say. In the Mohammedan world, however, the ignorant
seem to have objected to all learning that went beyond a knowledge of the Holy Book; it was
dangerous, even if no specific heresy could be demonstrated. The view of the mystics, that the
populace should take the Koran literally but wise people need not do so, was hardly likely to win
wide popular acceptance.
Averroes was concerned to improve the Arabic interpretation of Aristotle, which had been unduly
influenced by Neoplatonism. He gave to Aristotle the sort of reverence that is given to the founder
of a religion--much more than was given even by Avicenna. He holds that the existence of God
can be proved by reason independently of revelation, a view also held by Thomas Aquinas. As
regards immortality, he seems to have adhered closely to Aristotle, maintaining that the soul is not
immortal, but intellect (nous) is. This, however, does not secure personal immortality, since
intellect is one and the same when manifested in different persons. This view, naturally, was
combated by Christian philosophers.
Averroes, like most of the later Mohammedan philosophers, though a believer, was not rigidly
orthodox. There was a sect of completely orthodox theologians, who objected to all philosophy as
deleterious to the faith. One of these, named Algazel, wrote a book called Destruction of the
Philosophers, pointing out that, since all necessary truth is in the Koran, there is no need of
speculation independent of revelation. Averroes replied by a book called Destruction of the
Destruction. The religious dogmas that Algazel specially upheld against the philosophers were the
creation of the world in time out of nothing, the reality of the divine attributes, and the
resurrection of the body. Averroes regards religion as containing philosophic truth in allegorical
form. This applies in particular to creation, which he,