The Economic Thought of Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali and St. Thomas Aquinas

32 Pages·2012·0.13 MB·English

The Economic Thought of Abu Hamid
Al-Ghazali and St. Thomas Aquinas:
Some Comparative Parallels and Links
S. M. Ghazanfar
My primary purpose in this article is to identify and present some par-
allels and similarities between the major economic ideas of two me-
dieval Scholastics: Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali (1058–1111), “acclaimed
as the greatest...certainly one of the greatest” (Watt 1963, vii) and
“by general consent, the most important thinker of medieval Islam”
(Bagley 1964, xv); and St. Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), the most
prominent of the European-Latin Schoolmen, “the Doctor Angelicus,
the Princeps Scholasticorum” (Pribram 1983, 4), “perhaps the greatest
Catholic philosopher of all time” (Newman, Gayer, and Spencer 1954,
16). Heretofore, some scholars of medieval history have explored sim-
ilarities and links between Al-Ghazali and St. Thomas with reference
to other dimensions of their discourses, but none has focused on their
economic views. While this essay mainly discusses similarities in the
economicideasofthetwoScholastics,moreseriousanalysismightfur-
ther corroborate the observations of historians as to links between the
two in other areas of knowledge. Further, it might be noted that while
Thomistic economic thought is well recognized in the literature, very
CorrespondencemaybeaddressedtoS.M.Ghazanfar,DepartmentofEconomics,University
ofIdaho,Moscow,ID83844-3240.Thisisarevisedversionofapaperpresentedatthe1993
HistoryofEconomicsSocietyInternationalConference.Igratefullyacknowledgecomments
offered by ProfessorTodd Lowry, the paper’s discussant, as well as by faculty colleagues.
Alsoacknowledgedaresuggestionsofferedbytwoanonymousreferees;thisessayhassignifi-
cantlybenefitedfromthosesuggestions.TheauthoralsodeeplyappreciatesPaulDudenhefer’s
editorialassistance.Anyshortcomingsremainmyresponsibility.
HistoryofPoliticalEconomy32:4©2000byDukeUniversityPress.
858 HistoryofPoliticalEconomy32:4(2000)
little is known about the contributions of Al-Ghazali—one of several
Arab-Islamic precursors of medieval Europe’s Latin Scholastics who
wrote extensively on economic issues.1 Much of the economic thought
ofArab-IslamicScholasticsbelongsintheseveralcenturiesbetweenthe
GreeksandSt.ThomasAquinas—aperiodunfortunatelylabeledasthe
“great gap” of “blank centuries” by the late Joseph Schumpeter (see
Ghazanfar1991,1995).2
Onefindsdetaileddiscussionofprevailingeconomicandsocialcon-
ditions and significant economic maxims, primarily normative but also
with considerable positive content, in the writings of several Arab-
Islamic writers. However, the main focus of these Scholastics, Arab-
IslamicandLatin-Christian,wasnotthedomainofeconomicaspectsof
life—economics remained merely an appendage to philosophy, ethics,
andjurisprudence.Onechieflyencounterstheological-philosophicalra-
tiocinationintheirtreatises,andnoteconomiccontentaswenowknow
the subject. Within the religious-ethical system of Scholastic jurispru-
dence,whichcalledfordivine,scripturalprescriptionsasguidestohu-
man affairs, the overriding assumption was always that all behavior,
including economic activities, is teleological. Thus, economic thought
emanatingfrommedievalScholastics,suchasAl-Ghazali,St.Thomas,
and others, was seldom elaborated in separate volumes; such a seg-
mentedtreatmentwouldhavebeenhardlycompatiblewiththeprevailing
emphasis on the unity of knowledge as a fundamental epistemological
principle of scholarship.3 Indeed, such an approach prevailed in Eu-
rope up until the eighteenth century, whenAdam Smith took charge of
1.Thereissomerecentliterature,however,thatattemptstofillthevoid.Forexample,see
GhazanfarandIslahi1990,1992.SeealsoEssid1987andfourpapersonthe“greatgap,”
as Joseph Schumpeter called the period between the Greeks andAquinas, in Moss 1996b,
especiallytheonebyHosseini.SeealsoSpengler1964.
2.Withcompletedisregard(orperhapsbenignneglect?)forthecontributionsoftheArab-
IslamicScholastics,Schumpeter(1954,74)concludes:“Sofarasoursubjectisconcernedwe
maysafelyleapover500yearstotheepochofSt.ThomasAquinas(1115–1274)whoseSumma
TheologicaisinthehistoryofthoughtwhattheWesternspireoftheCathedralofChartresisin
thehistoryofarchitecture.”Theimplicationhereisthatformorethanfivehundredyearsprior
toSt.ThomasAquinas,nothingofanysignificancetoeconomicswassaidorwrittenanywhere;
foradetaileddiscussion,seeGhazanfar1991.Somerecentevidence,however,suggestsaslight
reversalofthismishap(seenoteabove).Thus,“Schumpeter’s‘greatgap’hasbeguntobefilled.
As[thetwenty-firstcenturybegins],historianscancelebratesomesuccessinrespondingto
Schumpeter’simplicitchallenge.(Thetextbookliteratureinthehistoryofeconomicthought
hasyettotakeadequatenoticeofthisliterature,however.)”(Moss1996a,7).
3.Somesignificantexceptionstothisobservation,however,areafewArab-Islamicscholars
whodidwriteseparatevolumesoneconomicissues;forexample,AbuYusuf(731–798),Al-
Ghazanfar/Al-GhazaliandAquinas 859
the chair of Moral Philosophy at Glasgow College (de Roover 1955,
162).
The medieval Scholastics viewed economic matters as part of their
larger concern for the common good and social justice. As a branch
of ethics, economic relations were to be judged by rules of justice, as
derived from the scriptures (Jewish, Christian, Islamic), that ought to
preside over the distribution and exchange of scarce goods. One read-
ily derives such insights from a cursory examination of the table of
contents ofAl-Ghazali’s Ihya Ulum al-Deen and St. Thomas’s Summa
Theologica. However, while both gave a place to economic matters in
theiruniversalscheme,thepursuitofmaterialwelfarewasnotregarded
as an end in itself, but as a means to achieve the summum bonum of
salvation(seeO’Brien1920).
Thus, as another objective of this essay, some evidence will be pro-
vided to demonstrate the considerable influence of Arab-Islamic
Scholasticism,encompassingalmostallendeavorsofhumanintellect,on
LatinEuropegenerally,butalsotoarguethatsuchhistoricallinkswere
particularlysubstantialconcerningSt.ThomasAquinas’sphilosophical
writings. This essay will also briefly note the sociocultural and intel-
lectual context in which the scholarship ofAl-Ghazali and St.Thomas
evolved. This will be followed by a detailed discussion of the simi-
larities between the economic views of both. The concluding section,
after summarizing the article, will argue, without belittling the works
of Latin Scholastics, especially St. Thomas, that we must add to that
scholarshipthecontributionsoftheirArab-Islamicpredecessorswhose
influenceontheintellectualevolutionofmedievalEuropeisratherwell
documented.4
Farabi(870–950),Nasiral-DinTusi(1201–1274),andafewothers.ReferringtoSt.Thomas
(althoughrelevanttoallmedievalLatinscholarship),ArthurMonroe(1930,52)saysthat“he
neverdiscussedeconomicsubjectsabstractly,butalwaysinconnectionwithlargerproblems
ofethicsandpolitics.”
4.Hereandthroughoutthisarticlethewordinfluencemustbeinterpretedinratherbroad
terms.Inthepresentcontext,itmightbeusefultosimplyquoteMariaMenocal(1985,73):“The
moreimportantpoint,however,isthatculturalinfluenceisnotnecessarilyastraightforward
processbywhichonecopiessomethingfromsomeoneelse....Onthecontrary,onemust
recognizethatArabicculturewastheprestigecultureforEuropeinthisperiodoftime,asort
ofaradicalchicinsomeways.”Ontransmissionofinfluencesandcross-fertilizationofideas
acrosscultures,seealsoDaniel1975;Goodwin1972;GoodwinandHolley1968;Samuels
1974;andSpengler1970.
860 HistoryofPoliticalEconomy32:4(2000)
HistoricalLinks:Arab-IslamictoEuropean-Latin
andAl-GhazalitoSt.Thomas
SomerecentliteraturehasarguedthatnotonlytheSchumpeterian“great
gap”thesisisanunfortunatemishapinliteraryhistory,but,further,that,
especially during the early medieval centuries, there was the “knowl-
edge transfer” to Latin Europe of theArab-Islamic reservoir of schol-
arlyachievements(seeGhazanfar1991,1998;Essid1992;andHosseini
1996).ThisreservoirwasbuiltuponthecorpusoftheGreekheritage,but
substantiallygarnishedbytheArab-Islamicintellectinmanydiverseand
significantways.5Thegeneralnatureofsuchhistoricaltiesisabundantly
evidentfromacursoryexplorationofmedievalEurope’sintellectualevo-
lution. Three representative quotations (which can be multiplied) from
eminentscholarsofmedievalEuropeanhistoryemphasizethepoint:
1. “In the 12th and 13th centuries, the first period of European im-
pingement, Arabic philosophical writings exerted a significant
stimulative influence on the great synthesis of Christian Aris-
totelianism by St. Albert the Great and St. Thomas Aquinas. . .
.Thisinfluencehasnotonlybeenextensiveandprofound,butrel-
atively continuous and astonishingly diversified” (Rescher 1966,
156–57).
2. “AlthoughthereisnotasingleaspectofEuropeangrowthinwhich
thedecisiveinfluenceofIslamiccultureisnottraceable,nowhere
isitsoclearandmomentousasinthegenesisofthatpowerwhich
constitutes the paramount distinctive force of the modern world,
and the supreme source of its victory—natural science and the
scientific spirit....What we call science arose in Europe as a
resultofanewspiritofinquiry,ofnewmethodsofinvestigation,
of the methods of experiment, observation, and measurement, of
thedevelopmentofmathematicsinaformunknowntotheGreeks.
That spirit and those methods were introduced into the European
worldbytheArabs”(Briffault1919,190–91).
5.AsfortheGreekheritage,accordingtooneoftheeminentcontemporaryhistoriansof
economicthought,“themedievalEuropeansgottheirGreekeconomicsservedonanIslamic
plate”(lettertoauthordated22August1990fromS.ToddLowryofWashingtonandLee
University). In the same vein, Eugene Myers (1964, 63) says that “theArab intervention
literallysavedGreekknowledgefrombeingdestroyed,addedtothatknowledge,andhanded
itonasilverplattertoWesternChristendom.”
Ghazanfar/Al-GhazaliandAquinas 861
3. “At a time when the rest of Western Europe was just emerging
from the depths of barbarism, the culture of Moslem Spain had
achievedcompletematurityandsurpassedeventhecivilizationof
theEastingeniusandoriginalityofthought....Allthisbrilliant
developmentofcultureiscompletelyignoredbytheordinarystu-
dent of medieval European history. It is as though it were a lost
worldwhichhadnomoretodowiththehistoryofourpartthanthe
vanished Kingdom ofAtlantis.And yet, not only did it lie at the
verydoorsoftheChristianworld,itwasactuallymingledwithit.
ThefrontiersofChristendomandIslamintheearlyMiddleAges
wereconstantlyshifting”(Dawson1932,231;seealsoFlint1894,
79,forsimilarremarks;andDawson1967).
EvidencerevealsthatwhenEuropebecameinterestedinscienceand
philosophy during the eleventh and twelfth centuries, such disciplines
were already at their peak in the Arab-Islamic world, and, in its at-
tempts to emerge from the DarkAges, Europe was eager to learn.And
there is hardly any medieval European scholar who was not, directly
or indirectly, influenced byArab-Islamic scholarship. Some prominent
namesareRobertGrosseteste,AlexanderofHales,AlbertusMagnus,St.
Bonaventura, Duns Scotus, Roger Bacon, Marsilius of Padua, Richard
ofMiddleton,NicholasOresme,JohannesBuridanus,SigerofBrabant,
John Peckham, William of Ockham, Walter Burley, Adelard of Bath,
Abelard the Great, William of Auvergne, Dante, Descartes, Kant, and
numerous others (for evidence, see Afnan 1958; Alonso 1958; Butler
1933;Callus1969;Copleston1972;Crombie1963;Dawson1932,1952,
1967;Draper1904;Durant1950;Hammond1947;Harris1959;Hask-
ins 1922, 1925, 1927; Leff 1958; Menocal 1985, 1987; Myers 1964;
O’Leary1922;Sharif1966;Sheikh1982;andSarton1927–48,1952).
What were the sources of such a cross-cultural knowledge trans-
fer? Some may be briefly noted here: (1) travels during the eleventh
and twelfth centuries by scholars (many knew Arabic) who brought
backknowledgetoEurope;(2)students“fromItaly,Spainandsouthern
France[who]attendedMuslimseminaries”(Sharif1966,2:1367);they
read and studied “passionately the Arabic books...and everywhere
proclaimedhowadmirablewasthatliterature”(Briffault1919,198);(3)
translations en masse—“the real contact with the Arabic culture was
madebytwelfthcenturytranslatorsinSpain;itwasthenandtherethat
dikeswereopenedandstored-upexperienceoftheagesbegantopourin
862 HistoryofPoliticalEconomy32:4(2000)
upon the MedievalWest” (Goldstein 1988, 113); (4) oral transmission,
which, over “eight or more centuries of such intimate contact is, in it-
self,quitepersuasiveanargumentforculturalinteractionandcontinuity”
(Chejne1980,120);(5)tradeandcommerce,leadingtothediffusionof
economicinstitutionsandprocesses;“Italiancities...inthewakeofthe
Crusades...hadestablishedrelationswiththetradersoftheNearEast
andhadadoptedvariousinstitutionsanddeviceswhichwereatvariance
withtherigidpatternofthemedievalsocialandeconomicorganization”
(Pribram1983,21;seealsoHeaton1948;andKramers1931);and,not
the least, (6) the Crusades, whose central importance was that “they
helped shape European attitudes, feelings and values” (Ferruolo 1984,
136),“stimulatedtheintellectuallifeofEurope”(Izzedin1953,42),and
represented “the strongest influence on development of medieval trade
andindustry”(Krueger1961,72)(seeGhazanfar1997,1998).
Now,aswithsuchhistoricallinkagesbetweencivilizationsgenerally,
thereisalsoconsiderableevidencethatsupportsspecificallytheconnec-
tionsbetweenAl-GhazaliandSt.ThomasAquinas.Accordingtooneof
themostprominenttwentieth-centuryhistoriansofscientific-intellectual
developments,LatinScholasticsgenerally,butSt.Thomasparticularly,
“were influenced by Muslim philosophers, chiefly Al-Ghazali,” “the
forerunnerofSt.Thomas”(Sarton1927–48,2:914;1930,420;seealso
Alonso 1958).Again, three quotations from eminent medievalists pro-
videfurthercorroboration:
1. De Lacy O’Leary (1922, 208) says that Al-Ghazali’s “teaching
is quoted by St. Thomas and other scholastic writers.” And, re-
ferring to St. Thomas’s objections to some “heretical” doctrines
(e.g.,doctrineofemanation,creationexnihilo,unityofintellects,
etc.)ofIbnSina(Avicenna,980–1033)andIbnRushd(Averroes,
1126–1198),O’Learystatesthat“alloftheseobjectionswerees-
sentially the same as had been already brought forward by the
orthodoxscholasticsofIslam,andundoubtedlyal-Ghazaliisused
inrefutingthem”(286).
2. “A careful study of Ghazali’s works will indicate how penetrat-
ing and widespread his influence was on the Western medieval
scholars.AcaseinpointistheinfluenceofGhazalionSt.Thomas
Aquinas—who studied the works of Islamic philosophers, espe-
ciallyGhazali’s,attheUniversityofNaples.Inaddition,Aquinas’
interestinIslamicstudiescouldbeattributedtotheinfiltrationof
Ghazanfar/Al-GhazaliandAquinas 863
‘LatinAverroism’inthe13thcentury,especiallyat[theUniversity
of]Paris”(Shanab1974,140–41).
3. “AmongAlgazel’s[Al-Ghazali’s]workswasatreatiseontheplace
ofreasonasappliedtorevelationandthetheologicaldogmas.This
workpresentsmanyparallelsinitsargumentsandconclusionswith
the Summa of St. Thomas....Their intention, their sympathies,
and their interests were essentially the same. Both endeavored to
state the case for the opposition before they pronounced judge-
ment; both labored to produce Summas which would provide a
reasonable statement of their faith, and both found a happiness
in the mystical apprehension of the divine which they confessed
made their earlier strivings seem as nothing” (Guillaume 1931,
273–74).
As to the direct and indirect influence of Al-Ghazali, again the ev-
idence is clear, not only with respect to St. Thomas specifically, but
concerningotherLatinScholasticsaswell.Therewereopportunitiesas
wellasmotivationtorelyon“compatible”Arab-IslamicScholastics.For
as Christianity was being threatened by theAverroistic interpretations
ofAristotle,whichwerefindinggrowingacceptancewithintheFrancis-
can order of the Catholic Church, Al-Ghazali’s “Dominican” writings
“placed science, philosophy, and reason in positions inferior to reli-
gionandtheology”;and,therefore,“theScholasticsacceptedhisviews
whichbecamecharacteristicofmedievalphilosophy”(Myers1964,39–
40).6 Edward Jurji (1979, 313) is even more categorical, stating that
Al-Ghazali’s“workwasparalleledbyThomasAquinasinthediscourse
onChristiandoctrineandinotherportionsoftheSummaTheologica.”
Further, several medieval historians identify Al-Ghazali’s influence
upon St. Thomas through his teacher, Albertus Magnus (1201–1280),
and his contemporary, Raymund Martin (d. 1285). Raymund Martin
was “the man who made a thorough study ofAl-Ghazali’s works, un-
equaledbyanynon-Muslimuntilmoderntimes,andwhobecamealink
betweenChristianEuropeandAl-Ghazali”(Sheikh1982,109).Martin
knewArabicandwaswellacquaintedwithAl-Ghazali’sbooks,includ-
ing his Ihya, which became available in Latin translation even before
6.Paradoxically,whiletheDominicanSt.ThomaswasamongthestaunchestcriticsofIbn
Rushd,hedidnotescapehisinfluence.ErnestRenanexpressedthisparadoxinhisAverroeset
li’Averroisme(1852):“St.ThomasisthemostseriousadversarythattheAverroesdoctrinehas
encountered,andyetonecangofurtherandsay,paradoxically,thatheisthegreatestdisciple
oftheGreatCommentator”(quotedinFakhry1997,5).
864 HistoryofPoliticalEconomy32:4(2000)
1150 (Myers 1964, 39). And, “it may be fairly said that he has con-
siderable affinity for the ideas to be found inAl Ghazzali’s Tahafut ul
Falasafa...andthatthefirstpartofPugioFideiisafaithfulsummary
oftheTahafut”(Sweetman1955,90;seealsoSarton1927–48).
Raymund Martin’s Pugio Fidei subsequently inspired St. Thomas’s
Summa contra Gentiles. Both of these treatises were written at the re-
quest of the Dominican order and were aimed at refuting the “hereti-
cal”Averroisticargumentsofphilosophersandsophists,acommonten-
dency within the more liberal Franciscan order; and “this refutation of
St.Thomas can be very well compared with that of al-Ghazali’s in the
Tahafut” (Sheikh 1982, 110). Even George Sarton (1927–48, 2:892)
recognizes such a link: “Many passages of it [Pugio Fidei] are iden-
tical with passages of St. Thomas’ Summa contra Gentiles.” Another
sourceofAquinas’sfamiliaritywithAl-Ghazali’sworkswastheJewish
Scholastic, Moses Bin Maimonides (1135–1204) (“the product of that
radiant interlude in history, the GoldenAge of Moorish Spain” [Brat-
ton 1967, vii]), who himself was influenced by Al-Ghazali (see Artz
1953, 147; Myers 1964, 42–43; O’Leary 1922, 286–87; Smith 1944,
217;andFarsi1963,156;seealsoSharif1966,2:1360–62).Itmustbe
mentioned,however,thatsuchintellectualborrowingwithoutacknowl-
edgmentwasnotanuncommonpracticeatthetime—twentieth-century
propertyrightshadnotarrivedyet.AsforSt.Thomas,“improvingupon
the custom of his time, he made explicit acknowledgments of his bor-
rowings. He quotes Avicenna, Al-Ghazali, Averroes, Isaac Israel, Ibn
Gabirol,andMaimonides”(Durant1950,963).
EvenmorepersuasiveevidenceofSt.Thomas’srelianceonAl-Ghazali
isprovidedbyMargaretSmith.“TherecanbenodoubtthatAl-Ghazali’s
workswouldbeamongthefirsttoattracttheattentionoftheseEuropean
scholars” (Smith 1944, 220; see also Alonso 1958). Then she empha-
sizes, “The greatest of these Christian writers who was influenced by
Al-Ghazali was St. Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), who made a study
of theArabic writers and admitted his indebtedness to them. He stud-
ied at the University of Naples where the influence of Arab literature
and culture was predominant at the time” (220). Such indebtedness is
acknowledged, as per Smith, in St.Thomas’s Summa Theologica, sup-
plement,part3,article1,ofquestion92(seealsoSarton1927–48,2:914,
915, 968; and Durant 1950, 963).7 Smith points out several aspects of
7.FortheindebtednessofSt.ThomasAquinastoAl-Ghazaliandthecomparisonofthe
two,seeSarton1927–48,2:914,915,968;Guillaume1931,273,275;andDurant1950,963.
Ghazanfar/Al-GhazaliandAquinas 865
St.Thomas’swritingsthatparallelAl-Ghazali’s,andsheconcludesthat
their origins, including “the very words,” are in the latter’s writings
(220–22). And another scholar, by quoting comparable writings from
each,demonstrates“howtheworksofAl-Ghazalihaveplayedanimpor-
tant role in shaping the philosophical ideas ofAquinas” (Shanab 1974,
140–41).8
SocioculturalandIntellectualEnvironment
duringtheAl-Ghazali/St.ThomasEra
Indeed,tounderstandScholasticism(generallydefinedasthephilosoph-
icalapproachconcernedwiththe“possibilityofreconcilingreasonwith
faith” [Durant 1950, 965]), it is appropriate to take a glance at the so-
ciocultural and intellectual environment in which Al-Ghazali and St.
Thomas wrote. These early medieval centuries (about the ninth to the
thirteenth)werethebattlegroundonwhichnumerousskeptics,belonging
both to theArab-Islamic civilization as well as to Latin-Christian Eu-
rope, contested with the theologians for the possession of men’s souls
and minds. And, during this period, the Arab-Islamic world, building
uponthenewlydiscoveredGreekheritageineighth-centurySyria,had
produceditsownearly“Aristotles,”suchasAl-Farabi(Farabus[d.950])
and Ibn Sina.9 These “rationalistic” philosophers had already raised
questions about the prevailing Islamic orthodoxy. Al-Ghazali’s Taha-
futal-Falasafa[Theincoherenceofthephilosophers]wasaresponseto
such “excessive”Aristotelianism. His most significant work, however,
Further, G. F. Moore (1948, 457) comparesAl-Ghazali with St.ThomasAquinas but then
addsthat“hispersonalcontributiontotheologywasmuchmoreconsiderablethanthatofthe
Christiantheologian.”
8.WhilemyfocusinthisarticleisonthesimilaritiesbetweenAl-GhazaliandAquinas
in economics, several parallels and linkages betweenAl-Farabi and St.Thomas have been
documented on other topics by Reverend Robert Hammond.After a detailed comparative
analysis,Hammond(1947,55)concludesthat“theSaintwhocameoutwith[agiven]theory
threehundredyearslater,mustcertainlyhaveborroweditfromAlfarabi.”
9.Asonemightexpect,therewere“Aristotles”ineachofthethreeAbrahamic,monothe-
istic religious traditions. The JewishAristotle was Moses Bin Maimonides, a pre-Aquinas
contemporary of Ibn Rushd who was familiar with the writings ofAl-Ghazali and others.
Specifically,hisGuidetothePerplexed wasinspiredbyAl-Ghazaliandincludedpassages
from the latter’s Al-Munqidh Minal Dalal [The deliverance from error] (Myers 1964, 42).
AccordingtoT.J.DeBoer(1965,209),“ThedevelopmentoftheJewishstudyofphilosophy
culminatedinMaimonides(1135–1204),whosought,chieflyundertheinfluenceofFarabi
andIbnSina,toreconcileAristotlewiththeOldTestament.”
866 HistoryofPoliticalEconomy32:4(2000)
was Ihya Ulum al-Deen [The revival of the religious sciences], a com-
prehensive four-volume compendium that attempted, like St.Thomas’s
Summa Theologica, to provide answers and commentaries on all as-
pectsoflife,sacredaswellassecular,consistentwiththeIslamicscrip-
tures.10 However, the “achievement of Al-Ghazali was to master their
techniqueofthinking—mainlyAristotelianlogic—andthen,makinguse
of that, to refashion the basis of Islamic theology, to incorporate as
muchoftheNeoplatonists’teachingaswascompatiblewithIslam,and
to expose the logical weakness of the rest of their philosophy” (Watt
1963,l3).
ThenemergedIbnRushd,“theGreatCommentator,”evenmoreforce-
ful a rationalist than Al-Farabi and Ibn Sina, and “the foremost ex-
pounderofAristotle”(Myers1964,40).Duringtheelevenththroughthe
thirteenthcenturies,asthewritingsofnumerousArab-IslamicScholas-
tics became available to Latin Europe, here, too, radical Aristotelian
“scientific rationalism” was viewed as a threat to Christianity (Gold-
stein 1988, 113). Ibn Rushd had tried to “delimit the respective areas
offaithandreason.Thisisoneofhisgreatestcontributionstothethir-
teenth century; his influence upon what was to becomeThomism must
be laid to his account, as well as his effect, on the Latin Averroists.
WherehedifferedwithSt.Thomaswasinhisrefusaltoreconcilewhat
he regarded as irreconcilable” (Leff 1958, 156).There were confronta-
tions with “Averroistic heresies” and there were papal condemnations,
thelistof219condemnationspublishedin1277byEtienneTempler,the
Bishop of Paris, being the clear manifestation (Durant 1950, 957–58).
The twelfth and thirteenth centuries’penetration of Greek and Islamic
philosophies,sodifferentfromtheChristian,“threatenedtosweepaway
the whole theology of Christendom unless Christianity could construct
a counterphilosophy” (Durant 1950, 949). Thus, as a consequence of
the intellectual battles between the “anti-Averroist” Dominican monks
(St. Thomas and his teacher,Albertus Magnus; also, Raymund Martin
andRaymundLull[1232–1315],tonametwo)andthe“pro-Averroist”
Aristotelian Franciscan friars (led by Siger of Brabant, but also Roger
Bacon[1214–1294],DunsScotus[1265–1308],andWilliamofOckham
10.Emphasizing the theological-philosophical similarities between the two medieval
Scholastics,BertramThomas(1937,189)says,“ThegreatestMoslemmystic,amanofwon-
derfuleruditionanddeeppiety,wasAl-Ghazali,calledtheSt.ThomasofIslam.”