Muslims in the Horizon of Thomas Aquinas, Part 5

The perspective of Thomas Aquinas on Muslims and Islam is a multifaceted subject that reflects the broader Christian intellectual and theological milieu of the Middle Ages. Given the historical context in which he lived—a time marked by the Crusades and Christian-Muslim encounters in various spheres including the battlefield, trade, and intellectual exchanges—Aquinas's views on Muslims are significant.

Intellectual Engagement with Islamic Philosophy

Aquinas was deeply engaged with the works of Islamic philosophers, particularly those of Avicenna (Ibn Sina) and Averroes (Ibn Rushd). These philosophers were instrumental in transmitting and interpreting Aristotle's works, which had a profound influence on Aquinas's own philosophical and theological synthesis. While Aquinas often disagreed with their conclusions, especially on matters of faith and the nature of God, he respected their intellectual rigor and engaged with their works critically and extensively. This engagement demonstrates a nuanced approach to Islamic thought, characterized by intellectual respect and critical dialogue, rather than outright dismissal or hostility.

Theological and Philosophical Critiques

In theological and philosophical terms, Aquinas critiqued certain Islamic doctrines from a Christian standpoint. For example, he disagreed with the Islamic understanding of God's nature, particularly regarding the concept of divine unity (tawhid) and the relationship between God's essence and attributes. Aquinas argued for a different understanding of God, emphasizing the Trinity and the Incarnation, core tenets of Christianity that Islam rejects.

Views on Muslims and Religious Others

As for his views on Muslims themselves, Aquinas lived in a period where the Christian and Muslim worlds were often in conflict, but his writings suggest that his primary concerns were theological and philosophical, rather than based on cultural or racial prejudice. He recognized the need for rational argumentation in engaging with Muslims and other non-Christians, advocating for the use of reason in theological discourse. This approach is evident in his work "Summa Contra Gentiles," which is partly aimed at providing a rational basis for Christian faith that could be used in dialogues with non-Christians, including Muslims.

Aquinas's Approach

Aquinas’s approach to Islam and Muslims was primarily intellectual, marked by a deep engagement with Islamic philosophy and a critical but respectful dialogue with its proponents. His perspective was shaped by the theological and philosophical debates of his time, reflecting a complex interaction between Christianity and Islam during the Middle Ages. Aquinas's legacy in Christian-Muslim relations underscores the importance of intellectual exchange and critical engagement across religious and cultural boundaries. He had a model in Frederick II and his Muslim-leaning court. The Emperor was quite sympathetic toward Islam, Muslims, and Islamic philosophy.

Diplomatic Disposition or Sheer Appreciation?

It is argued that Frederick’s overall kind treatment of Muslims was a product of his diplomatic political disposition. Indeed, diplomacy cannot be discounted, but given his appreciation for Muslim sciences, language, and culture his sympathetic tendencies towards Muslims can neither be slighted. There was a genuine affinity that existed between the early Norman kings and the Muslim civilization. Frederick’s mother was Norman Sicilian and he had spent his childhood around the Muslims of Palermo; he was truly at home with Muslims. Of course, Frederick was not very diplomatic during his struggles with Popes and many European princes, and his antagonistic approach to the ecclesiastical hierarchy in and of itself spells a secularist rather than conservative Christian propensity. The Popes identified Frederick’s antagonism of the Church with his love for Islamic ways and Muslim manners. Frederick had amply displayed the Renaissance penchant for Christian indifference and subtle appreciation for Muslim ways and was amply scolded for such a non-traditional bent.        

Struggles with the Papacy

While Muslims had a good opinion of Frederick II, the Pope excommunicated him four times for several reasons, one being his cordial relationships with and appreciation of the Muslim religion. Abulafia notices that “the papal propagandists also accused Frederick of being too friendly to one of the religions he was said to condemn, Islam.” The Emperor was genuinely skeptical about certain aspects of the Christian tradition especially its’ incarnational and Trinitarian bent. The Pope’s solo rights of salvation and governance, an unintended offshoot of the Trinitarian outlook, were unacceptable to the Emperor. He had problems with papal authority throughout his time as Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire; Dorothea Weltecke notes that “Frederick's dramatic life and reign were affected by many conflicts, notably overshadowed by his long struggle with Popes Gregory IX (1227-1241) and Innocentius IV (1243- 1254), primarily concerning rule in Italy. His demand for a universal rulership as a Christian Roman Emperor collided with the same claim by the popes. This is the time when the papal claim to real power in European politics approached its climax in theory and practice. In 1245 a council in the city of Lyon officially pronounced the emperor deposed.”

Thomas Aquinas was then in Paris, and well acquainted with the Council proceedings, as well as King Louis’s vow to take up the Cross, arrange for the real Christian Crusades against the Muslim infidels, and free the Holy Land from the impious Saracens. Thomas’s brother was also executed by Frederick in 1245 after his excommunication in the Council of Lyon. The Pope’s ex-communication bulls were publicized all over Europe, especially in Louis’ France and the University of Paris. The Mendicant friars were the bulwark of the imperial and papal propaganda machine.   

Pope Gregory’s toxic bulls declared Frederick the “forerunner of Antichrist', a monstrous Leviathan roaring blasphemy from a lion's mouth, formed like a panther but with the feet of a bear… Metaphor was heaped on metaphor: the panther was also a 'wolf in sheep's clothing'… a scorpion.” The Pope sent him a stream of invective letters that “portrayed him in blood-curdling apocalyptic language as the fourth beast in the vision of the prophet Daniel, a destroyer and devourer, iron-toothed and brazen clawed, believing himself able to transform those things that are set, to direct the course of history away from its path. The atheistic emperor was seen as a new Herod, a Sadducee, and much else…” Abulafia notices that in “Gregory IX, certainly, we do see a passionate commitment to the destruction of Frederick, that is carried through to his successor Innocent IV.” The Pope publicly called him a “Saracen lover”, “a destroyer of churches” and “the denier of God.” The defiant Frederick could care less about the Pope and his decision to depose the Emperor. Frederick took out a crown and “with his eyes blazing, placed it on the head where it belonged, roaring: 'I have not yet lost my crown, neither will pope or council take it from me without a bloody war!” Frederick thought of introducing a new civil religion tolerant of various religious groups, a religion without bloody popes, persecutions, distortions, and manipulations.  

Emperor's Skepticism and Aquinas

The Emperor’s skepticism regarding some Christian dogmas embodied by Papal authority and office might have played a role in St. Thomas Aquinas’s efforts to rationalize Christian theology and political thought. Aquinas’s political theories, embodied by his discussions of divine law, natural law, and positive law and his ambivalence towards absolute papal political authority, are less reflective of the universal papal monarchical theory envisaged by the popes of his time and more reflective of Frederick’s relative theories of state. As mentioned above, St. Thomas was born in Aquino County of Sicily and was a graduate of Naples University which was founded by Frederick II in 1224. It was here that Aquinas was introduced to Aristotle, Averroes, and Maimonides.

Aristotelian Ethics

Aristotelian ethics were thoroughly discussed, debated, and interpreted by Muslim philosophers such as al-Farabi, Ibn Sina, Ibn Rushd, and al-Ghazali. Al-Farabi’s “Perfect or Ideal State” was an amalgamation of Platonic, Aristotelian, and Islamic political ideals. Al-Farabi’s political philosophy of limited government and qualified monarchy had a lasting influence on the Spanish Muslim philosophers such as Ibn Bajja, Ibn Tufayl, and his student Ibn Rushd. Maimonides was thoroughly influenced by al-Farabi, and that influence stretched to Aquinas. Al-Farabi’s insistence upon an accomplished philosopher, prophet, and lawgiver as the ideal ruler of an ideal city excluded and depreciated the significance of absolutely orthodox religiosity in terms of rulership. Al-Farabi had faced identical political tensions in the tenth century of the Abbasid Muslim caliphate, which Aquinas was to face in the thirteenth-century Christendom. Ibn Rushd’s Andalus and times were not far from Aquinas’ Sicily and Italy. Their sense of religious depreciation, and inclusion of philosophical wisdom in matters of authority and rulership, were opposed to the papal claims of absolute, universal, and monarchical authority based upon religious office. Religion was needed for socio-communal coherence, but was not the ultimate source of political authority; philosophical wisdom and morality along with a host of other qualifications were needed for qualified government besides religion.

A Synthesis of Greco-Christian Political Ideology 

Aquinas stood at the crossroads between the Christian Gospel and Aristotelian political doctrine; unlike the popes, he contended that the Gospel and the Christian faith could flourish in any political regime as long as believers were allowed to practice their faith. Unlike Islam and Judaism, there was no religious law in Christianity. The Gospel principle of “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars” drew a demarcation line between the secular and spiritual dominions. Even though Jesus claimed to be the King, his kingdom was spiritual. Thomas never wrote a systematic treatise on the subject but his partial treatment of the subject was more anti-papal than anti-emperor. He, like Aristotle, al-Farabi, and Ibn Rushd, insisted upon natural law, virtues- especially the virtue of justice, common law or common good, fair distribution of economic resources- and morality as fundamental to rulership. He maintained that the papacy could be invested with political authority due to circumstances and not as an essential part of the spiritual package. This was markedly in contrast with the popes’ theories of universal monarchy as the vicars of Christ. In the end, in 1277 Aquinas, like Frederick, was also condemned by the Church.         

Frederick and the Muslim Model of Governance

Frederick was well acquainted with the Muslim models of governance; Jacob Burckhardt states that Emperor Frederick II “early accustomed himself to a thoroughly objective treatment of affairs, the first modern man to sit upon a throne. His acquaintance with the internal condition and administration of the Saracenic States was close and intimate; and the mortal struggle in which he was engaged with the Papacy compelled him, no less than his adversaries, to bring into the field all the resources at his command.” He collected “taxes, based on a comprehensive assessment and in accordance with Mohammedan practice,” and “it was after genuine Mohammedan fashion that Frederick traded on his own account in all parts of the Mediterranean, reserving to himself the monopoly of many commodities and restricting the commerce of his subjects.” According to Burckhardt, it was during such times and under such Sicilian leadership that “St. Thomas Aquinas, a born subject of Frederick, developed the theory of a constitutional monarchy in which the prince would be assisted by an upper house named by himself and a representative body elected by the people.” This concept was close to the Muslim doctrine of Shura or consultative body and limited monarchy bound by Islamic law.

Frederick's Pluralistic Court

Frederick’s court was an important center, not only of Aristotelian studies but especially of Averroistic studies. The translations made in this court were of Aristotelian Greek and Arabic authors, the most important of whom was Averroes, translated in part at Toledo and the court in Palermo. The “works of Averroes slowly penetrated into Latin scholasticism after 1230 and their channels were the court in Palermo and the studium in Naples.” It seems that Frederick’s Sicily, with its multiple intellectual, political, cultural, and theological upheavals, went deeper into making the person and overall thought of Thomas Aquinas; in the end, he was a pure Sicilian.