Muslims in the Horizon of Thomas Aquinas, Part 6

It was at Naples in 1244 that Thomas joined the Dominican Order, the Order of Friar Preachers, against his family’s will. “The prior who received Thomas into the Order was Friar Thomas Agni da Lentini (Sicily), an eminent man who later became provincial of the Roman Province in 1252, bishop of Cosenza in 1267, and finally patriarch of Jerusalem in 1272.” Agni de Lentini remained an important figure in the Dominican Order throughout his life. “Thomas, who had earlier headed the Roman province of the Dominican order, arrived in the Levant in the spring of 1259 as the bishop of Bethlehem and papal legate and held these offices there till shortly before February 1264. He reached Outremer again in October 1272, now as the patriarch of Jerusalem, the bishop of Acre and papal legate, and remained there until his death in September 1277.”

Agni brought a different approach to the Oriental Christians; despite being an original Dominican inquisitor he initiated theological and liturgical dialogues with the heretic denominations. He used to have inter-denominational assemblies in his house at Acre where members of the Oriental Christians such as Coptics, Maronites, Armenians, Syrians, and Greeks would present their theological and liturgical positions and Agni would present the Latin rebuttals of them. “In 1262 Agni convened an assembly which, according to its only extant description, was attended by Geoffrey, the ‘commander of the city’ (kꞌałakꞌapetn), the masters of both the Templar and the Hospitaller orders, all of the princes of the shores of Syria except the prince of Antioch and all of the advocates (avukatꞌkꞌ). At the heart of this event was an Armenian theologian named Mxitʻar, who was to express the Armenian position on various subjects in this forum.” He strictly followed the two-pronged mission strategy of the Dominican Order and convened assemblies for internal as well as external mission; “the assemblies initiated by Thomas were intended not only to confront ‘the other’ – in this case, Eastern Christians – but also to fortify the belief of the Catholic audience… Thomas was unhappy with the level of Frankish religious observance and, perhaps, specifically with what they would have perceived as local influence on Outremer’s Catholic society.” Throughout his life, Thomas Aquinas remained in touch with his Sicilian Dominican mentor.

Thomas was to go to Paris but his brother Renaldo, who at that time was part of Frederick's army, violently separated him from Agni with the help of his army comrades, including the Luceran Muslims. Frederick was aware of this incident. Thomas was brought back to Aquino and confined to the castle of Roccasecca for a year. Frederick was excommunicated in 1245, and Thomas’s family’s fortunes were turned upside down. Consequently, Thomas’s family allowed him to join the Dominican Order and study in Paris.

Thomas at Paris and Cologne

At Paris and Cologne (1245-1259) St. Thomas studied with Albert the Great. Thirteenth-century Paris was a city of philosophers, and Muslim, Jewish, and Greek teachings were flooding the academic market. Albert was thoroughly influenced by Muslim philosophers such as al-Farabi, Ibn Sina, Ibn Rushd, and theological philosopher Abu Hamid al-Ghazali. He extensively quoted these Muslim sages in his writings while accepting and rejecting their views. “Albert’s paraphrase on the Metaphysics, written immediately after his preaching of a crusade in the German-speaking countries (1263–64) by order of Pope Urban IV, bears no sign of animosity against Islam. On the contrary, as in the case of all of Albert’s Aristotelian paraphrases, as well as his previous and later theological works, the Metaphysica contains frequent references to a wide array of Muslim philosophers and astronomers, foremost among whom are the authors of the two major Arabic treatments of metaphysics, namely Avicenna (Ibn-Sīnā, d. 1037) and Averroes (Ibn-Ruŝd, d. 1198).” Albert interacted with Aristotle through the lenses, analysis, and commentaries of Ibn Sina and Ibn Rushd; “they are, after Aristotle, the authorities to whom Albert most often refers. Since they are cited not only by name, but also occasionally in an explicitly indeterminate way (“aliqui”, “nonnulli”, etc.), and often—what is most significant—silently, they represent the two real “sources”, together with the Metaphysics, of the paraphrase.”

St. Thomas was one of Albert’s favorite students and inherited his teacher’s Muslim-leaning tendencies. Together, they produced works of tremendous significance. “The four years during which Thomas studied under Albert (1245-52) were the most propitious years both in Albert's life and in the life of young Thomas.” Like Albert, the Crusades, Aristotelian philosophy through the prism of Muslim philosophers, and mission to Muslims were fundamental parts of Aquinas’s life and works.

Additionally, Latin Averroism was rampant in Paris during Thomas’ first (1245-1248) and second term (1269-1272) there. Centering on Boetius of Dacia and Siger of Brabant (1240-1284), Ibn Rushd’s commentaries and views exerted tremendous influence in the academic circles of Paris. Ibn Rushd’s philosophical views were considered anti-Christian and anti-faith, “the reception of Aristotle and his Arab commentators created bitter divisions between ‘radical’ Aristotelians in the arts faculty and ‘traditional’ theologians who remained wedded to Augustine.” Traditional theologians like the Franciscan Master General Bonaventure played down the significance of reason while emphasising the primary role of Holy Scripture; “Some wish to be all-wise and all-knowing, but it happens to them just as to the woman: ‘And the woman saw that the tree was good to eat, and fair to the eyes’ (Genesis 3.6). They see the beauty of transitory science and being delighted, they linger, they savour, and they are [deceived]. We do not belong to the party of their companions, the disciples of Solomon, but to that of David his father, who preferred the study of sanctity and wisdom to that of science.” He categorically preferred the Bible over all kinds of learning, including philosophy and rational discourse; “Thus, let him who wishes to learn, seek science at its source, namely, in Holy Scripture, since ‘the knowledge of salvation given for the remission of our sins’ (Luke 1.77) is not found among the philosophers, nor among the summas of the masters, since they draw from the originals of the saints. But certain science cannot be taken from the originals beyond what the saints draw from Holy Scripture, since the saints could be deceived.” To him, philosophical reasoning and rational inquiry was full of dangers; “Thus there is danger in descending to the originals; there is more danger in descending to the summas of the masters; but the greatest danger lies in descending to philosophy.”

The Averroists, on the other hand, in conformity with Ibn Rushd’s pure rationalism, insisted that rational inquiry was the foundation of authentic knowledge and could never be discarded. They insinuated that demonstrative philosophical rational proofs were scientific and hence categorical while the faith-based arguments were imprecise, probable and tentative. To them rational and scientific inquiry was higher than faith-based prepositions, but they could not publicly state that due to fears of persecution. The rational Averroists thought highly of their philosophical methodology while considering the traditional theologians’ ways as primitive, persuasive but irrational, meant for popular mass consumption. They developed a theory of double truth to strike a balance between their aspired philosophical truths and traditionally propagated religious truths. They contended that there was only one truth, but two ways to reach it- through religion and through philosophy.

They, like Ibn Rushd, gave autonomy and independence to reason, separating its realms from the realms of religion and faith. This was a real challenge to the Church’s intellectual domination; Siger assigned the hard truth of philosophy and reason a higher place over and beyond soft religious truth gained through revelation. That was alarming to the Church leaders. To Albert, Bonaventure and Thomas, they were heretical hypocrites, who placed reason over faith, philosophy over theology and Aristotle over Christ.

Will Durant notes that “the 12th and 13th centuries brought to the West the revelation and challenge of Greek and Muslim philosophies so different from the Christian that they threatened to sweep away the whole theology of Christendom unless Christianity could construct a counter-philosophy.” Albert and Thomas just did that. They saved the Christian Church and faith by declaring theology as the crown of knowledge and authenticity; the pagan Aristotelian and Islamic philosophical traditions were to be used in explaining and understanding the Christian biblical theology, and not to undermine or supersede the Christian faith. The Christian revelation was divine and hence authoritative, while the Greek and Muslim philosophy was manmade and probable. The probable was to be rejected when confronted by the authoritative revelation. This way they thwarted the utter rational challenges caused by Ibn Rushd’s revolutionary commentaries with some caveats. “To begin with, the success of Ibn Rushd’s commentaries had caused orthodox revulsions everywhere—first among the Muslims of Spain, soon afterward among the Talmudists, and finally in Christendom. Aristotle and Ibn Rushd reached the Christian schoolmen at about the same time, and during the first period of reaction they were treated as a single evil: in 1210, they were both forbidden by a provincial council at Paris; in 1215 the prohibition was confirmed with special reference to the Metaphysics; in 1231 a papal injunction interdicted the reading of their works until their complete expurgation.” Orthodox extreme reactions caused Averroism to go underground but with subversive zeal. “Meanwhile Averroism, being ostracised, became necessarily more subversive, Thomas Aquinas’ immense effort was essentially a part of the general reaction against the heterodox doctrines which had gradually gathered under the Averroistic banner of revolt. By the year 1277, the bishop of Paris was able to condemn specifically 219 errors in the teachings of these troublemakers. Thus, Ibn Rushd came to be regarded as the arch-infidel, and the greatest enemy of the faith. This was absolutely wrong; he was neither better nor worse than St. Thomas himself; his creed was different, but his intellectual purpose was essentially the same, and his honesty and good-will not inferior. As shown by Renan, the history of Averroism is nothing but a series of misunderstandings.”

The Averroists also insisted that all humans shared a single universal intellect; that true happiness in this world could be attained through the pursuit of rational truth; that the dead would not be resurrected and that the world was eternal. These ideas were antithetical to the Christian religion, tradition, and faith. The “Latin Averroists' embrace of Aristotle included Averroes' interpretation of him. This position entailed two conclusions for them. First, they shared Averroes' conviction that it was possible, and appropriate, to study philosophy as an end in itself, ignoring any theological issues that this enterprise might provoke. Second, they adhered to Averroes' reading of Aristotle in all particulars, including the agent intellect and eternity of matter doctrines. These proved fully as vexatious to the Latin Averroists' Christian colleagues as they had to Averroes' Muslim critics and for the same reasons. For the first of these doctrines denies the immortality of the individual soul, while the second opposes divine creation out of nothing.” The Aristotelian materialism was eroding the very foundations of Christian scripturalism, spiritualism, and Church authority.

Both the Franciscans and Dominicans went full force against the Latin Averroists and their ultra–rationalist views, whom they thought misunderstood both Aristotle and Ibn Rushd. Therefore, discussions about Muslim philosophy, theology, spirituality, and ethics were an intrinsic part of Thomas’ career in Paris, as his main mission was to reconcile the Christian faith with Aristotle without jeopardizing the Christian faith, theology, and Church. He, like his teacher Albert the Great, believed that the apparent conflict between the Christian faith and Aristotle was due to misinterpretations and misunderstandings of Aristotle’s works; proper explanation and commentary were needed to bridge the gap between the Christian faith and Aristotelian philosophy.

In 1270, Aquinas compiled his treatise “On the Unity of the Intellect against the Averroists.” Explaining the context at the start of the treatise he wrote: “For a long time now there has been spreading among many people an error concerning the intellect, arising from the words of Averroes. He tries to assert that the intellect that Aristotle calls the possible intellect, but that he himself calls by the unsuitable name ‘material’, is a substance separate in its being from the body and not united to it in some way as its form, and furthermore that this possible intellect is one for all men. Against these views we have already written many things in the past. But because the boldness of those who err has not ceased to strive against the truth, we will try again to write something against this same error to refute it clearly.”  

Thomas was concerned that Latin Averroists’ monopsychism eliminated the need for the Day of Judgment when individuals would be judged by God for reward or punishment. He explained: “if we deny to men a diversity of the intellect, which alone among the parts of the soul seems to be incorruptible and immortal, it follows that after death nothing of the souls of men would remain except that single substance of intellect; and so the recompense of rewards and punishments and also their diversity would be destroyed.” Thomas also contended that the claims of attainment of true happiness through rational discourse would eliminate the need for God, the afterlife, or revelation while true happiness was possible only in the life to come. The eternity of the world discarded the need for a creator, and the double truth theory ridiculed the authenticity of revelation. Thomas had ample precedents in the Muslim and Jewish theological traditions.

Muslim and Jewish philosophers and theologians had preceded Thomas in dealing with these issues at length. George Sarton notes that “In fact, St. Thomas made considerable use of the writings of Muslim philosophers, chiefly al-Ghazzali and Ibn Rushd, and of Jewish ones, chiefly Ibn Gabirol and Maimonides. His attitude was essentially one of moderation, comparable to al-Ghazzali’s, between the extreme Aristotelianism of Averroism on the one hand and the extreme anti-Aristotelianism of Scotism on the other.”

Al-Ghazali, al-Razi and al-Shahristani extensively analyzed, rebutted, and refuted these materialistic philosophical claims. Therefore, Thomas was occupied with Muslim philosophers and theologians’ interpretations and analysis of true happiness, creation of the world ex nihilo, and reconciliation of faith with reason. These intellectual pursuits were an integral part of his Dominican mission and training. Albertus Magnus and his pupil Aquinas made it “the goal of their lives to reconcile Aristotelian and Moslem philosophy with Christian theology. On the way, they assimilated ideas from both Muslim philosophers and theologians following their synthetic needs. For instance, Thomas agreed with Ibn Rushd in the “idea of a single Truth… the independence of philosophic discourse from theological edict… epistemological naturalism… and the religious character of universal wisdom... Although there exist wide disparities in social approaches between the two, they held in common the idea that the central aim of secular society is to provide man with temporal happiness.” On the other hand, he agreed with Ibn Rushd’s theological opponents in the creation of the world ex nihilo, multiplicity of souls, and ultimate happiness in the beatific vision. Thomas was not a mere follower but the influence of Muslim discussions, debates, ideas, and concepts was marked on him and his Dominican order.