This year marks the 900th anniversary of the birth of the philosopher and jurist Abu al-Walid Ibn Rushd of Cordoba (1126–1198). Over the past century, European and Arab scholars have shown the greatest interest in him and in publishing his works, second only to Ibn Khaldun. Writing about Ibn Khaldun is far easier, as he left behind the "Muqaddimah" and the "Tarikh" (History); researchers studying his theory of history or sociology suffice themselves with the Muqaddimah, with some claiming he failed to apply his theory in his Tarikh, even though most of them have never actually read it.
As for Ibn Rushd, the bulk of his writings consists of commentaries, ranging from concise summaries to extensive treatises, on Aristotle's voluminous works. He also authored a book on jurisprudential disagreement, another debating Al-Ghazali, and two treatises engaging theologians on the methodologies of interpreting religious texts. I forgot to mention that he also wrote a book on medicine.
In recent years, there has been a surge of interest, particularly among French researchers, in republishing Ibn Rushd's commentaries on Aristotle and translating them into French, as well as writing about his originality even within those commentaries and conducting renewed assessments of his influence on medieval European philosophy and its transition into the European Renaissance.
Why this lengthy discussion about Ibn Rushd? Not merely because of his 900th anniversary, but also for his contributions to critiquing stagnation in "kalam" (speculative theology), philosophy, and Sufism, as well as his call for a demonstrative religious science and, finally, for his views, albeit sometimes attributed to Plato and Aristotle, on issues of war and peace.
In the chapter on "Jihad and Conduct of War" in Ibn Rushd's "Bidayat al-Mujtahid" ("The Distinguished Jurist's Primer"), we find him citing the views of the Maliki school approvingly, while adding that jihad is the purview of the state and that volunteering in it is inadvisable, as it has frequently led to disasters. In any case, fighting is defensive rather than offensive, as the holy Quran repeatedly states: "...and do not transgress."
Thus, Ibn Rushd pays little attention to issues of war, even though turmoil was widespread in Al-Andalus and the Maghreb. However, this tendency to overlook matters of armed conflict is also noticeable in his summary of Plato's book on politics, "The Republic". If two cities attack the author's virtuous city, the city must work to sow discord between the two attackers so that it allies with one against the other that harbors greater hostility.
This understanding of Plato's military policies is not accurate. In reality, Plato is concerned with educating the guardians and protectors rather than external aggression against the city; he argues - and Ibn Rushd follows him approvingly - that the political city, through its wise governance, avoids most wars through politics, something that cities of militarization, spoils, and ignorance fail to do. In doing so, Plato's assertions come close to the advice we read in the "Al-Adab al-Sultaniyya" ("Mirrors for Princes"), in which the sultan relies on stratagems and wealth to avert foreign invasion.
Another factor in the state's image to avoid war is having young men accompany their fathers into battle; if that is not possible, then at least setting up camps for them to train and prepare - something the enemy will undoubtedly see and thus, hesitate to attack the city. Ibn Rushd is pleased by Plato's advice, recalling the Quranic verse: "And prepare against them whatever you are able of power and of steeds of war by which you may terrify the enemy of Allah and your enemy." True preparation for war among both the Greeks and the Arabs is therefore aimed at avoiding it. Even if it does break out, you are prepared, so the enemy does not catch you by surprise and your ranks do not fracture.
Roughly three centuries separate Ibn Rushd and Ibn Khaldun. Yet Ibn Khaldun witnessed wars up close and participated in some of them, arguing that war is what gives rise to states, whereas Ibn Rushd - the jurist and philosopher - remained distant from wars, their ideologies, and their practices.
In Plato’s virtuous city, the belief is that the primary causes of war are internal; since the virtuous city harbors no internal causes for conflict, it consequently does not face external aggression. Plato asserts this despite his familiarity with Sparta’s wars against Athens. Ibn Rushd abhors war, yet in the jurisprudential chapter of his book "Bidayat al-Mujtahid" and in his commentary on Plato’s Republic, he found a theoretical framework under which to shelter in order to avoid war or mitigate its dangers.
If we examine Plato's and Ibn Rushd's arguments closely, we find that the "cardinal virtue" of this city of peace lies in its being a political, just, or virtuous city and as long as it remains so, it possesses immunity against wars. Centuries later, the German philosopher Kant argued in his essay "Perpetual Peace" that war cannot break out between constitutional states. When told, "Look at Napoleon's wars!" he replied: "Where is the constitution that authorizes Napoleon to wage war?"
And what does Ibn Rushd say if his virtuous city is surrounded by non-virtuous or ignorant cities, as both Plato and Ibn Rushd contend?
