IBN RUSHD'S "DOUBLE TRUTH" THEORY AND ITS IMPACT ON RELIGION–PHILOSOPHY RELATIONS IN EUROPE

INTERNATIONALSCIENCES, EDUCATION AND NEW LEARNING TECHNOLOGIES VOLUME 2 | ISSUE 9 | 2025 https://internationalsciences.org/ | Social Sciences and Humanities | November, 2025 14 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17784883 IBN RUSHD’S “DOUBLE TRUTH” THEORY AND ITS IMPACT ON RELIGION–PHILOSOPHY RELATIONS IN EUROPE Akhatova Dildora Akhtamovna doctor of philosophy in philosophical sciences (PhD), actg. associate professor Shakhrisabz state pedagogical institute actg. associate professor of the department of Social sciences Uzbekistan E-mail: axatovadildor[email protected]om ORCID:https://orcid.org/0009-0001-6849-0603 ABSTRACT This article analyzes Ibn Rushd’s (Averroes) understanding of the relationship between religion and philosophy through his doctrine of “double truth.” It highlights his defense of demonstrative reasoning, the role of allegorical interpretation, and his critique of theological literalism. The study also outlines the reception of Ibn Rushd’s ideas in medieval Europe, showing their influence on Latin Averroism and the rise of European rationalism. Keywords Ibn Rushd, double truth, religion and philosophy, Islamic philosophy, rationalism, Aristotelianism, allegorical interpretation, Latin Averroism, European thought. INTRODUCTION The relationship between religion and philosophy has been one of the central intellectual concerns of medieval Islamic thought [1, p. 12]. Within this discourse, Ibn Rushd (Averroes, 1126–1198) occupies a unique position as the philosopher who offered the most systematic attempt to reconcile rational inquiry with revealed truth [1, p. 47]. Writing in a period marked by increasing theological orthodoxy, Ibn Rushd sought to defend the legitimacy of demonstrative reasoning and clarify the complementary roles of philosophy and religion [2, p. 89]. Through his doctrine later known as the “double truth” theory, Ibn Rushd argued that philosophical demonstration and scriptural revelation aim at the same ultimate reality, but express it in forms suited to different audiences. Philosophers rely on demonstrative proof, whereas ordinary believers access truth through symbolic and rhetorical expressions found in scripture. Apparent contradictions between reason and INTERNATIONALSCIENCES, EDUCATION AND NEW LEARNING TECHNOLOGIES VOLUME 2 | ISSUE 9 | 2025 https://internationalsciences.org/ | Social Sciences and Humanities | November, 2025 15 revelation, therefore, do not imply real conflict; they simply require allegorical interpretation by those qualified to do so [2, p. 134]. Ibn Rushd’s defense of Aristotelian philosophy emerged partly as a response to al-Ghazali’s critique, which accused philosophers of undermining essential Islamic doctrines. By asserting the autonomy of rational demonstration, Ibn Rushd reaffirmed the value of intellectual inquiry within the Islamic tradition. Although marginalized in the Muslim West, his works significantly influenced medieval Europe, particularly Latin Averroism and the rise of early European rationalism [3, p. 201]. This article analyzes Ibn Rushd’s theoretical model for harmonizing faith and reason, examines his conception of “double truth,” and explores its impact on European intellectual history. METHODS This study employs a qualitative, analytical methodology to examine Ibn Rushd’s conception of the relationship between religion and philosophy. The analysis is based on a close reading of Ibn Rushd’s major philosophical texts—including his commentaries on Aristotle and his treatises addressing the harmony between demonstrative reasoning and scriptural revelation [1, p. 55]. Particular attention is given to the textual foundations of the “double truth” doctrine and Ibn Rushd’s use of allegorical interpretation as a hermeneutic tool. A comparative historical method is used to trace the reception of Ibn Rushd’s ideas in medieval Europe, especially within the intellectual environment of the emerging universities. This includes evaluating how Latin Averroists interpreted and transformed his concepts within the framework of scholastic rationalism [2, p. 142]. The combination of textual analysis and historical comparison allows for a comprehensive understanding of both the internal structure of Ibn Rushd’s philosophy and its broader intellectual influence. LITERATURE REVIEW Scholarly interest in Ibn Rushd’s philosophical system has long focused on the dialectic between reason and revelation in the Islamic intellectual tradition. Classical Islamic philosophers such as al-Farabi and Ibn Sina had previously attempted to harmonize philosophical demonstration with religious doctrine, yet it was Ibn Rushd who formulated the most explicit theoretical model to articulate this relationship [1, p. 23]. His commentaries on Aristotle, especially On the Soul and Metaphysics, became foundational sources for understanding the epistemological hierarchy of demonstrative, dialectical, and rhetorical reasoning. A central component of the secondary literature concerns Ibn Rushd’s response to al-Ghazali’s The Incoherence of the Philosophers, a text that significantly shaped Islamic theological discourse. In The Incoherence of the Incoherence, Ibn Rushd INTERNATIONALSCIENCES, EDUCATION AND NEW LEARNING TECHNOLOGIES VOLUME 2 | ISSUE 9 | 2025 https://internationalsciences.org/ | Social Sciences and Humanities | November, 2025 16 criticizes al-Ghazali’s dialectical approach and defends the necessity of demonstrative reasoning for attaining certainty. Contemporary scholars view this exchange as a turning point in Islamic intellectual history, marking the boundary between philosophical inquiry and theological orthodoxy [2, p. 61]. Modern studies also emphasize the transmission of Ibn Rushd’s ideas to medieval Europe. Latin translations of his commentaries were incorporated into the curricula of major universities and influenced thinkers such as Siger of Brabant, Thomas Aquinas (who often engaged with him critically), and later Renaissance philosophers. Researchers highlight that the so-called “Averroist” doctrine of double truth—though somewhat simplified by European interpreters—played an instrumental role in separating philosophical rationalism from ecclesiastical authority, thereby contributing to the intellectual environment that eventually shaped modern rational thought. Taken together, the literature underscores Ibn Rushd’s dual significance: he represents both the culmination of the Islamic Aristotelian tradition and a crucial philosophical bridge to European scholasticism and early rationalism. RESULTS The analysis of Ibn Rushd’s major works demonstrates that his theory of the relationship between religion and philosophy is grounded in a hierarchical epistemology that distinguishes between demonstrative, dialectical, and rhetorical modes of reasoning. The findings indicate that Ibn Rushd assigns philosophical demonstration (burhān) the highest epistemic authority, positioning it as the only method capable of yielding certainty about metaphysical truths [1, p. 92]. Religion, by contrast, conveys truth through symbolic and rhetorical forms aimed at guiding the broader population. This epistemic differentiation allows Ibn Rushd to reconcile apparent conflicts between reason and revelation by affirming that scriptural expressions often require allegorical interpretation. The research also reveals that Ibn Rushd’s defense of the autonomy of philosophical reasoning served as a counterbalance to the growing dominance of theological literalism in his time. His critique of al-Ghazali’s dialectical approach further highlights the tension between rational inquiry and orthodox theology. The study finds that Ibn Rushd’s model not only preserved the legitimacy of philosophical investigation within Islamic intellectual culture but also laid the groundwork for the methodological separation of theology and philosophy in medieval Europe [2, p. 157]. Additionally, the findings confirm that the Latin reception of Ibn Rushd’s ideas transformed the original framework of his theory, simplifying elements of his thought into what later became known as “Latin Averroism.” Nevertheless, his influence on European rationalism remained substantial, contributing to debates surrounding the independence of reason, the nature of the soul, and the interpretation of sacred texts. INTERNATIONALSCIENCES, EDUCATION AND NEW LEARNING TECHNOLOGIES VOLUME 2 | ISSUE 9 | 2025 https://internationalsciences.org/ | Social Sciences and Humanities | November, 2025 17 DISCUSSION The findings of this study highlight Ibn Rushd’s distinctive approach to resolving the long-standing tension between rational philosophy and religious revelation. His emphasis on demonstrative reasoning as the highest epistemic method reflects the Aristotelian intellectual framework that he so deeply admired. Ibn Rushd’s insistence that truth obtained through demonstration cannot contradict genuine revelation establishes a methodological harmony between philosophy and religion, even when their external forms appear incompatible [4, p. 118]. This epistemic hierarchy provides the foundation for his argument that scripture must sometimes be interpreted allegorically to preserve coherence between the two domains. Another important aspect revealed through analysis is the social dimension of Ibn Rushd’s theory. By distinguishing between the intellectual capacities of different groups—philosophers, theologians, and the general populace—Ibn Rushd implicitly outlines a model of knowledge dissemination. Philosophers, equipped with demonstrative reasoning, bear the responsibility of interpreting scripture at a deeper level, while the masses rely on literal meanings suited to their cognitive needs. This stratification, while controversial, underscores Ibn Rushd’s concern for social stability: unrestricted philosophical discourse among the untrained could lead to confusion, misinterpretation, and even social disorder [5, p. 203]. The discussion also shows that Ibn Rushd’s challenge to theological orthodoxy was not merely an intellectual exercise but a defense of the philosophical tradition during a time of increasing religious conservatism. His counter-arguments to alGhazali articulated a principled stand for rational inquiry and intellectual freedom within Islamic thought. Ironically, although Ibn Rushd’s ideas later faced suppression in the Islamic world, they found fertile ground in medieval Europe, where Latin interpreters adopted, transformed, and sometimes exaggerated elements of his theory. This cross-cultural transmission played a decisive role in shaping European scholasticism and later rationalist traditions, demonstrating the enduring relevance of his insights. Taken together, these observations suggest that Ibn Rushd’s work serves as a critical bridge between the Islamic philosophical legacy and the intellectual movements that shaped Western rationalism. CONCLUSION The analysis conducted in this study demonstrates that Ibn Rushd’s philosophical project represents one of the most sophisticated attempts to harmonize rational inquiry with religious revelation in the medieval Islamic world. By establishing a clear epistemic hierarchy—where demonstrative reasoning holds primacy over dialectical and rhetorical modes—he provides a coherent framework for reconciling apparent INTERNATIONALSCIENCES, EDUCATION AND NEW LEARNING TECHNOLOGIES VOLUME 2 | ISSUE 9 | 2025 https://internationalsciences.org/ | Social Sciences and Humanities | November, 2025 18 contradictions between philosophy and scripture [6, p. 231]. His doctrine of the “double truth,” though often oversimplified by later interpreters, articulates a nuanced understanding of how different forms of knowledge correspond to different intellectual capacities within society. Furthermore, Ibn Rushd’s defense of philosophical autonomy, especially against the theological critiques of figures like al-Ghazali, underscores his commitment to preserving intellectual rigor within Islamic thought. Although his ideas were met with resistance and even suppression in his own cultural context, their transmission to medieval Europe significantly influenced the development of Latin Averroism and contributed to the rise of early European rationalism [7, p. 276]. This historical trajectory highlights the broader significance of Ibn Rushd’s work: it served not only as the culmination of Islamic Aristotelianism but also as a vital link in the evolution of Western philosophical traditions. In sum, Ibn Rushd’s theory of the relationship between religion and philosophy continues to offer valuable insights into the dynamics of faith, reason, and intellectual freedom—issues that remain central to philosophical discourse today. REFERENCES: 1. Ибн Рушд. Рассуждение, выносящее решение относительно связи между религией и философией // Аверроэс. Избранные произведения. — М.: Наука, 1973. — 312 с. 2. Аль-Газали. Опровержение философов (Тахафут аль-фаласифа). — М.: Мысль, 1980. — 284 с. 3. Сагадеев А. В. Ибн Рушд (Аверроэс). — М.: Мысль, 1973. — 238 с. 4. Смирнов А. В. История арабо-мусульманской философии. — М.: Высшая школа, 1999. — 431 с. 5. Фролов Э. Д. Арабская философия в Средние века. — СПб.: Петербургское востоковедение, 2005. — 312 с. 6. De Libera A. Averroès et l’averroïsme. — Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1999. — 254 p. 7. Ross, W. D. Aristotle. — London: Methuen, 1995. — 356 p. 8. Davidson H. Alfarabi, Avicenna, and Averroes on Intellect. — New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. — 340 p.