AVERROES (IBN RUSHD) DISCUSSION OF TYRANNY AND THE IDEAL CONSTITUTION

Averroes' discussion of tyranny seems to assume not Plato's scheme of transition of democracy to tyranny, but rather Aristotle's view of tyranny as the perversion of monarchy. Averroes (Ibn Rushd) seems to have been ignorant of Plato's distinctions of two forms of monarchy: royalty and tyranny Averroes' distinction of "service" between rulers and ruled is significant: the common basis and purpose are maintained. Whereas the tyrant gives orders and masters slaves, the king guides and leads free citizens. Also, there is and interesting instance of applying Platonic argument to the Islamic State, past and present, in Averroes' view. It appears  that the Ideal constitution is identified with the rule of the four Khulafarashidun and with Muawwiya the perversion of  this ideal rule set in This is quite in keeping with the traditional Muslim interpretation. As far as Averroes (Ibn Rushd) is concerned, it shows clearly that and Platonic observations fully valid as general principles applicable to Islamic civilization. The analogy is not simply and an illustration and an approximation but the outcome of the recognition of the Greek political thinking as relevant to Islamic thought and practice. It refers no doubt to the Almohad State of the Maghreb. From other contemporary references we know that Averroes (Ibn Rushd) looked upon the founders of Almohad (and even of Almoravid) dynasty as very near to the ideal State (both of Islam, built on the Sharia and Plato). This holds good for initiator of the Almohad movement, Ibn Tumart, and first Almohad ruler, Abd alk Mumin. But just as the early stages of Islam the four Khulafarashidun were replaced by Muawiya, so Abdel Mumin followed by "timocratic" son and grandson. Averroes (Ibn Rushd) could safely go further in his critique of the State of his patrons Abu Ya qubb Yusuf and Yusuf Yaqub al-Mansur.
Casalino Pierluigi on August 29th 2014