Talk:Averroes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
 
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.

Ethnicity[edit]

Was Averroes Berber?[edit]

averroes was a berber.

Averroes is not his realy name. he was not a spanish not arab. but hij was almohad (bereber dynatie).

why do you think dat he a arab or spanish? -[213.177.151.35 at 11:35, 18 April 2004]

OK, the only person I can find claiming that Averroes is Berber is [1], and he makes the false claim that Ibn Khaldun was Berber, so I really see no reason to trust him. Conversely, real scholars who I know support the Berber cause - like Muhammad Chafik - merely say he was "Maghrebin"[www.mondeberbere.com/culture/ chafik/maghreb/substratberbere.PDF]. On the other hand, virtually everybody says he was Arab[2]. Can you present anyone more credible claiming that he was Berber? - Mustafaa 04:40, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
there is an onother link
the reason why there is not much peopel how saied that averroes wa a berber. is because such as you saied with the aid of the politic history of the north afrikan country's writed allong about the berber. and so saied you an anothers that ibn khaldun and averroes were arabs. but we can now say enough for the counterfeiting. enough !!
there is an exaple :
...Aziri 15:10, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
if you want to know more read this. Aziri 15:19, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
You admit yourself that you don't know what ethnicity he was, and yet in the same breath you claim that he "must" have been Berber. There is no good reason for this article to even mention his ethnicity unless someone can find proof of it (as I have found for the Ibn Khaldun article.) - Mustafaa 23:32, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
"Muhemmed 'mmis n'hmed mmis 'n muhamed mmis 'n ahmed miis 'n rushd" - was it now? Or was it Muhemmed u Hmed u Muhemmed u Hmed n ayt Rucd? Or was is Muxammad ag Axmad ag Muxammad ag Axmad n Kel Rucd, as it would be in Tamasheq? How sure are you that the Berbers of al-Andalus in medieval times talked like your particular dialect this century, even supposing he had any Berber ancestry? - Mustafaa 23:49, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
buh, who told you that he doesn's spoked berber , was he not the dokter of the berber kalif ? was he not dead in murrakesh : the berber city.Aziri 10:04, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Very probably he learned to speak Berber at some point - but I doubt it just happened to be the exact same dialect you speak! And even in modern Berber, you've misspelled it: it should be Muḥemmed mmis n Ḥmed mmis n Muḥemmed mmis n Ḥmed mmis n Rucd. - Mustafaa 07:31, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
yes that is very probably, but it's sure that learend arabic .Aziri 11:11, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

See also[edit]

#Lead paragraph below. — LlywelynII 01:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Ethnic origins[edit]

My sources (e.g., Encyclopaedia of Islam, Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, Henri Corbin's and Majid Fakhry's Histories, etc.) do not say Ibn Rushd has a Berber origin. Unless someone has solid proof otherwise (from original sources, not from some obscure web site), this should be deleted from the introduction.77.163.42.73 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC).

Almohad philosopher?[edit]

If "Averroes (1126 - 1198) was an Almohad philosopher" as we read here, then was Voltaire a Louis XV philosopher? Wetman 14:58, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I gladly want know what there is so commonly, and I leave that to you. Aziri 15:11, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Of course not. On the other hand, (a) the usual English name of the Moroccan realm Averroës lived under is the Almohad Caliphate so there is nothing unusual at all about treating it as a demonym and (b) there's nothing terribly unusual about calling Voltaire an ancien régime or Bourbon philosopher, just as Shakespeare was an Elizabethan playwright. — LlywelynII 01:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR[edit]

Prefer Honor not Honour

Why? — LlywelynII 01:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Vonaurum's reorganisation[edit]

Changed the section "Significance" and added the section "System of Philosophy." The following paragraph had some problems discussed below.

"Before 1150 only a few Latin translations of Aristotle existed in Europe, and they were not studied much or given much credence by monastic scholars. With the rise of scholasticism came a renewed interest in Aristotle the ancient master of basic logic, which was appealing to scholastic methods and its focus on logic. When Averroes's Latin translations were discovered, they were of high quality, clear, accurate and intellecturally sophisticated. He not only translated, but made commentaries that were so good, they could form a philosophical work of their own. "

Averroes did not write in Latin, his influence in the West was due to the fact that his books were translated in Latin. Also Averroes' work was not "discovered" in the West, they were transmitted to the West. Also some translations of Aristotle did exist but Averroes's work was more readily recieved in the West beacuse his commentories bypassed Neopatonic interpreations of Aristotle prevalent at the time. --Vonaurum 20:01, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Good points and edits. My understanding is that after the defeat of Moorish Spain, western scholars indeed did discover his work in the libraries there, and through initial translations from Arabic to Latin, introduced the west to the works of Aristotle. I have a book that discusses this with places, names and dates of these initial translations.Stbalbach 19:53, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Permission for translation into Spanish[edit]

I ask for permission to translate parts of the article for the Spanish version. The problem I see in this article is, that there doesn't seem to be main authors of the article, so I don't know exactly how I should indicate the credits of the authors of the original article. I have already translated some article about metaphysics from the German version, but there there are to main authors of that article. So after consulting them, I indicated : "translated from the German-Wikipedia version from M. Mueller and H. Erwin" (it appears then under "history") . How do you recommend me to comment an eventual translation from this article into Spanish?
Carmen Zavala www.zavala.de/carmen -[User:Philocarmen (contribs) 00:22, 16 May 2006]

You don't need permission, so feel free to just translate. It might be helpful to just leave a note in your Edit summary saying the text is a translation from the English Wikipedia, but you don't need to cite it or anything. FranksValli 04:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Republic[edit]

Why no mention of his treatise on Plato's Republic? User:Devtrash 23:55, 10 June 2006

Thanks for the note. I've just added it to the "significance" section. -- Szvest 22:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC) User:FayssalF/Sign

The Commentator[edit]

Is there a need for this redirect? It seems that Aquinas was the only one calling him that. Was this his nickname (or, at least, the name he had been known during his lifetime)? If not, I suggest the redirection to be erased. 89.110.205.39 17:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It can't hurt. Later commentators called him The Commentator, so it's plausible that someone could type in the nickname looking for Averroes. It should stay unless someone else sufficiently notable is also known by that nickname, in which case it should become a disambiguation page.--Cúchullain t/c 19:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Others were called The Commentator also. Basically, if you were discussing a commented edition of Aristotle, you would refer to Aristotle as the philosopher and the commentator -- Averroes or Alexander or whomever -- as, well, the commentator. Mccaskey (talk) 03:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Raphael's painting of him[edit]

Averros is also depicted in Rafael's painting the "School of Athens". He is far left center with a white head-dress. Mccaskey (talk) 03:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

And now it's in the page. Cool. — LlywelynII 01:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Etymology of "Averroes"[edit]

I can't find in the article that it's explained how his (very different) Arabic name got converted to the name "Averroes." What is the etymology of this name? Badagnani 03:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The Latin translations of his works were mostly made from Hebrew. "Ibn Rushd" transliterated into Hebrew could equally be read "Aven Reshed" or "Aven Roshed", as Hebrew print does not normally show vowels and b and v are interchangeable (in both Hebrew and Spanish). Spanish Christians blurring their consonants might then pronounce this as "Averrosh" or "Averros". It then needed to be made declinable in Latin, so "Averroës" emerges as the final product. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 09:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Averroes did not author Al-Bayān[edit]

In the article, it mentions that Ibn Rushd wrote his famous "Bidāyat al-Mujtahid" and also "al-Bayān wa’l-Taḥṣīl, wa’l-Sharḥ wa’l-Tawjīh wa’l-Ta`līl fi Masā’il al-Mustakhraja", but this is incorrect. The author of the latter text was Abī al-Walīd Ibn Rushd al-Jadd - the grandfather, and not Abī al-Walīd Ibn Rushd al-Ḥafīd - the grandson, Averroes. The respective articles on Ibn Rushd and Ibn Rushd al-Ḥafīd in the Brill published Encyclopedia of Islam clearly gives this citation of authorship, as do many other peer-reviewed journal articles, so it is well established unless anyone else has information to the contrary?

He did, however, write a text which was an abridgement and commentary on Abū Ḥāmid al-Ghazālī's famous text on Islamic jurisprudence, "al-Mustaṣfā" which has been published recently. It is entitled "Al-Ḍarūrī fī Uṣūl al-Fiqh aw Mukhtaṣar al-Mustaṣfā" [The Necessary in Islamic Jurisprudence or Abridgement of al-Mustaṣfā], published recently by Dār al-Gharb al-Islāmī in 1994, but only available in Arabic as far as I know.

This could be a very interesting addition because it shows that at least when younger (when this text was written), this supposed antagonism between Ibn Rushd and Al-Ghazālī did not exist. Indeed, he refers to Ghazālī as "Abū Ḥāmid", which can be taken as a sign of affection and respect, or else a more formal title would have been used.

Sorry if I have done anything incorrect, I am new to Wikipedia and not quite sure how best to share information. =) Dawooddren (talk) 13:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Secularism?[edit]

The article says, twice, that "Averroes is considered by some the father of modern secularism".

That could be highly misleading. The article linked to argues that Averroes allows a certain separation of religion and science on a high intellectual level, allowing philosophers and scientists to pursue truth rationally and with a certain independence from religious authority. That could be argued; but at the same time Averroes is careful to specify that this activity must be carried on in private and not divulged to the masses, who would be misled into rejecting their naive version of Islam without having the intellectual equipment to put the philosophical version in its place.

That is entirely different from "secularism" in the modern sense, which is political not philosophical, and means the independence of government from religion and the freedom of everyone (not just philosophers) to make their own religious or anti-religious choices and pursue truth in their own way. That is about as far from Averroes' position as it is possible to get. He believed that, once the freedom of the fully-trained philosophers is carefully ensured on a "consenting adults in private" basis, it is the right and duty of each religious community to enforce conformity on the masses (of course, as the Almohad court philosopher he had to say that). So yes, it may be one step more enlightened than Ibn Taymiyya and the Ash'arites, but it is hardly "secularism". --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 10:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Calling him the father of modern western secularism is so broad as to be meaningless. 82.23.61.208 (talk) 09:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
The entire point is that Europeans misunderstood and corrupted Averroes' ideas. They excised the Islam part and retained the separation of religion from philosophy and politics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.37.26.43 (talk) 21:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't like the term "FATHER OF SECULARISM" either.. but it is true that he was one of the very first philosophers in the Muslim world to stray from the traditional ideas (confined to his culture) and start flirting with Aristotle's ideas, quite seriously. At the time there was such incredible hostility towards other culture's ideas, and it is important to note that Averroes did not share that sentiment. The article no longer reads "father of secularism" but I think the current description is quite accurate, but could be better, which states: <<Ibn Rushd was a defender of Aristotelian philosophy against claims from Islamic theologians such as Ghazali who feared that such teachings would become an affront to the teachings of Islam>> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.144.46 (talk) 19:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Retrofit topic year headers[edit]

25-Oct-2008: I have added subheaders above as "Topics from 2004" (etc.) to emphasize the dates of topics in the talk-page. Older topics might still apply, but using the year headers helps to focus on more current issues as well. Afterward, I dated/named some unsigned comments above. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

That was a terrible idea. [Removed.] There are already date stamps on the posts and conversations like these happen over years. No need to start new sections when the same topics have been dealt with before. — LlywelynII

Clarifying text[edit]

25-Oct-2008: I have revised the wording slightly, mostly adding several commas, to clarify the phrasing. In several sections, the wording of the article seems cumbersome; however, I don't think a major rewrite would improve the concepts, which are relatively complex, no matter what phrasing is used. Instead, I think just adding commas, or a few extra words, can help clarify. Also, using just small alterations/commas can help avoid changing the meaning, which might occur if more extensive rewrites were attempted for those concepts. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Averroes Banned?[edit]

I think it should specify banned to or from what (German Wikipedia says to Lucena but I don´t have any sources on that). ABMvandeBult (talk) 10:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Jonathan Lyons, The House of Wisdom around pg 25. (I read it in another language). My own translation of pg 254 ( with help of google translate): "In 1195 Averroës fell into disgrace and was banished from Cordoba to the predominantly Jewish city of Lucena"
About his death: María Rosa Menocal, The Ornament of the World: How Muslims, Jews and Christians Created a Culture of Tolerance in Medieval Spain, pg 239. (I read this one also in another language.)
My own translation of pg 239( with help of google translate): "In his own country and within his own culture Averroës was less warmly received. He died under suspicious circumstances in Marrakesh, but almost certainly after the Almohads had placed him under house arrest. This was in many ways the symbolic end of a typical aspect of Al-Andalus."
This is my first contribution to Wikipedia ever. If I have broken any rules by using citations and translations, then I apologize and please erase my contribution therefore. 91.182.67.154 (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect transliteration[edit]

Abū 'l-Walīd Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad ibn Rushd is incorrect. Ibn only occurs when it is not preceded by another name, otherwise it is pronounced as bin. Abū 'l-Walīd Muḥammad bin Aḥmad bin Rushd, or Ibn Rushd are both correct. Ryandward (talk) 18:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Might could be, but your point seems highly dubious given that "ibn" appears on Muhammad's page and one presumes some people knowledgable about Arabic would be keeping an eye on that one. — LlywelynII 01:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I see you took the liberty of editing the page. Reverted, pending sourcing and correction of Muhammad & al.'s articles. — LlywelynII 10:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Cleanup[edit]

For background information, please see RFC/U and Cleanup. With 139 edits, User:Jagged 85 is the main contributor to this article by far (2nd: 36 edits). The issues are a repeat of what had been exemplarily shown here, here, here, here or here. I restored the article to the last pre-Jagged version of 14 June 2007, keeping most of the lead and the entire section "biography" and "works" as well as "list of works". Categories, templates, interwiki links plus "further reading" and "external links" are also kept, whereas the infobox has been restored to pre-Jagged status. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Physics[edit]

I cut this:

Ibn Rushd defined and measured force as "the rate at which work is done in changing the kinetic condition of a material body" and correctly argued "that the effect and measure of force is change in the kinetic condition of a materially resistant mass". Ibn Rushd also developed the notion that bodies have a (non-gravitational) inherent resistance to motion into physics. This idea in particular was adopted by Thomas Aquinas and subsequently by Johannes Kepler, who refereed to this fact as "Inertia". Ibn Rushd also authored three books on physics namely: "Short Commentary on the Physics", "Middle Commentary on the Physics" and "Long Commentary on the Physics".

as totally unsourced and not very plausible William M. Connolley (talk) 19:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say implausible. Highly doubtful those were the terms he phrased his ideas in, though. — LlywelynII 01:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Influence of Political Philosophy[edit]

I'm removing

Averroes's treatise on Plato's Republic has played a major role in both the transmission and the adaptation of the Platonic tradition in the West. It has been a primary source in medieval political philosophy.

because I can't find any reference or evidence for this view. Also, I find evidence for the contrary here. There were no translations or ... "as late as in the sixteenth century (such as Averroes' Commentary on Plato’s Republic)" Jason from nyc (talk) 03:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Discovery of New World[edit]

I can't find the reference for this:

Averroes was one of those who predicted the existence of a new world beyond the Atlantic Ocean.

There doesn't seem to be anything on al Jazzera (via the link or via their search engine). The above statement has become viral on the web from this wikipedia article. One would like to verify the claim. I'm aware that Averroes read Plato's theory of Atlantis. Could that be the reference? Does anyone have further information? Jason from nyc (talk) 17:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Changes in the Philosophy Section[edit]

I’ve started work on the Philosophy section with several additions and a few changes. Jason from nyc (talk) 02:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I added “The Tradition of Islamic Philosophy” section. In this section I explain how Averroes advanced the tradition. This is fairly standard and I’ve referenced several diverse writers in the secondary literature.

I discuss in this section Averroes’ difference on the question of the nature of universals and Aristotle’s ontology. I worry this is too technical for Wikipedia but there are amble hyperlinks to good Wiki articles that explain the technical terms. Jason from nyc (talk) 02:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I rewrote the intro to the “Commentaries on Aristotle and Plato” and cited an article in a source book on Arab Philosophy. I only discuss Averroes’ commentary on Plato’s Republic. Since the Republic is discussed in detail in the article on Plato’s Republic, I mention very little about the work. I only want to convey that Averroes’ understood and respected Plato’ work. One could add where he disagreed if someone wants to add more.

There is still amble philosophical commentaries to discuss: logic, epistemology, rhetoric, poetics, and ethics. I’ll leave that to others. I don’t think I’ll have time to return to this work in the near term. Jason from nyc (talk) 02:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Averroes[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Averroes's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Topdemir-77":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 20:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Birthplace: Spain or the Almoravid Empire[edit]

considering these changes, I consensus has to be sought.

I ask user:Jason from nyc, before ongoing in his PoV (since it considers that Cordoba was a "Spanish city", as claimed by the Catholics while it was under Muslim/North-African rule), to read the centralized discussion to remember him that there's no "WP standard" for this case, then the only way to edit Averroes' birthplace this was is to seek for a new consensus.

For my side, I oppose any anachronism, as a person born in the Inca empire can't be considered as "Born in Peru", a person born in Muslim Iberia can't be considered as "Born in Spain".

Thanks in advance. Omar-Toons (talk) 19:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The wiki discussion that you referred to is about contemporary individuals (mostly from the former Soviet Union) where there are vastly different conventions due to continuous changes as we live through them. Averroes is a historical figure in which there are centuries of literature devoted to his life and thought. Thus, Averroes’ situation isn’t changing. The scholarship is fairly stable with advances adding incrementally. I used references to the literature, not my own point of view or my own theory. The overwhelming number of books and articles refers to his birth as Cordoba Spain and place of death as Marrakesh, Morocco (as you recently added). I have references to the literature but you only gave your theory. Even if I agree with your theory, it doesn’t change the fact that Wikipedia depends on the secondary literature and not our point of view. I suggest that you not change my edit until we reach a consensus.Jason from nyc (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
The consensus has to be reached starting from the stable version, i.e. the consensual one.
Since you are the one who edited the "stable" version, you are the one who has to seek for a new consensus. Thanks for understanding that.
Omar-Toons (talk) 23:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Btw, it is right that we have to change the death place to "Marrakech, Almoravid Empire"... or maybe not, maybe the birth place should be "Cordoba, then under Moroccan rule"?
Otherwise, the same kind of issues, related to French Algeria, was discussed many times on ANI and the result was that, event if sources describe some people as "Born in Algeria", it will be an anachronism and then it should be mentioned "Born in French Algeria". Please consider also WP:SURPRISE.
Btw, please don't mixup between secondary sources as sources of content and secondary sources as PoV argumentation.
Omar-Toons (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
The previous version was unsourced and can be removed as per WP:UNSOURCED:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly removal should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.[2] Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to try to find and cite supporting sources yourself.

Your version had no reliable sources. It remained there for six months since the last edit and no source was found. I looked for a source and found that most scholars state that he was born in Cordoba, Spain. Thus, I correct it and added not just one but two references. You continue to removed referenced material and substitute POV material. You don't even attempt to address the question of sources or references. Removing unsourced material is proper and allowable by anyone for any reason or no reason. The burden of proof is on you to provide sources. Since I have, my version should remain until a consensus is reached by examining competing sources. Since you have no sources, you have no argument. Jason from nyc (talk) 00:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── As it can be seen on similar people's articles (e.g those born in Byzantine Empire/present-day Turkey, Prussia/present-day Poland Alsace/present-day France etc) the convention on the English Wikipedia is to put constituent country at the time of birth. Thus, we have to be consistent and stick with it. WP:Verifiability has NOTHING to do with this so quoting another source is futile, everyone has their conventions; some go with the present-day country others go with the country at the time of birth. English Wikipedia belongs to the latter category and there is no reason to treat this article any different. Last time this was discussed, the consensus was to put present-day Spain between brackets for those who'd be confused about it so, I'm a reverting to this stable/consensual version pending a new consensus WP:BRD. --Tachfin (talk) 03:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

If that's the policy, that's fine with me but I'd like to see some evidence of this. Where is it written? Second, I'd like to see some discussion of how to apply this to non-Western history where the nation-state wasn't the organizing principle. Jason from nyc (talk) 04:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
A quick look at other Muslim philosophers and scientists tells me this convention isn’t followed for Islamic history. Avicenna is born in ‘’Afshana, near Bukhara (capital of Samanid Empire), in present day Uzbekistan’’ and died in ‘’Hamadan, Persia‘’. Al-Farabi was born in ‘’Faryāb in Khorāsān or Otrār in Central Asia‘’ and died in ‘‘Damascus’’. Al-Razi was born in ‘’Rey, Persia‘’. Abu Rayhan Biruni was born in ‘’Khwarazm, Samanid Persia (modern-day Uzbekistan)’’. Al-Ghazali was born in ‘’Tus, modern-day Iran’’. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
I ask administrators to consider blocking Omar-Toons for violating the WP:3RR rule. He has repeatedly reverted my edit and now has reverted Tachfin's edit as Tachfin and I try to reach a consensus. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Please, stop chating on that! You wrote on the edit summary that you reverted the article to Tachfin's version, while you just deleted the link to the Almoravid Empire on the infobox.
There was a stable version, you edited it before seeking for a consensus, then you are the one who has to justify his editings, not me or Tachfin.
Omar-Toons (talk) 10:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
What consensus? I don’t see any consensus. I don’t see any discussion. Nor do I see adherence to conventions used through out Wikipedia. Idi Amin was born in Koboko Uganda, not Koboko, Uganda, British Empire. William Eldon Tucker was born in Hamilton, Bermuda not Hamilton, Bermuda, British Empire. Justinian I was born in Tauresium, Dardania not Tauresium, Dardania, Byzantine Empire. His wife Theodora was born in Cyprus, not Cyprus, Byzantine Empire. Pope John II was born in Rome, not Rome, Roman Empire. An Empire is a rule over several lands. It is not a Wikipedia convention to use an Empire as a birth place. You guys are making this up. There is no consensus. There’s only neglect. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
That's non-sense. First, Cordoba wasn't a Colony, nor a dependence of a geopolitical entity that disappeared.
A more appropriate example for comparison would be Johannes Gutenberg, born in Mainz, Electorate of Mainz, not Germany.
The use on WP is that when a version is stable for a long time (2 years for this article), editing it to can be considered as a non-consensual editing, since that means that the user who made this editing doesn't agree with all the users who participated to the redaction of that article during these 2 years.
And, again, Spain didn't exist at this time, then he can't be considered as born in a country that doesn't exist (that's what we call "anachronism").
Omar-Toons (talk) 16:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I gave several examples where the larger "empire" was not part of the birth place. You give me one faulty example that's telling. Gutenberg was born in Mainz, Electorate of Mainz, not Mainz, Electorate of Mainz, Holy Roman Empire. Again, an empire is not the location. The modern nation-state arose after the Peace of Westphalia. Using the city, state location convention makes sense only in the last several centuries. For many of the historical figures, only a town is used (see Plato) or region. Thus, we are using a modern convention that obscures the rich history.
This is even more of a problem with Islamic history. Strictly speaking the nation-state isn't applicable to Islamic history. The people are part of the Ummah and live in the realm of Islam Dar al-Islam. The successor of Muhammad is the caliph of which there is theoretically only one for the ummah but in practice there has been contention. Of course, I assume you know all this. However, the general reader doesn't. To list birth places as city and state used modern Western notation that doesn't traditionally apply to historical Islam. I suggest that just the city, Cordoba, is best and that is the convention used in many of the biographies for ancient and medieval history. As I show above with historical Islamic philosophers and scientists, the convention isn't used consistently. Notice the many references to Persia when, of course, the Abbasid Dynasty was in power. As I suggested above, this needs to be discussed for all historical Islamic figures. However, Almoravid Empire, like British Empire, Byzantine Empire, Roman Empire, and Holy Roman Empire are rarely found as part of the location name for historical figures. This is not in books and not part of Wikipedias traditions. I suggest we make it Cordoba and seek a wider discussion of naming conventions for ancient and medieval figures. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for remembering us about that, you then probably know that what you are talking about wasn't the case for Morocco, who cut its ties to the Caliphates since the 8th century... or not?
On the other hand, the difference is that the Electorate of Mainz was a political entity, while Al-Andalus wasn't, it was only a term used to describe Muslim Iberia, that was directly ruled by the Empire. --Omar-Toons (talk) 10:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the Umayyad Caliphate continued in the West when the Abbasids established power in Baghdad. Still, an Empire is too large for a birth place. Even Mainz was part of the Holy Roman Empire. Besides, the word empire is a Roman invention. It was used because Caesar couldn’t call himself King (Rex). He had to keep the pretext that the Republic still stood with both Senate and Assembly. Thus, he called himself Emperor. I still say we are using Western concepts and modern nation-state notions in a period where it doesn’t exactly apply. Look, I know you two are proud of Moroccan and Berber history and I have no problem with that. But the text of the article explains the political situation, which has great important for Averroes since he was close to those in power.
How about my suggestion that we just put the city of Cordoba? The link brings us to the article on Cordoba, its rich history, and the powers that ruled. He, of course, died in Marrakesh and the article there tells us who founded the city, etc. How about that Omar and Tachfin? And others? Jason from nyc (talk) 11:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The problem is that "Spain" has two different meanings. There is the modern kingdom of that name. And there is the purely geographical expression for the Iberian peninsula, derived from the name of the Roman province "Hispania". Thus people can and do speak of "Muslim Spain".

Usage varies from country to country. "France" and "Turkey", for example, cannot be used as neutral geographical expressions: you'd have to say Gaul and Asia Minor (or Anatolia). But "Britain", "Italy" and "Greece" are all examples of geographical terms independent of political entities, though from time to time they have denoted political entities as well, and I contend that "Spain" falls on this side of the line. Now if we could only find a neutral descriptor for Israel/Palestine ... --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 16:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, Sir Myles, that would address the question of Andalusia vs. Spain. However, Omar advocates using Almoravid Empire as the nation of birth. Where do you stand with that suggestion? Also, is the purpose of the birth place political or geographical? Are we trying to locate the place or the ruling regime?Jason from nyc (talk) 01:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I see no evidence that a consensus was ever established for the current version of Averroes' birth place. I see no previous discussion. Neglect doesn't establish a consensus. This current discussion has not resulted in consensus. There is no evidence on wikipedia that "Almoravid Empire" describes a place, let alone a place of birth. Wikipedia redirects that term to Almoravid Dynasty and that isn't a place--it's a set of rulers.
The current discussion above establishes no consensus. I don’t see a proper consensus as defined in “Proper consensus”: “Because of the generally limited number of editors likely to participate in any given discussion, an influx of biased or partisan editors is likely to generate an improper illusion of a consensus where none (or a different one) would exist in a wider population.” WP:FALSECON The default choice was a result of neglect not debate and consists in a limited consensus WP:CONLIMITED. Let me state for the record that there is no consensus. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Younger than Abelard[edit]

He is 47 years younger than Peter Abelard, so how is he credited with being responsible for the development of scholasticism in medieval Europe? hgwb (talk) 13:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

See, inter alia, "Template:9eb" and "development". — LlywelynII 00:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Name[edit]

Lead paragraph[edit]

The lead paragraph used to read:

Averroes' (born as Abu Al-Walid Muhammad Ibn Ahmad Ibn Muhammad Ibn Ahmad Ibn Ahmad Ibn Rušd) (1126 - December 10, 1198) was an Andalusi-Arab philosopher and physician, a master of philosophy and Islamic law, mathematics and medicine. He was born in Cordoba, Spain, and died in Marrakesh, Morocco.

I see two problems with this:

  • First, the controversy raised here over whether Averroes was of Arab, Berber or other descent has not been settled since noone using authoritative sources has established it. As User:Mustafaa said, there is no reason for this article to talk about ethnicity unless we have an adequate authority;
  • The text "...Ibn Ahmad Ibn Muhammad Ibn Ahmad Ibn Ahmad Ibn Rušd..." is just a lineage, which an Arabic speaker might use in someone's name for a rhetorical flourish, but is inappropriate in an English-speaking context. Ibn Rushd is by far the most common way Averroes' name is rendered by Muslims in English.

The above content has been repeatedly inserted, so I'm explaining my revert in detail here for the information of others. --- Charles Stewart 20:26, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

His full name isn't inappropriate for an English-speaking context. — LlywelynII 01:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Move page[edit]

Personally I feel the page should be moved to Ibn Rushd, as that was his own actual name. While googling does bring up more hits for Averroes (the web is still largely West-oriented), it's worth noting that the first hit for "Ibn Rushd" is muslimphilosophy.com, while the first hit for Averroes is the Catholic Encyclopaedia. Thoughts? Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 08:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[Oppose] There's room for argument over this one (cf. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)). I think the most important question is by which name is he most likely to be familiar to users of the english Wikipedia, and I'll guess that's Averroes: certainly that's the name I first encountered. There's also the issue of disambiguation: Averroes is that bit less likely to be ambiguous than Ibn Rushd. --- Charles Stewart 10:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
[Oppose] I've usually seen him refered to as Averroes. --Stbalbach 22:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
However this is determined, the same kind of thing needs to be figured out for the Ibn Tufayl/Abubacer reference within this article. One or the other needs to be the link but not both, otherwise you stand to confuse the reader as to the identity of Ibn Tufayl by making two seperate (linked) references.Elijahmeeks 23:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
By convention, use the name of the Wikipedia article (in this case, Ibn Tufail, not "Tufayl"). If there is a dispute about that, it would be handled on the Ibn Tufail talk page to rename the article. --Stbalbach 05:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Great. I've changes it to match.Elijahmeeks 18:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
[Support] This article should use the name he had within his own culture, not the name assigned to him by a different culture. Kingturtle 17:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
[Support] I agree with Kingturtle. So long as the more popular 'Averroes' is used as a redirect to the article and is mentioned at the start of the article then theres no reason why the article shouldnt be renamed to the correct Ibn Rushd rather remaining with the corruption Averroes. siarach 17:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree, i changed his name to from Averroes to Ibn Rushd but i don't know how to move a page
[Support] I agree - I'd like to see it changed to Ibn Rushd. I see Averroes as basically derogatory, like saying well, your outlandish foreign name is too hard for us to say, so we'll make up a nonsense nickname for you. After all, Arabic's just nonsense anyway, right? Ibn Rushd would be more respectful. A redirect can take care of people who search for Averroes.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Histprof (talkcontribs).
[Oppose] Well, I think that last point is a little ridiculous. "Averroes" is not derogatory, and calling him that means only that this famous historical figure has a common name in English, not that English speakers are being disrespectful. Britannica[3] and Encarta[4] have their entries for him at Averroes. Personally, I see no call for a move; the common English name is, well, the common English name. We don't have Genghis Khan at Chinggis Khan for that same reason. At any rate, if the article is to be moved, we need to achieve consensus through WP:MOVE first.--Cúchullain t/c 07:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia Naming conventions for Non-European and non-Western names and titles supports the "most general rule" which is he is most generally known as Averroes in English speaking countries. I concur that no one uses the name as a slander, there is no evidence for that, I have never heard it before. -- Stbalbach 20:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
[Support] I'm not sure what you mean by "most people in English speaking countries." The people who talk about him at any length are, by and large, scholars. Most of whom are increasingly referring to the name by which he was born. Karen Armstrong, for instance, in her "A History of God" calls him "Ibn Rushd" and mentions only once that he is "Known in the West as Averroes." I don't think this distinction is quite so clear as the Genghis Khan example, because I do not think it is quite so lop-sided that people in Anglophone countries almost without exception call him Averroes. Since, in the modern world, Averroes and Ibn Rushd are used at best equally often, I would say that the fact that it was his given name tips it in favor of Ibn Rushd. Calaf 00:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
[Oppose] Karen Armstrong was deliberately giving an unfamiliar form, as her approach was to say "forget everything you thought you knew, here is an unbiased world-wide perspective you never thought of". So giving unfamiliar forms of names is what Brecht calls an "alienation device", aka shock tactics. In the same way, since Heidegger German scholars have generally used forms like "Herakleitos" instead of "Heraclitus", to emphasize that they are getting back to his thought in its original context as opposed to the way it comes to us through the Western tradition.
Except when there is some special point to make, I am strongly against removing Anglicised names, as I believe it is a cultural impoverishment: are we always to speak of "Roma", "Firenze", "España" and "Misr" instead of Rome, Florence, Spain and Egypt? The existence of the usual forms isn't arrogance, or a way of saying we know better than the natives: it is saying that these places and people have all influenced our culture as well, and that we are all interdependent. "Averroes" suggests an important figure in the history of general philosophy. "Ibn Rushd" suggests "this obscure Muslim scholar whom no one has heard of". (We pronounce "Paris" in English because of its importance. Some obscure small town would be pronounced "Chateauneuf-du-Pape" as in French, with no attempt at Anglicization.)
Obviously in some cases, the purist tendency has won: for example, nowadays it would be pretty odd to publish a translation of the Odyssey with "Jupiter", "Minerva" and "Ulysses" instead of Zeus, Athene and Odysseus, though this would formerly have been standard. The trick, as always, is to acknowledge these changes when they have already happened, but not to jump the gun: "Be not the first by whom the new are tried, Nor yet the last to lay the old aside."
Applying this to Muslim philosophers, I agree that by now it would be archaic affectation to use "Abubacer" and "Algazel" for Ibn Tufayl and Al-Ghazali, but for the moment, I think "Averroes" is still the more familiar form. On the principle I have explained, this is actually a tribute to the man's importance. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 12:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
[Support] I agree that this article should be moved so that the title is Ibn Rushd. Precedent for this can be seen in the Metacomet article since it is listed under Metacomet and not his Anglicized name King Philip. Of course, Averroes should remain as a redirect to the article but the medieval, European name should not be used as our basis. For instance, Europeans referred to Muslims as Mohammedans until the 1960s but we don't use that term. DruidODurham (talk) 03:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
[Oppose] A late comment to this discussion... First of all, the English language as already mentioned gives preference to Anglicized/Latinized names where they exist and have become commonplace. Additionally, the article itself makes the case that his literary legacy was more substantial in the part of the world where he was known as Averroes than in the part of the world where he was known as Ibn Rushd. As for the claims of this not being culturally sensitive enough or even denigrating, I'd just point out that no one disputes the Latinized name of the Chinese philosopher Confucius, nor does anyone claim that this is being denigrating in any way to Confucius or to Chinese culture in general. This despite the fact that unlike the ambiguous cultural attribution of Averroes' legacy, no one disputes the purely Chinese character of Confucius' legacy. So, unless this naming convention is applied to the much more clear-cut case of Confucius, I don't see why anyone would even consider changing the not so clear-cut case of Averroes. Also, I'd fully agree with the comment that the mere fact someone acquired a Latinized/Anglicized name was a recognition of that person's status and importance. Again, in the case of Confucius, Western translators didn't bother giving less important Chinese thinkers Latinized/Anglicized names, but they did that in Confucius' case as a recognition of his importance over other Chinese thinkers. Abvgd (talk) 01:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. WP:ENGLISH WP:COMMONNAME. It's not like we have no way of looking at this, even if it's gotten better in the meantime. Ngram shows Averroes (besides being traditional) remains well in the lead. Google Scholar shows Averroes remains 4-5× more common than Ibn Rushd. — LlywelynII 01:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Lead sentence[edit]

(a) We may soon reach a point where Ibn Rushd becomes his WP:ENGLISH WP:COMMON name, but (as noted in the comment above) we aren't there yet. Until the page has been moved, the WP:LEADSENTENCE begins with the version of the name we're using as the title. It's more common: that's why it's the title.

(b) In keeping with Avicenna and Muhammad, I've added {{larger}} templates to make the Arabic text more legible. (My own opinion is that people can zoom their own browsers if they like and Arabic text is no reason to ruin the English formatting, but we should aim to keep the usage consistent across pages.)

(c) I removed the pronunciation guide not because we don't need one (we probably do), but because it was unsourced and bogus. It seems highly unlikely that the OED's pronunciation /ævəˈrəʊɪst/ for Averroist somehow mutated into /əˈvɛr.z/ when describing the actual person himself. It seems someone just wrote down their own (mis)pronunciation. Let's find something better somewhere. For what it's worth, the classical Latin pronunciation of that name would have been /aˈwer.rojs/ (kindly unhelpful given IPA's Latin roots: the respell looks like a-WERR-rawys if the a were Welsh, the werr were American, and the rawys were Oxbridge) or /aˈwer.roes/ (a-WERR-RAW-ays if the new syllable were Scottish...) and my own pronunciation is something like /ævɛrˈroʊ.eɪz/ (a-verr-ROH-ayz). — LlywelynII 01:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)