Averroes' s discussion of tyranny seems to assume not Plato's scheme of the 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 distinction of two forms of monarchy:royalty and tyranny Averroses' s distinction of "service" between rulers 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's view. It appears that the Ideal Constitution is identified with the rule of the four Khulafa rashidun and that with Muawiya the perversion of his ideal rule set in this quite in keeping with the traditional Muslim interpretation. As far as Averroes (Ibn Rushd) is concerned, it shows clearly that and Platonic observation fully valid as general principles applicble to Islamic civilization. The analogy is not simply 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 that the Almohad State of the Maghreb. From otrher contemporary references we know that Averroes (Ibn Rushd) looked upon the foundersa of the Almohade (and even of the Almoravid) dynasty as very near to the Ideal State (both of Islam, built on the Shar'ia, and Plato). This holds good for initiatior of the Almohad movement, Ibn Tumart, and first Almohad ruler Abd alk Mumin but just as the early stages of Islam the four Khulafa rashidun were replaced by Mua'wiya, so was Abd al Mumin followed by "timocrtic" 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 sufb Yaqu bal Mansur.
Casalino Pierluigi, 3.01.2014
Casalino Pierluigi, 3.01.2014