Averroes 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 perversion of monarchy. Averroes (Ibn Rushd) seems to have been ignorant of Plato's distinction 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 Khulafa Rashidun and that with Muawiya the perversion of this 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 observations fully valid as general principles applicable 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 Islsmic 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 the Almohade (ed even of the 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 Khulafa Rashidun were replaced by Muawiya, so was Abdal al 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 qub bin Ysuf bin Yaqubal Mansur.

Casalino Pierluigi