La question de la philosophie et de la religion que nous allons traiter ici n’a cessé, depuis le troisième siècle de l’hégire jusqu’à nos jours, de préoccuper les chercheurs de tous bords et de toutes origines. Il ne fait aucun doute que celui qui entreprend une recherche dans ce domaine va devoir faire face à de vraies difficultés. En effet, faire la différence entre les philosophes, les religieux et les théologiens n’est pas chose aisée. La religion et la philosophie sont considérées comme des activités de réflexion qui tentent chacune, avec ardeur et selon sa méthode propre, d’atteindre la vérité. Elles aident l’individu à comprendre les énigmes de la vie, sa complexité, certains secrets qu’elle comporte, et à vivre une vie naturelle.La religion vise à aider ses adeptes à bénéficier de la vie, à composer avec la réalité et ses différents niveaux de complexité, à travers une incitation et de façon consciente. Elle les pousse aussi à considérer cette vie d’ici-bas comme une station avant une autre vie. Quant à la philosophie, elle cherche à aider ses partisans à jouir de la vie en les exhortant à faire face à leurs difficultés croissantes, à développer leurs capacités rationnelles et à pratiquer la contemplation consciente, de même que la réflexion scientifique. Elle ne considère pas que l’homme doive abandonner cette vie pour une vie future promise par la religion. Ainsi, la philosophie peut saisir la vie de manière générale et expliquer ses subtilités, mais elle ne peut pas inventer une société différente des autres, harmonieuse et régie par les mêmes valeurs. La religion se distingue en revanche par sa capacité à créer des sociétés cohérentes qui partagent les mêmes dogmes, les mêmes valeurs et les mêmes traditions qui garantissent l’unité. Ainsi, si la religion vise à établir des sociétés vertueuses, la philosophie n’a pas vocation à bâtir des sociétés se fondant ou non sur des valeurs. Cependant, ni la religion ni la philosophie ou toute autre idéologie sociale ou politique ne peuvent ne pas subir la logique de l’histoire et son évolution permanente. Nous avons étudié cette question chez deux philosophes du cinquième et du sixième siècle de l’hégire, à savoir al-Ghazâlî et Ibn Rushd, du fait que cette époque a été une période charnière dans l’histoire de la philosophie islamique al-Ghazâlî un jurisconsulte, un spécialiste des fondements du droit, un philosophe et un des plus célèbres penseurs de l’islam. Il a vécu dans la deuxième moitié du cinquième siècle de l’hégire c'est-à-dire, durant la période que les historiens qualifient de la troisième époque abbasside. Ibn Rushd, lui aussi, philosophe, médecin jurisconsulte et juge est né en 1126. En effet, il a passé son enfance et une partie de sa jeunesse sous le pouvoir des almoravides, et le reste de sa vie sous la dynastie des almohades. al-Ghazâlî et Ibn Rushd sont deux grandes écoles de pensée qui représentent l’Orient et le Maghreb. Ils ont beaucoup écrit, et grandement contribué à l’évolution de la philosophie islamique, et à la progression du dialogue entre la rationalité et la spiritualité. al-Ghazâlî a critiqué les philosophes sur leurs positions qui étaient en contradiction avec les fondements du dogme islamique, et cela sur des points précis qu’il a exposé dans son ouvrage Tahâfut al-falâsifa. Ces critiques portent, comme il l’indique lui-même, sur les fausses conclusions fondées sur des hypothèses justes et inversement sur des conclusions exactes à partir d’hypothèses fausses. Dans la pensée islamique, certains savants anciens avaient l’habitude de mettre des barrières entre la spiritualité d’al-Ghazâlî et la rationnalité d’Ibn Rushd.Toutefois, nous pensons que cette opposition n’a pas de raison d’être, d’autant plus qu’il est avéré que la rationalité d’Ibn Rushd et la spiritualité d’al-Ghazâlî sont nécessaires et fondamentales pour la recherche de la vérité d’ici bas et celle de l’au-delà. / The question of philosophy and religion we are treating here has continuously been preoccupying researchers from all sides and from all backgrounds, since the third century AH until now. There is no doubt that those who undertake research in this area will have to face real difficulties. Indeed, making the difference between the philosophers, the theologians and the religious people is not an easy task. Religion and philosophy are considered reflective activities that attempt both, in their own way, to reach the truth with enthusiasm. They help the individual to understand the riddles of life, its complexity, some secrets it has, and to live a natural life. Religion aims to help its followers to enjoy life, to deal with reality and its different levels of complexity, consciously and through an incentive. It also urges them to consider this earthly life as a station before another life. As for philosophy, it seeks to help its supporters to enjoy life, urging them to cope with their increasing difficulties, to develop their rational capacities and to practise conscious contemplation, as well as scientific thinking. It does not consider that man must give up this life for a future life promised by religion. Thus, philosophy can capture life in general and explain its subtleties, but it cannot invent a society different from others, harmonious and governed by the same values. Religion stands in contrast with its ability to create cohesive societies sharing the same dogma, the same values and the same traditions that ensure unity. Thus, if the religion aims to establish virtuous societies, philosophy is not intended to build societies based on values or not. However, neither religion nor philosophy or any other social or political ideology can avoid undergoing the logic of history and its constant evolution. We studied this question in two philosophers of the fifth and sixth century of the Hegira, namely Al-Ghazâlî and Ibn Rushd, considering the fact that that era was a pivotal period in the history of Islamic philosophy.Al-Ghazâlî, a legal adviser, a specialist of the foundations of law, a philosopher and one of the most famous thinkers of Islam. He lived in the second half of the fifth century AH that i.e. during the period historians call the third Abbasid era. Ibn Rushd, a philosopher too, a physician and legal adviser was born in 1126. In fact, he spent his childhood and part of his youth in the power of the Almoravids and the rest of his life under the Almohad dynasty. Al-Ghazâlî and Ibn Rushd are two major schools of thought that represent the East and the Maghreb. They wrote, and contributed a lot to the development of Islamic philosophy and the progression of the dialogue between rationality and spirituality. Al-Ghazâlî, on specific points outlined in his book al-Tahafutfalâsifa, criticized philosophers in their positions that were in contradiction with the fundamentals of Islamic dogma. As for Ibn Rushd, in his criticism addressed to Al-Ghazâlî, he limited himself to what the latter wrote in his book, and only on some issues related to his methodological approach. Ibn Rushd considers the title of Al-Ghazâlî al-Tahafutfalâsifa's work portative, in the sense that fo rAl-Ghazâlî, everything is not inconsistent in philosophers. In Islamic thought, some ancient scholars used to put barriers between Al-Ghazâlî's spirituality and Ibn Rushd's rationality. Some have argued that Al-Ghazâlî completed the Islamic philosophical reason, and others are defending the need to promote Ibn Rushd's rationality. However, we believe that the opposition has no reason to be, especially as it’s proven true that Ibn Rushd's spirituality and Al-Ghazâlî's rationality are necessary and fundamental to the pursuit of truth in this world and the hereafter.

Scholars, philosophers, and theologians have debated the compatibility of Hellenic Philosophy with Islam since the eighth century CE. In his book Averroes et l’Averroisme (1852), Ernst Renan identified Tahāfut al-Falsifa by al-Ghazali and Tahāfut al-Tahāfut by ibn Rushd as the two key texts resolving the issue: the Islamic world accepted al-Ghazali and fell into decline, while Europe accepted ibn Rushd (Averroës) and experienced the Renaissance and Enlightenment. Renan’s argument has endured among Arab liberal intellectuals over the past one-hundred sixty years, but using ibn Rushd as the mascot for Arab Rationalism has failed to inspire anything resembling asecond Nahda. Two contemporary Arab intellectuals, Mohammad ʿAbed al-Jabari and George Tarabichi, have engaged in their own dialogue about the works of al-Ghazali’s and ibn Rushd’s and whether or not Averroism can effect real change in the modern Arab world. This paper examines the works of al-Ghazali, ibn Rushd, Renan, al-Jabari, and Tarabichi in their historical, cultural, and geographical contexts to conclude that the solution to the problems of the modern Arab world, if one exists, does not lie solely within the works of ibn Rushd. / text

In this work I explored discussions of Islamic rationalism in the medieval Islamic period and the contemporary period in Egypt. I examine the evolution of Islamic rationalism from the works of Averroes (Ibn Rushd) to Muhammad 'Abduh in Egypt and subsequently his influence on the formation of the Wasat (Center) Party in Egypt after the wake of the Arab Spring.

This thesis interprets the concept of human being in the work of Maimonides and ibn Rushd, two representatives of major Arab and Jewish medieval philosophy. It combines the ancient Greek philosophical tradition, especially Aristotle, with a religious context. When Maimonides and Ibn Rushd tried to harmonize these two traditions, they had to deal with many opposite views, that stemmed from the difference between religious and ancient world. Behind this intellectual ground have they created the original thesis and approaches to grasping reality, the world and the human being in it. The issue of human being is analyzed in three levels. The first level consists of the relationship between human being and creation, which addresses the question about origin of the world the human soul and the resurrection. The second level, i.e. the man and the world, is devoted to describing a scheme of the world, human knowledge and the theory of prophecy. Ethical and political views are analyzed on the third level, which represents the position of human being in relation to the polis. Keywords Ibn Rushd, Maimonides, Aristotle, Plato, neoplatonism, philosophy, religion, The Koran, Torah, human being, world, creation, eternity, soul, resurrection, emanation, knowledge, illumination, active intellect, prophecy, politics,...