“Of what use,” Ralph Lerner asks in his introduction toAverroes's Commentary onPlato's “Republic,” “is this pagan closetphilosophy to men who already hold what they believeto be the inestimable gift of a divinely revealedLaw, a sharīʿa?” In other words, once one has God'sdirect revelation concerning how to live, does oneneed philosophy? The answer to this question mattersboth for the standing of falsafa (Hellenistic philosophy) inIslamic intellectual history as well as for ongoingdisputes in Islamic societies concerning therespective roles of sharīʿa and human wisdom. Does divinelyrevealed Law, sharīʿa,yield the same knowledge as philosophy, or ḥikma (literally “wisdom”),to use Averroes's terms in the Decisive Treatise? Or is there somethingnecessary in each that the other cannot supply? Thisquestion conceals something of a dilemma. If thefirst formulation is correct, one or the other ofsharīʿa or ḥikma would seem to beredundant—a charge Averroes himself addresses in theCommentary on Plato's“Republic,” as I discuss below. If, onthe other hand, philosophy is needed in addition tosharīʿa, this cancall into question the sufficiency of revelation.This returns us to Lerner's question above, for ifthe sharīʿa representsthe fullness of divine revelation, to claim that itneeds the merelyhuman ḥikma may beblasphemous. This essay addresses the relationshipbetween sharīʿa andhuman wisdom through a reading of Averroes's Decisive Treatise and hisCommentary on Plato's“Republic.” I attempt to show thatAverroes's firm reliance on teleology in the Commentary complements whatwould otherwise appear to be the primacy of sharīʿa in the Decisive Treatise. Together,I argue, these two texts paint a clearer picture ofthe interdependence of ḥikma and sharīʿa than either would alonesuggest.

Traditional interpretations of the two works suggestdramatically different messages of Averroesconcerning the respective standings of sharīʿa and ḥikma. Ralph Lerner and E.I. J. Rosenthal, each a translator of Averroes'sCommentary on Plato's“Republic” (hereafter Commentary), disagreedrather sharply on the status of human wisdom vis-à-vis sharīʿa in Averroes'sthought. To Rosenthal, in both the Decisive Treatise and theCommentary, Averroes“establishes in unequivocal terms the supremeauthority of the Sharīʿa.”