The aim of this article is to present a new witness of Averroes' reception in the Muslim world, in the years that immediately followed his death. Indeed Abū al-Ḥağğāğ al-Miklātī (d. 1237) is an Ašʿarite theologian, who was born in Fez. He is the author of a Quintessence of the Intellects in Response to Philosophers on the Science of Principles in which he aims at refuting the Peripatetic philosophers in their own field, using their own weapons. This article will first attempt to draw the portrait of this atypical theologian. It will then focus on showing that al-Miklātī – although he never mentions his name – is a reader of Averroes and in particular, of his Tahāfut al-Tahāfut, of which he makes various and unexpected uses. A close look at these uses will enable us to better define the nature of al-Miklātī's work. More importantly, this article will try to prove that al-Miklātī provides us with a key passage of Averroes' lost treatise On the Prime Mover. At the heart of the Rushdian criticism of Avicenna's “metaphysical” proof, this passage should throw new light on Averroes' precise understanding of this proof.

This essay is concerned with the complex relationships between falsafa and kalām. As regards the history of the latter, it has been generally agreed that al-Juwaynī played a decisive role at a moment when Avicennism became intrusive. It is mainly in his al-ʿAqīda al-niẓāmiyya that al-Juwaynī initiated a doctrinal and methodic evolution of Ashʿarism. One necessarily invokes here Ibn Rushd, who, by exposing the dogmas in their literal manifestation in his al-Kashf ʿan manāhij al-adilla fī ʿaqāʾid al-milla, actually sought to operate a systematic refutation of the Ashʿarites' theses. It should be noted, however, that, despite his critical distance, Ibn Rushd nonetheless remained attentive to al-Juwaynī's evolutionary study. In this contribution, some aspects of the major issues in kalām will be examined: the existence of God and the argument of takhṣīṣ (particularization), His unicity (waḥdāniyya) and the argument of mumānaʿa (mutual hindering), as well as human agency with the acknowledgement of man's capacity (qudra) and its role. Albeit limited in scope, the essay attempts to make a more profound evaluation of al-Juwaynī's role at a crucial moment of the history of kalām in its specific development during which the Great Masters have not always been faithful to the classical tenets of their school, but also in its relations with falsafa and its influence on al-Juwaynī, and then and mainly on his disciple al-Ghazālī's theological thought.

The reception of Avicenna by medieval Jewish readers presents an underappreciated enigma. Despite the philosophical and scientific stature of Avicenna, his philosophical writings were relatively little studied in Jewish milieus, be it in Arabic or in Hebrew. In particular, Avicenna's philosophical writings are not among the “Hebräische Übersetzungen des Mittelalters” – only very few of them were translated into Hebrew. As an author associated with a definite corpus of writings, Avicenna hardly existed in Jewish philosophy in Hebrew (contrary to Averroes). Paradoxically, however, some of Avicenna's most distinctive ideas were widely known and embraced by Jewish philosophers. This is the phenomenon that we dub Avicennian knowledge without Avicenna. In contrast with the philosophical treatises, Avicenna's medical writings were widely and intensively studied by Jews, especially in Hebrew, and remained influential until at least the seventeenth century. The present article presents a comprehensive picture of Avicenna's reception within medieval Jewish cultures in both Arabic and Hebrew and tries to explain the Jews’ complex attitude to Avicenna.