Ibn Rushd's understanding of jadal

This study examines the dialectical (jadal/cedel) understanding of Ibn Rushd, one of the prominent thinkers of twelfth-century Islamic philosophy. The scope of the research is limited to identifying and evaluating Ibn Rushd's views on this subject. Centered on Ibn Rushd's Talkhīs Kitāb al-Jadal, the study aims to explicate his conception of dialectic; moreover, the fact that this approach is addressed for the first time in Turkey as an independent study demonstrates the originality of the research. Ibn Rushd developed three distinct types of commentaries-jāmiʿ (epitome), talkhīs (middle commentary), and tafsīr (long commentary)-on Aristotle's works. His jāmiʿ commentary on Aristotle's Topics presents a concise summary of the original text. The primary source of this study, his talkhīs (middle commentary), is not a classical commentary in the literal sense; rather, it represents a reconstructive effort that draws on earlier commentators while remaining attentive to the meanings of the text without strict lexical adherence. Ibn Rushd's conception of dialectic is shaped by Aristotle's system. Therefore, the study evaluates his views in conversation with Aristotelian dialectic. Ibn Rushd's approach is regarded as an attempt to harmonize Aristotle's framework with the Islamic logical tradition, thereby grounding dialectical debate on a theoretical basis. Accordingly, the perspectives of Ibn Rushd and Aristotle are examined in parallel, and their ideas are compared with those of earlier philosophers such as al-Fārābī and Ibn Sīnā, highlighting Ibn Rushd's terminological and conceptual distinctions. For Ibn Rushd, dialectic pertains to religious, ethical, political, and social matters. It offers a method for addressing issues in these fields by employing premises grounded in common acceptance, especially where demonstrative certainty is unattainable. The study also discusses Ibn Rushd's explanations of the distinctions between dialectic and demonstration, as well as the similarities and differences between dialectic and sophistry.