 Inasmuch as Ibn Rushd routinely wrote different kinds of commentaries on the same Aristotelian treatise, some such distinction seems necessary. But recent scholarship has doubted whether this neat threefold distinction adequately captures Ibn Rushd’s complexly varied approach (Al-ʿAlawī 1986a; Druart 1994; Gutas 1993). At a minimum, it omits important categories of work, such as compendia (mukhtaṣarat), treatises (maqālāt), and answers to questions (masāʾil), to say nothing of the important treatises that focus on religious questions.