history of islamic philosophy_sample

8/19/2019 History of Islamic Philosophy_sample

1/124


2/124

History of I s l amic Phi losophy

Islamic philosophy has often been treated as being largely of historical interest,

and belonging to the history of ideas rather than to philosophical study. This

volume successfully overturns such a view. Emphasizing the living nature and

rich diversity of the subject, it

• examines the main thinkers and scho ols of thou ght, from the earliest

period to the present day.

• discu sses the key conce pts of Islamic phil osop hy, and in related traditions

in Greek and Western philosophy.

• covers a vast geogr aphica l area, analyz ing Islamic ph ilos op hy in the

Arabic, Pers ian, Indian, Turkish and South East Asian worlds as well as

in the Jewish tradition.

This indispensable reference tool includes a comprehensive bibliography and an

extensive index.

Seyyed Hossein Nasr is Univers ity Professor of Is lamic Studies at the George

W ashington Univers ity, W ashington D C . He is the author of num erous bo ok s

and art icles on Is lam and related topics . Oliver Leaman is Processor of Philos

ophy at the Univers ity of Kentucky. He has writ ten widely on Is lamic and

Jewish philosophy.


3/124

Routledge History of

World Philosophies

Since the publ ica t ion of the f i r s t volumes in 1993 , the pres t ig ious Routledge

History of

Philosophy,

e d i t e d b y G . H . R . Pa rk in s on a n d S . G . Sh a n k e r , h a s

es tab l i shed i t se lf a s the m os t com pre hen s ive chro nolo gica l survey o f

Western phi losophy ava i lab le . I t d i scusses a l l the most important phi lo

sophica l movements f rom the s ix th century B .C. up to the present day .

All the major f igures in Western philosophy are covered in detail in these

volumes . These phi losophers a re c lear ly s i tua ted within the cu ltura l and

scientif ic context of this t ime.

Wit h in t h e m a in c orpu s o f t h e Routledge History of

Philosophy,

the

Jewish and Is lamic t rad i t ions are d iscussed in the context of Western

phi losophy, with which they are inext r icab ly l inked . The History of Islamic

Philosophy a n d The History of Jewish Philosophy a re d e s ign e d t o s u pp le

ment the core volumes by dea l ing spec i f ica l ly with these two phi losophica l

t rad i t ions ; they provide extens ive ana lys i s of a l l the most s ign i f icant

th inkers and concept s . In keeping with the res t of the ser ies , each addi

t ion a l vo lu m e h a s a c om pre h e n s ive in d e x a n d b ib l iog ra ph y , a n d in c lu d e s

chapters by some of the most inf luential scholars in the f ield. They will

form the f i rs t volumes of a new ser ies , Rout ledge His tory of World

Ph i lo s oph ie s .


4/124

Routledge History of World Philosophies

Volume I

History of I s lamic

Phi losophy

E D I T E D B Y

Seyyed Hossein Nasr

and Oliver Leaman

Routledge

Taylor . Francis Group

L O N D O N A N D N E W Y O R K


5/124

First published 1996

by Routledge

2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, 0X14 4RN

Simultaneously published in the U SA and Can ada

by Routledge

270 Madison Ave, New York, NY 10016

Reprinted 1997 and 1999

First published in paperback 2001

Reprinted 2003, 2007

Transferred to Digital Printing 2008

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor and Francis Group an informa business

Selection and editorial matter © 1996, 2001 Seyyed Hossein Nasr and

Oliver Leaman

Individual chapters © 1996, 2001 the contributors

Printed and bound in Great Britain by

TJI Digital, Padstow, Cornwall

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be

reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any

electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or

hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or

in any information storage or retrieval system, without

permission in writing from the publishers.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from

the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book has been requested

ISBN10: 0-415-05667-5 (hbk)

ISBN10: 0-4 15- 25 93 4-7 (pbk)

IS BN1 3 : 9 7 8 - 0 - 4 1 5 - 0 5 6 6 7 - 0 (hbk )

IS BN1 3 : 9 7 8 - 0 - 4 1 5 - 2 5 9 3 4 - 7 (pbk )


6/124

Contents

N o t e s o n c o n t r i b u t o r s x i i

P r e fac e xv i i

T r a n s l i t e r a t i o n an d s ty l e x i x

I n t r o d u c t i o n 1

Oliver Leaman

I n t r o d u c t i o n 11

Seyyed Hossein Nasr

I R e l i g i o us , i n te l l ec tua l an d c u l tur a l c o n tex t

1 T h e m e a n i n g a n d c o n c e p t o f p h i l o s o p h y i n I s l a m 2 1

Seyyed Hossein Nasr

2 T h e Q u r ' a n a n d

adith

a s s o u r c e a n d i n s p i r a t i o n o f

I s l a m i c p h i l o s o p h y 2 7

Seyyed Hossein Nasr

3 T h e G r e e k a n d S y r ia c b a c k g r o u n d 4 0

F. E. Peters

T h e I n d i a n a n d P e r s i a n b a c k g r o u n d 5 2

Syed Nomanul Haq

5 E a r l y ka t f im 7 1

M. Abdel Hale em


7/124

C O N T E N T S

6 T h e t r a n s m i s s i o n o f G r e e k p h i l o s o p h y t o t h e

I s l a m i c w o r l d 8 9

Yegane Shayegan

7

S u n n i

kaldm

a n d t h e o l o g i c a l c o n t r o v e r s i e s 1 0 5

James Pavlin

8 T w e l v e - I m a m S h i ' i t e t h e o l o g i c a l a n d p h i l o s o p h i c a l

t h o u g h t 1 1 9

Abbas Muhajirani

9 I s m a ' i l i p h i l o s o p h y 1 4 4

Azim Nanji

1 0 I s l a m i c h u m a n i s m i n t h e f o u r t h / t e n t h c e n t u r y 1 5 5

Oliver Leaman

I I E a r l y I s l a m i c p h i l o s o p h e r s i n t h e E a s t

1 1 A l - K i n d i 1 6 5

Felix Klein-Franke

1 2 A l - F a r a b i 1 7 8

Deborah L. Black

1 3 M u h a m m a d i b n Z a k a r iy y a ' a l -R a z i 1 9 8

Lenn E. Goodman

14 A l - ' A m i r l 2 1 6

Everett K. Rowson

1 5 T h e B r e t h r e n o f P u r i t y ( I k h w a n a l - S a f a ') 2 2 2

Ian Richard Netton

1 6 I b n S i n a 2 3 1

Shams Inati

1 7 I b n S l n a ' s " O r i e n t a l p h i l o s o p h y " 2 4 7

Seyyed Hossein Nasr

18 I b n M i s k a w a y h 2 5 2

Oliver Leaman

vi

http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/


8/124

C O N T E N T S

1 9 A l - G h a z z a l i 2 5 8

Massimo Campanini

I I I I s l a m i c p h i l o s o p h e r s i n t h e W e s t e r n l a n d s o f I s l a m

2 0 I b n M a s a r r a h 2 7 7

Lenn E. Goodman

2 1 I b n B a j j a h 2 9 4

Lenn E. Goodman

2 2 I b n T u f a y l 3 1 3

Lenn E. Goodman

2 3 I b n R u s h d 3 3 0

Dominique Urvoy

2 4 I b n S a b ' i n 3 4 6

Abul-W afa al-Taftazani and Oliver Leaman

2 5 I b n K h a l d u n 3 5 0

Abderrahmane Lakhsassi

I V P h i l o s o p h y a n d t h e m y s t i c a l t r a d i t i o n

2 6 I n t r o d u c t i o n t o t h e m y s t i c a l t r a d i t i o n 3 6 7

Seyyed Hossein Nasr

2 7 A y n a l - Q u d a t H a m a d a n i a n d t h e i n t e l le c t u a l c l i m a t e

o f h i s t i m es 3 7 4

Hamid Dabashi

2 8 S h i h a b a l - D i n S u h r a w a r d i : f o u n d e r o f t h e I l l u m i n a t i o n i s t

s c h o o l 4 3 4

Hossein Ziai

2 9 T h e I l l u m i n a t i o n i s t t r a d i t io n 4 6 5

Hossein Ziai

3 0 I b n ' A r a b 4 9 7

William C. Chittick

V ll

http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/


9/124

C O N T E N T S

3 1 T h e s c h o o l o f I b n ' A r ab l 5 1 0

William C. Chittick

V L a t e r I s l a m i c p h i l o s o p h y

3 2 K h w a j a h N a s i r a l - D l n a l - T u s I : t h e p h i l o s o p h e r / v i z i e r a n d

the i n te l l ec tua l c l i m ate o f h i s t i m es 52 7

Hamid Dabashi

3 3 F r o m a l - T u s i t o t h e S c h o o l o f I s f a h a n 5 8 5

John Cooper

3 4 M i r D a m a d a n d t h e f o u n d i n g o f t h e " S c h o o l o f I s f a h a n " 5 9 7

Hamid Dabashi

3 5 M u l l a S a d r a : h i s l if e a n d w o r k s 6 3 5

Hossein Ziai

3 6 M u l l a S a d r a : h i s t e a c h i n g s 6 4 3

Seyyed Hossein Nasr

3 7 S h a h W a l i u l l a h 6 6 3

Rahimuddin Kemal and Salim Kemal

V I T h e J e w i s h p h i l o s o p h i c a l t r a d i t i o n i n t h e I s l a m i c

c u l t u r a l w o r l d

3 8 I n t r o d u c t i o n 6 7 3

Oliver Leaman

3 9 J e w i s h p h i l o s o p h y i n t h e I s l a m i c w o r l d 6 7 7

Arthur Hyman

4 0 S a a d i a h G a o n a l - Fa y y u m i 6 9 6

Lenn E. Goodman

4 1 I b n G a b i r o l 7 1 2

Irene Lancaster

4 2 J u d a h H a l e v i 7 1 8

Barry Kogan

V l l l

http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/


10/124

C O N T E N T S

4 3 M a i m o n i d e s 7 2 5

Alexander Broadie

4 4 G e r s o n i d e s : L e v i b e n G e r s h o m 7 3 9

Gad Freudenthal

4 5 J u d a i s m a n d S u f i s m 7 5 5

Paul B. Fenton

4 6 J e w i s h A v e r r o i s m 7 6 9

Oliver Leaman

V I I P h i l o s o p h y a n d i t s p a r t s

4 7 M e t a p h y s i c s 7 8 3

Charles Genequand

4 8 L o g i c 8 0 2

Shams Inati

4 9 E p i s t e m o l o g y 8 2 4

Sari Nuseibeh

5 0 P o l i ti c a l p h i l o s o p h y 8 4 1

Hans Daiber

5 1 L i t e r a t u r e 8 8 6

Shams Inati and Elsayed Om ran

5 2 L a n g u a g e 8 9 8

Shukri B. Abed

5 3 S c i e n c e 9 2 6

Osman Bakar

5 4 M y s t i c i s m 9 4 7

Mahmud Erol Kilic

5 5 E t h i c s 9 5 9

Daniel H Frank

ix

http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/


11/124

C O N T E N T S

5 6 A e s t h e t i c s 9 6 9

Salim Kemal

5 7 L a w 9 7 9

Norman Calder

V I I I L a t e r t r a n s m i s s i o n a n d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n

5 8 M e d i e v a l C h r i s t i a n a n d J e w i s h E u r o p e 1 0 0 1

John Marenbon

5 9 M o d e r n W e s t e r n p h i l o s o p h y 1 0 1 3

Catherine Wilson

6 0 T h e p o e t i c m e d i u m : a c a s e s t u d y 1 0 3 0

Branko Aleksic

I X I s l a m i c p h i l o s o p h y i n t h e m o d e r n I s l a m i c w o r l d

6 1 P e r s i a 1 0 3 7

Mehdi Aminrazavi

6 2 I n d i a 1 0 5 1

Hajiz A. Ghaffar Khan

6 3 P a k i s t a n 1 0 7 6

M. Suheyl Umar

6 4 T h e A r a b w o r l d 1 0 8 2

Ibrahim M. Abu-Rabi

6 5 E g y p t 1 1 1 5

Massimo Campanini

6 6 T u r k e y 1 1 2 9

Mehmet Aydin

6 7 S o u t h - e a s t A s i a 1 1 3 4

Zailan Moris

x

http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/


12/124

C O N T E N T S

X In t e rp re t a t ion o f I s l a m ic ph i lo s op h y in t h e W e s t

6 8 O r i e n t a l i s m a n d I s l a m i c p h i l o s o p h y 1 1 4 3

Oliver Leaman

6 9 H e n r y C o r b i n : h i s w o r k a n d i n f lu e n c e 1 1 4 9

Pierre Lory

7 0 I s l a m i c p h i l o s o p h y i n R u s s i a a n d t h e S o v i e t U n i o n 1 1 5 6

Alexander Knysh

7 1 T h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f a p h i l o s o p h y o f I s l a m 1 1 6 2

Shabbir Akhtar

X I B i b l i o g r a p h y

A gu id e t o b ib l iog ra ph ic a l re s ou rc e s 1 1 7 3

Oliver Leaman

G e n e r a l i n t r o d u c t i o n s t o I s l a m i c p h i l o s o p h y 1 1 7 7

Oliver Leaman

In d e x t o Pa r t s I a n d I I 1 1 8 0

XI

http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/http://0.0.0.0/


13/124

Notes on contributors

M . A b d e l H a i e e m s t u d ie d in Ca i ro a n d Ca m b r id ge , a n d t e a c h e s A ra b ic

and Is lamic s tudies a t the School of Orienta l and Afr ican Studies ,

Un ive r s i t y o f L on d on , a n d h a s wr i t t e n on Qu r ' a n ic , A ra b ic a n d I s l a m ic

topics .

S h u k r i B . A b e d s tudied a t Te l Aviv and Harvard , and i s current ly a t the

Ce n t e r f o r In t e rn a t ion a l D e ve lopm e n t a n d Con f l i c t M a n a ge m e n t a t t h e

Un ive r s i t y o f M a ry la n d , Co l le ge Pa rk . H e h a s wr i t t e n on I s l a m ic a n d

A ra b ic c u l t u re .

I b r a h i m M . A b u - R a b i * s t u d ie d a t B i r Z e i t , C in c in n a t i a n d Te m ple Un ive r

s i t ie s , and i s current ly a t the Hart ford Seminary , USA. He has wri t ten

on t h e m od e rn A ra b wor ld .

S h a b b i r A k h t a r s tudied in Cambridge and Alberta , and i s current ly a t

the Internat ion a l I s lam ic Univer s i ty , Mala ys ia . H e i s the autho r of severa l

books on I s lam, Chris t ian i ty , current a f fa irs and poet ry .

B r a n k o A l e k s i c s tudied in Be lgrade and Paris , and i s current ly a t the

Un ive r s i t e E u rope e n n e d e l a R e c h e rc h e , Pa r i s , wh e re h e work s on t h e

l inks between phi losophy and poet ry . He has wri t ten poet ry and works

on t h e re l a t ion s h ip b e t we e n poe t ry a n d ph i lo s oph y .

M e h d i A m i n r a z av i wa s e d u c a t e d a t Te m ple Un ive r s i t y a n d t h e Un ive r s i t y

o f W a s h in g t on , a n d is c u rre n t ly a t M a ry Wa s h in g t on Co l le ge , U SA . H i s

main area of spec ia l iza t ion i s non-Western phi losophica l and re l ig ious

t rad i t ions .

M e h m e t A y d i n s t u d ie d a t A n k a ra a n d E d in b u rg h , a n d is n ow a t D ok u z

Eylu l Univers i ty , Turkey. He has wri t ten wide ly on phi losophica l topics .

O s m a n B a k a r s t u d ie d in L on d on a n d Te m ple Un ive r s i t i e s , a n d i s n ow

a t t h e Un ive r s i t y o f M a la ya , K u a la L u m pu r , wh e re h e t e a c h e s ph i lo s oph y

of sc ience . He has wri t ten on the h is tory and phi losophy of I s lamic

sc ience .

X l l


14/124

N O T E S O N C O N T R I B U T O R S

D e b o r a h L . B l a c k i s a t the Pont i f ica l Ins t i tu te of Mediaeva l Studies in

the Univers i ty of Toronto. She i s the author of severa l works on medieva l

L a t in a n d A ra b ic ph i lo s oph y , m a in ly on ps yc h o logy , e p i s t e m ology a n d

log ic .

A l e x a n d e r B r o a d i e wa s e d u c a t e d a t E d in b u rgh a n d Ox f ord , a n d i s n ow

at Glasgow Univers i ty . His chie f a reas of research are medieva l log ic and

p h i l o s o p h y , M a i m o n i d e s a n d D u n s S c o t u s .

N o r m a n C a l d e r wa s e d u c a t e d a t Ox f ord a n d SOA S, a n d t e a c h e s A ra b ic

a n d I s l a m ic s t u d ie s in t h e Un ive r s i t y o f M a n c h e s t e r . H e h a s pu b l i s h e d

in the f ields of Is lamic law and early Is lamic history.

M a s s i m o C a m p a n i n i s t u d ie d a n d t e a c h e s I s l a m ic ph i lo s oph y a t M i la n

Un ive r s i t y a n d h a s wr i t t e n wid e ly on b ot h m e d ie va l a n d m od e rn I s l a m ic

t h ou gh t .

W i l l i a m C . C h i t t i c k s tudied a t Tehran Univers i ty and teaches re l ig ious

s tudies a t the Sta te Univers i ty of New York , Stony Brook. He has wri t ten

extens ive ly on Suf i sm.

J o h n C o o p e r s tudied a t Oxford and in Iran , and now teaches Pers ian a t

C a m b r i d g e .

H a m id D a b a s h i s t u d ie d a t t h e Un ive r s i t y o f Pe n n s y lva n ia a n d t e a ch e s

Pe r s i a n S t u d ie s a t Co lu m b ia Un ive r s i t y a n d h a s wr i t t e n on po l i t i c a l a n d

theologica l topics in I s lamic thought .

H a n s D a i b e r s tudied a t Saarbrucken and Heide lberg , t aught a t the Free

Un ive r s i t y , A m s t e rd a m a n d i s n ow a t t h e Un ive r s i t y o f Fra n k f u r t a m

M a in . H e h a s pu b l i s h e d on G re e k — A ra b ic t h ou gh t , I s l a m ic ph i lo s oph y

and theology, h is tory of sc ience in I s lam, and the ca ta loguing of Arab ic

m a n u s c r ip t s .

P a u l B . F e n t o n s tudied a t the Sorbonne , and i s now a t the Univers i ty

of St ra sbo urg , wh ere he teaches pos t -B ib l ica l Jewish l i t era ture . H e has

pu b l i s h e d wid e ly on J e wi s h c u l t u re in M u s l im c ou n t r ie s , a n d in pa r t i c

u lar on the in teract ion o f Jew ish and Is lam ic m yst ic i sm .

D a n i e l H . F r a n k s t u d ie d a t t h e Un ive r s i t i e s o f Ca l i f o rn ia , Ca m b r id ge

and Pit t sburgh, and now teaches a t the Univers i ty of Kentucky. He has

pu b l i s h e d in t h e a re a s o f G re e k ph i lo s oph y a n d m e d ie va l I s l a m ic a n d

Je wis h ph i lo s oph y .

G a d Fre u d e n t h a l s t u d ie d a t t h e H e b re w Un ive r s i t y a n d t h e Sorb on n e ,

and i s a t the Centre Nat iona l de la Recherche Sc ient i f ique , Par i s . His

main research interests are in the history of theories of matter before the

seventeenth century and the h is tory of sc ience in the medieva l Jewish

c o m m u n i t i e s .

X l l l


15/124


Ch a r le s G e n e q u a n d wa s e d u c a t e d a t t h e Un ive r s i t i e s o f G e n e va a n d

Ox f ord , a n d t e a c h e s a t t h e Un ive r s i t y o f G e n e va . H i s m a in a re a s o f

research and pu bl ica t ion are in the Aris tote l ian t rad i t ion in I s lam , I s la mic

gn os t i c i s m , a n d t h e Alexander Romance in Ar ab ic l i t era ture .

H a f i z A . G h a f f a r K h a n wa s e d u c a t e d a t Pe s h a wa r a n d Te m ple Un ive r s i t i e s ,

a n d i s n ow a t t h e A t la n t a D a r a l - Ul u m , A t la n t a , US A . H e wr it e s on

I s l a m ic ph i lo s oph y a n d t h e o logy .

L e n n E . G ood m a n t e a c h e s a t V a n d e rb i l t Un ive r s i t y , a n d wa s e d u c a t e d a t

H a rva rd a n d Ox f ord . H e h a s wr i t t e n wid e ly on ph i lo s oph y , in c lu d in g

b ook s on Ib n Tu f a y l , Ib n S ln a a n d Sa a d ia h G a on .

S y e d N o m a n u l H a q w a s e d u c a t e d a t H u l l , L o n d o n a n d H a r v a r d

Univers i t ie s , and now teaches a t Brown Univers i ty . He has wri t ten on

Is lam ic a lche my , part icu lar ly Jab ir ibn Ha yy an , a s wel l a s on I s lam ic

inte l lec tua l h is tory and re l ig ion .

A r t h u r H ym a n wa s e d u c a t e d a t H a rva rd Un ive r s i t y a n d t e a c h e s a t Ye s h iva

Univers i ty . His research and publ ica t ions are in medieva l Jewish and

I s l a m ic ph i lo s oph y wi t h a s pe c ia l in t e re s t in t h e t h ou gh t o f M a im on id e s

and Averroes .

Sh a m s In a t i s t u d ie d a t t h e A m e r ic a n Un ive r s i t y o f Be i ru t a n d t h e S t a t e

Univers i ty of New York a t Buf fa lo , and teaches a t Vi l lanova Univers i ty ,

spec ia l iz ing in I s lamic phi losophy, and in part icu lar in the thought of

Ibn Slna .

R a h im u d d in K e m a l wa s e d u c a t e d a t G la s gow Un ive r s i t y a n d i s in t e re s t e d

in Suf i sm, Pers ian poet ry and Is lamic s tudies . He has publ i shed on cons t i

tut iona l law in I s lam.

Sa l im K e m a l wa s e d u c a t e d a t Ca m b r id ge , t a u gh t a t Pe n n S t a t e Un ive r s i t y

a n d i s n ow a t D u n d e e Un ive r s i t y . H e h a s pu b l i s h e d on I s l a m ic a n d

Kant ian aes thet ics .

M a h m u d E ro l K i l i c t e a ch e s I s l a m ic gn os i s a t M a rm a ra Un ive r s i t y ,

I s t a n b u l . H e is m a in ly in t e re s te d in A k b a r ia n t h o u gh t a n d t h e O t t o m a n

Suf i t rad i t ion .

Fe l ix K le in -Fr a n k e t e a c h e s a t t h e H e b re w Un ive r s i t y in J e ru s a le m . H i s

spec ia l i t ie s a re the h is tory of the re l ig ion of I s lam, the h is tory of phi los

oph y , s c i e n c e a n d m e d ic in e in I s l a m , a n d t ra d i t ion a l Ch in e s e m e d ic in e

and his tory .

A le x a n d e r K n ys h wa s e d u c a t e d in L e n in gra d a n d n ow t e a c h e s a t A n n

A rb or , M ic h iga n . H e h a s pu b l i s h e d wid e ly in I s l a m ic s t u d ie s , a n d in

pa r t i c u la r on Ib n A ra b l .

xiv


16/124


B a r r y K o g a n w a s e d u c a t e d a t U C L A , H e b r e w U n i o n C o l l e g e a n d

U n i v e r s i ty o f T o r o n t o , a n d te a ch e s p h i l o s o p h y a t H e b r e w U n i o n C o l l e g e -

Je wi s h In s t i t u t e o f R e l ig ion , C in c in n a t i . H e i s t h e a u t h or o f b oo k s on

Averroes and art ic les on medieva l Jewish and Is lamic phi losophy.

A b d e rr a h m a n e L a k h s a s s i wa s e d u c a t e d a t t h e A m e r ic a n Un ive r s i t y o f

Be i ru t , t h e Sorb on n e a n d M a n c h e s t e r Un ive r s i t y . H e h a s pu b l i s h e d a r t i c le s

on I s l a m ic t h ou gh t a n d on t h e Be rb e r o ra l t r a d i t ion in M oroc c o .

I re n e L a n c a s t e r s t u d ie d a t t h e Be ru r ia A c a d e m y, J e ru s a le m , a n d t e a c h e s

H e b re w a n d Ju d a i s m a t L ive rpoo l Un ive r s i t y . Sh e wr i t es on m e d ie va l

J e w s in Spa in , J e wi s h ph i lo s oph y a n d m ys t i c i s m .

O l i v e r L e a m a n w a s e d u c a t e d a t O x f o r d a n d C a m b r i d g e , a n d h a s t a u g h t

a t t h e Un ive r s i t y o f K h a r t ou m . H e i s n ow a t L ive rpoo l Joh n M oore s

Univers i ty , and h is main in teres t s a re in medieva l I s lamic phi losophy.

P ie r re L ory t e a c h e s I s l a m ic ph i lo s oph y a t t h e E c o le Pra t iq u e d e s H a u t e s

E t u d e s , Sorb on n e , wi t h a pa r t i c u la r s pe c ia l i za t ion in e s o t e r i c t h ou gh t . H e

has wri t ten on Is lamic a lchemy, Suf i sm, magic and the occult sc iences in

Is lamic cu lture .

J o h n M a r e n b o n w a s e d u c a t e d a t T r i n i t y C o l l e g e , C a m b r i d g e , w h e r e h e

is now a Fe l low. H e has wri t ten extens ive ly on med ieva l ph i loso ph y.

Z a i l a n M or i s wa s e d u c a t e d a t Ca r le t on Un ive r s i t y , Ca n a d a a n d t h e

A m e r ic a n Un ive r s i t y , W a s h in g t on D C , a n d n ow te a c h e s in t h e D e pa r t

m e n t o f Ph i lo s oph y in Un ive r s i t y Sa in s M a la ys i a . H e r m a in in t e re s t s a re

I s l a m ic ph i lo s oph y , c om pa ra t ive re l i g ion a n d Su f i s m .

A b b a s M u h a j i r a n i w a s e d u c a t e d i n H a m a d a n , Q o m a n d T e h r a n , a n d h a s

writ ten on Is lamic theology and l i t era ture .

A z im N a n j i wa s e d u c a t e d in K e n ya , a t M a k e re re Un ive r s i t y , Uga n d a , a n d

M c G i l l Un ive r s i t y , Ca n a d a . H e t e a c h e s a t t h e Un ive r s i t y o f F lor id a , a n d

h a s wr i t t e n on I s l a m , I s m a i l i s m , re l i g ion a n d c u l t u re .

Se yye d H os s e in N a s r wa s e d u c a t e d in Te h ra n , a t M a s s a c h u s e t t s In s t i t u t e

o f Te c h n ology a n d a t H a rva rd Un ive r s i t y . H e h a s t a u gh t a t a n u m b e r

of un ivers i t ie s in the USA and the Middle Eas t , and i s now a t the

G e orge Wa s h in g t on Un ive r s i t y . H e h a s wr i t t e n e x t e n s ive ly on I s l a m a n d

p h i l o s o p h y .

I a n R ic h a rd N e t t on s t u d ie d a t SOA S a n d E x e t e r , t a u gh t a t t h e Un ive r s i t y

of Exeter and i s now a t Leeds Univ ers i ty . H e has wri t ten on a l-Fa rab l ,

the Ikhw an a l-Sa fa an d on Is lamic phi l oso ph y in genera l , as wel l a s on

other i s sues in I s lamic c iv i l iza t ion .

Sa r i N u s e ib e h wa s e d u c a t e d a t Ox f ord a n d H a rva rd , a n d h a s t a u gh t a t B i r

xv


17/124


Zeit , the Hebrew Univers i ty and a l-Na jah Univers i ty . He has wri t ten on

contemporary pol i t ica l i s sues in the Middle Eas t and on Is lamic phi losophy.

E l s a y e d Om ra n wa s e d u c a t e d a t A in Sh a m s , Ca rd i f f , N e wc a s t l e a n d

G e o rge t o wn Un ive r s i t i e s . H i s m a in in t e res t s a re in A ra b a n d I s l a m ic

culture and c iv i l iza t ion , and Arab ic l inguis t ic s .

James Pavl in i s current ly a t New York Univers i ty and spec ia l izes in I s lamic

theology.

F . E . Pe t e r s i s a t N e w York Un ive r s i t y a n d h a s t a u gh t b o t h G re e k a n d

Is lam ic phi loso ph y. H e has wri t ten on the in f luence of Aris tot le on I s lam ic

ph i lo s oph y , a n d on t h e P la t on ic a n d H e l le n ic t ra d i t ion s in I s l a m .

E v e r e t t K . Rowson s tudied a t Pr inceton and Ya le , i s a t the Univers i ty of

Pennsylvania , and has wri t ten on Is lamic phi losophy and Arab ic l i t era

tu r e ,

a n d e s pe c ia l ly on a l -A m ir i .

Ye ga n e Sh a ye ga n s t u d ie d a t G e n e va a n d H a rva rd Un ive r s i t i e s , a n d i s n ow

re s e a rch in g th e A r i s t o t e l ia n c om m e n t a t o r s a t Un ive r s i t y Co l le ge L on d o n .

A b u ' l -Wa f a a l -Ta f t a za n i wa s e d u c a t e d a t t h e Sorb on n e a n d Ca i ro . H e

t a u gh t I s l a m ic ph i lo s oph y a t Ca i ro Un ive r s i t y , a n d pu b l i s h e d ge n e ra l ly

in the area , an d on Suf i sm . H e d ied in 1 99 4 .

M . Su h e y l U m a r wa s e d u c a t e d a t L a h o re a n d is n ow a t t h e Iq b a l A c a d e m y,

Pakis tan . He spec ia l izes in Suf i sm as wel l a s in the thought of Iqba l and

in the in te l lec tua l h is tory of the Indian subcont inent f rom Shah Wallu l lah

t o Iq b a l . H e a l s o t e a c h e s a t I STA C, K u a la L u m pu r , M a la ys i a .

D o m i n i q u e U r v o y w a s e d u c a t e d i n B o r d e a u x a n d D a m a s c u s , a n d is n o w

at the Univers i ty of Toulouse . He has wri t ten on Is lamic thought in

Spa in , a n d on L u l l .

Ca t h e r in e Wi l s on s t u d ie d a t Ya le , Ox f ord a n d Pr in c e t on , t e a c h e s a t t h e

Un ivers i ty o f Albe rta and has wri t ten on Le ib niz and on ear ly m od ern

sc ience , a s wel l a s on phi losophy in genera l .

H os s e in Z ia i s t u d ie d a t Ya le a n d H a rva rd , a n d i s n ow a t t h e Un ive r

s i t y o f Ca l i f o rn ia , L os A n ge le s . H e h a s pu b l i s h e d on I l lu m in a t ion i s t

ph i lo s oph y a n d pos t -A vic e n n a n ph i lo s oph y .

xvi


18/124

Preface

There are a var ie ty of pos s ib le approaches to the ques t ion of what a

h i s t ory o f I s l a m ic ph i lo s oph y s h ou ld b e . Un t i l n ow, t h e m os t c om m on

approach has been to t rea t lead ing individua l th inkers and a t bes t put

them within the context of the ir own t imes . There are advantages to th is

approach in that i t makes lead ing in te l lec tua l f igures wel l known and

helps re la te I s lamic phi losophy to other a spect s of the cu lture of the per iod

in q u e s t ion . Th i s a pproa c h t e n d s o f t e n , h owe ve r , t o c on c e n t ra t e m ore on

individua l th inkers than on phi losophica l ideas , and there i s the danger

of t rea t ing I s lamic phi losophy as a cons t i tuent of the h is tory of ideas

ra ther than a s part of the h is tory of phi losophy.

A s e d i t or s o f t h e s e vo lu m e s we ve ry m u c h v ie w I s l a m ic ph i lo s oph y

as a l iv ing phi losophica l t rad i t ion while , of course , accept ing i t s re la t ion

to other in te l lec tua l deve lopments of I s lamic c iv i l iza t ion . I s lamic phi los

ophy in fac t dea ls with conceptua l i s sues which are not t ied to a part icu lar

author or per iod , and which have universa l import . We have , therefore ,

sought to dea l a s much with phi losophica l ideas a s individua l th inkers ,

and to dea l with the sub ject a s a whole but not neces sar i ly cover everyone

who might be descr ibed a s an I s lamic phi losopher . There are other genera l

reference books with entries for most Is lamic intellectual f igures and we

d o n ot wi s h t o c om pe t e wi t h t h e m . We h a ve h a d t o s e le c t f rom a m on g

the vas t body of thought which cons t i tu tes I s lamic phi losophy part icu lar

th inkers , ideas and in te l lec tua l movements which we regard a s the most

s ignif icant .

Th e s e c t ion s o f t h e History a re wri t ten by d i f ferent auth ors w ho

have been se lected to represent the var ious approaches to the sub ject , and

we should not be t aken to share the ir v iews . We hope that th is work

ref lects the dif ferent tendencies and methods prevalent in the f ield of

t h e s t u d y o f I s l a m ic ph i lo s oph y t od a y . We h a ve n ot s ou gh t t o im pos e

uniformity on the d i f ferent ways in which the authors of these volumes

have t rea ted the ir topics . We want to represent the d ivers i ty ex is t ing

wi t h in t h e c on t e m pora ry s t u d y o f I s l a m ic ph i lo s oph y , wi t h a l l t h e c on t ro

versy and d isagreement that such d ivers i ty enta i l s . Our ta sk has been to

xvi


19/124

P R E F A C E

sa feguard the scholar ly content of these volumes . I t i s for the reader to

dec ide what a t t i tude to I s lamic phi losophy i s most succes s fu l and wil l be

most fruit ful in the future.

Th e re a re a n u m b e r o f pe op le wh om we s h ou ld l ik e t o t h a n k f or

the ir he lp in br inging th is pro ject to complet ion . We have f i rs t of a l l to

thank the contr ibutors for the ir e f fort s and for having found t ime to wri te

t h e i r c h a pt e r s . Ou r e d i t or a t R ou t le d ge , R ic h a rd S t on e m a n , h a s b e e n a

s t e a d f a s t s u ppor t e r o f t h e pro je c t , a n d H e a t h e r M c Ca l lu m a n d V ic k y

Peters have been hugely eff icient and helpful voices at the end of the tele

ph on e wh e n t h in gs s e e m e d t o b e go in g wron g . H a rry G i lon i s c re a t e d t h e

in d e x , a n d Jo a n n e S n o ok s s a w t h e wh ole pro je c t t h rou gh t h e p r in t in g

s t ag e .

F ina l ly , the ed i tors would l ike to thank each other for what we

hope the reader will f ind to be a fruit ful collaborat ion.

OL

SHN

J u n e 1 9 9 5

X V l l l


20/124

Transliteration and style

Trans l i tera t ion has normal ly been carr ied out in accordance with the

schedule se t out here . This has not a lways been done , though, e spec ia l ly

for terms very f requent ly used , and i t seemed more natura l to a l low

authors s l ight dif ferences in transliterat ion, part icularly in the sect ions on

Jewish phi losophy. The or ig ina l a t tempt to apply the t rans l i tera t ion

schedule s t r ic t ly proved unsa t i s fac tory , s ince i t resu lted in a text which

of ten look ed ra ther s t range . Au tho rs have fo l lowed the ir ow n preferences

in some respect s for spe l l ing and capita l iza t ion of key terms . Some addi

t iona l b ib l iographica l mater ia l has been suppl ied by the ed i tors .

xix


21/124

T R A N S L I T E R A T I O N A N D S T Y L E

A R A BIC CH A R A CTE R S s h or t vow e l s

9-

g h

a

b

f

u

t

3

q

i

th k

diphthongs

J

J

l

j ....

a w

c

h

f

m . . a i ( a y )

t

kh

j

n

5

Ty (final form )

d

0

h uww (final form 0)

s

d h

J

w

J

r

y

J

z

s

0

Ji

ah; at (construct state)

(article) al- and

'1-

(even

before the anteropalatals)

Pe r s i a n l e t t e r s a d d e d t o t h e

A ra b ic a lph a b e t

s h

P

s

JL

ch

(>

d

l o n g v o w e l s

J

zh

i>

t a

g

z

J

u

t

«.

r

XX


22/124

Introduction

Oliver Leaman

Th e ob v iou s q u e s t ion wh ic h a r i s e s f o r a n yon e look in g a t t h e s e vo lu m e s

is why the th inkers who are d iscussed here are c la s s i f ied under the descr ip

t ion o f I s l a m ic ph i lo s oph y . Som e o f t h e s e t h in k e r s a re n ot M u s l im s , a n d

some of them are not phi losophers in a s t ra ight forward sense . What i s

I s lamic phi losophy? This has been a controvers ia l ques t ion for a long

t i m e ,

and it is indeed dif f icult to f ind a label which is ent irely sat is fac

tory for such th inkers and sys tems of thought . To labe l such phi losophy

as Arab ic does indeed make appropria te re ference to the language in which

the Qur 'an was or ig ina l ly t ransmit ted , but i t i s hard ly appropria te a s a

d e s c r ip t ion o f t h e ph i lo s oph y we h a ve in m in d h e re . M a n y o f ou r t h in k e r s

d id not wri te in Arab ic , and many of them were not Arabs . I t i s t rue

t h a t a n im por t a n t s t ra n d in I s l a m ic ph i lo s oph y d e ve lope d in t h e A ra b ic

language , and in Arab ic t rans la t ions of Greek text s , but th is i s on ly a

s t ra n d , h owe ve r im por t a n t i t m a y h a ve b e e n . A va s t p ropor t ion o f I s l a m ic

phi losophy was wri t ten in languages other than Arab ic , e spec ia l ly Pers ian ,

and by non-Arabs , and that cont inues to be the case today. Whatever i s

m e a n t b y A ra b ic ph i lo s oph y c a n n ot h ope t o b e c om pre h e n s ive e n ou gh

t o e n c om pa s s t h e wh ole o f I s l a m ic ph i lo s oph y .

I s l a m ic ph i lo s oph y m igh t b e t h ou gh t t o b e t h e s or t o f ph i lo s oph y

prod u c e d b y M u s l im s , b u t t h i s wou ld b e t oo n a rrow a l s o . A good d e a l

o f ph i lo s oph y wh ic h we h a ve in c lu d e d wa s prod u c e d b y n on -M u s l im s ,

and some of i t has no d irect re l ig ious re levance anyway as the term re l i

g ion i s unders tood in the West today, so that the re l ig ious provenance

we m igh t s e e k t o a pp ly t o i t i s m i s le a d in g . M a n y Ch r i s t i a n a n d J e wi s h

ph i lo s oph e r s work e d wi t h in t h e s t y le a n d t ra d i t ion o f I s l a m ic ph i lo s oph y ,

and i t would be invid ious to exc lude them mere ly on account of the ir

re l ig ious be l ie f s . Also , we do inc lude some phi losophica l work here

which has no direct reference to any religious topic at a ll but which

is jus t phi losophy, a formal enquiry in to the s t ructure of the most genera l

1


23/124

I N T R O D U C T I O N

c on c e pt s a va i l a b le . Work on log ic a n d g ra m m a r , f o r e x a m ple , h a s t h i s

character . I t i s pos s ib le to der ive some re l ig ious impl ica t ions f rom such

w or k, of co ur se, i f on e tries very ha rd , but not usu ally very fruit fully. So

the I s lamic credent ia l s of some of th is k ind of phi losophica l work seem

to be ra ther s l im, and i t might appear prob lemat ic to inc lude such work

in a b ook on I s l a m ic ph i lo s oph y .

There are d iscuss ions in these volumes which c lear ly are I s lamic ,

but which are certa in ly not c lear ly phi losophy. For example , we thought

i t was important to have an account of d i f ferent k inds of theology, s ince

theology played such a la rge part in the deve lopment of I s lamic phi los

ophy, of ten a s something which that phi losophy could react aga ins t . I t

i s im por t a n t t o u n d e r s t a n d t h e c on t e x t wi t h in wh ic h id e a s a re prod u c e d ,

not jus t a s an es say in the h is tory of ideas but in order to unders tand

those ideas more c lear ly . Despi te the bes t e f fort s of some of the phi loso

phers we sha l l cons ider , i t i s not a lways easy to d is t inguish phi losophy

from theology, or even f rom law or grammar, the t rad i t iona l I s lamic

sc iences . Many of the ques t ions which ar i se with in these context s have

direct phi losophica l re levance , and the shape of that phi losophy was

powerfu l ly a f fected by the d isc ipl ines which produced the i s sues . I t i s

important to rea l ize that we have here a dynamic re la t ionship between

the I s lamic sc iences and phi losophy, with a cons tant in terplay of a rgu

ments and sugges t ions , so that i t i s important to inc lude a d iscuss ion of

those sc iences in such a way that one can see how they have both a f fected

and been a f fected by phi losophy.

I t wou ld b e t e m pt in g t o a rgu e t h a t wh a t m a k e s I s l a m ic ph i lo s oph y

an appropria te genera l concept i s that i t encompasses a fea ture of that

phi losophy which i s shared by a l l i t s in s tances . For example , i f there i s

an agenda which i s impl ic i t or expl ic i t in a l l such phi losophy, then i t

would be easy to argue that i t should a l l go under the same genera l name.

M a n y c om m e n t a t or s h a ve a rgu e d t h a t in d e e d t h e re i s s u c h a n a ge n d a .

A very in f luent ia l school of in terpreta t ion or ig inat ing with Leo St rauss i s

convinced that the bas i s of a l l work in I s lamic phi losophy i s the oppo

s i t ion between re l ig ion and reason , between fa i th and phi losophy, and

b e t we e n I s l a m a n d G re e k t h ou gh t . Som e t im e s t h i s i s ph ra s e d a s re pre

sent ing the c la sh between Jerusa lem and Athens . Fol lowers of th is

approach c la im that i t i s pos s ib le to in terpret any a spect of I s lamic phi los

ophy in l ine with th is centra l prob lem, s ince th is prob lem runs through

all such writ ing. If i t is not obvious that it does , then there are ways to

f ind appropria te c lues beneath the surface of the text which wil l show

that the centra l prob lem lurks there somewhere , and in fac t represent s

the deep s t ructure of the argument of the text . A d i f ferent but not un

re la ted view has i t tha t the whole of I s lamic phi losophy represent s an

at tempt to accommodate I s lam with ra t iona l i ty , so that the centra l i s sue

is to carry out such a reconci l ia t ion . This was the lead ing mot ive of the

2


24/124


phi losophers themselves , and when we as ses s the ir work we have to bear

th is in m in d i f we are to und ers ta nd wh at the text s they pr od uc ed actua l ly

mean . Unles s we grasp the centra l idea which i s the bas i s to the phi lo

s oph ic a l wr i t in g s , we a re in d a n ge r o f m i s u n d e r s t a n d in g t h os e wr i t in g s ,

a n d t h e a s s u m pt ion i s m a d e t h a t t h e re i s ju s t s u c h a c om m on t h e m e t o

those wri t ings . Af ter a l l , ca l l ing phi losophy " I s lamic" impl ies , or might

seem to imply , that the re l ig ious character of what i s d i scussed i s cruc ia l ,

and , s ince i t i s l inked with phi losophy, the apparent conf l ic t between two

dif ferent approaches to the same i s sue might seem to be h ighl ighted .

We s h ou ld re s i s t t h i s t e m pt a t ion . A l t h ou gh t h e re a re m a n y d i s c u s

s ions in I s lamic phi losophy of re l ig ion and reason , i t i s ent ire ly mis taken

to see th is d ichotomy as ly ing a t the heart of that phi losophy. I t might

be that that d ichotomy l ie s a t the heart of medieva l Jewish and Chris t ian

phi losophy, or a t lea s t of much of i t , but there i s no reason to im

por t s u c h a d ic h ot om y a s a l e a d in g pr in c ip le in I s l a m ic ph i lo s oph y .

The a t tempt to reduce a vas t var ie ty of phi losophica l endeavour to jus t

one such s logan i s s impl is t ic and should be avoided . I t runs the danger

of t ry ing to f i t the whole of I s lamic phi losophy in to a conceptua l s t ra i t -

jacket which wil l inevitab ly res t r ic t i t s s cope and in teres t . The in tent ion

has been to present in these volumes a s much of the var ie ty of I s lamic

phi losophy as pos s ib le , and to represent i t a s a cont inuing and l iv ing

t ra d i t ion o f ph i lo s oph ic a l work , n o t a d e a d a n d c om ple t e d d oc t r in e f rom

t h e M id d le A ge s . E ve n t h e work prod u c e d in t h e M id d le A ge s i s t oo

va r ie d in f o rm a n d c on t e n t t o b e s u b s u m e d u n d e r a s im ple c on c e pt , a n d

f orm s ve ry m u c h o f a d i a logu e wh ic h c on t in u e s t o h a ve re s on a n c e t od a y .

I s t h e re , t h e n , n o ph i lo s oph ic a l a ge n d a wh ic h I s l a m ic ph i lo s oph y

has and which uniquely character izes i t ? There i s such an agenda , but i t

i s more var ious than i s commonly rea l ized . Quite obvious ly , a soc ie ty

which i s I s lamic wi l l produce th inkers who wil l f rame the ir phi losoph

ica l ques t ions in terms of that soc ie ty . Somet imes these are jus t I s lamic

vers ions of ent ire ly universa l phi losophica l i s sues . For example , the ques

t ion of how i t i s pos s ib le to know God wil l t ake a part icu lar form within

a n I s l a m ic c on t e x t , g ive n t h e e m ph a s i s on t h e u n i t y o f G od . K n owin g

G od wi l l in vo lve k n owin g a b e in g f rom wh ic h a l l a n t h ropom orph ic

descr ipt ion i s removed . Yet th is i s not a un iquely I s lamic i s sue , s ince many

re l ig ious phi losophies wi l l have an account of how i t i s pos s ib le to know

a G od wh o c a n n ot b e d e s c r ib e d in t e rm s wh ic h a pp ly t o H i s c re a t ion .

What i s phi losophica l about the d iscuss ion i s i t s use of very abs t ract

concept s to make sense of the idea of such knowledge . What i s I s lamic

about the d iscuss ion i s i t s concept ion of God and His Qual i t ie s . This

need not be a un iquely I s lamic idea , but i t wi l l be f ramed within the

language of I s lam and wil l re f lec t on the way in which that concept ion

of d ivin i ty has been re f ined and developed within I s lam. I t i s not a huge

s t e p f rom d i s c u s s in g t h e re l a t ion s h ip b e t we e n G od a n d H i s p rope r t i e s ,

3


25/124


which i s a f ter a l l an important a spect of what i t i s to know God, to

wondering what the re la t ionship i s between a sub ject and i t s propert ie s

in general. This lat ter enquiry has no direct reference to the religious

context out of which it originally arose, and yet it is s t i l l part of a way

of d o in g ph i lo s oph y wh ic h s t a r t s wi t h a re l i g iou s prob le m .

What jus t i f ica t ion i s there in ca l l ing such a log ica l prob lem a part

of I s lamic phi losophy? The prob lem i t se l f i s c lear ly not on ly an I s lamic

prob lem, nor i s i t a prob lem with any d irect re levance to re l ig ion a s such ,

a lbe i t the way in which i t i s answered wil l have an impact upon the way

in wh ic h on e a n s we rs q u e s t ion s a b ou t G od a n d H i s p rope r t i e s . I t c e r t a in ly

wou ld b e m i s t a k e n t o t h in k t h a t t h e ph i lo s oph e r s wh om we a re c on s id

er ing would have in the fore f ront of the ir minds the re l ig ious impl ica t ions

of the ir work on log ic whi le they were engaged upon such work . They

n e e d n ot h a ve b e e n t h in k in g a b ou t t h os e im pl i c a t ion s , a n d i t wou ld n ot

be far- fe tched to sugges t that they may not ever have cons idered those

implica t ions . I t certa in ly would be dangerous , then , to re fer to an I s lamic

l o g i c ,

but not to the inc lus ion of log ic with in I s lamic phi losophy. Such

an inc lus ion makes appropria te re ference to the context with in which a

piece of in te l lec tua l work was produced , with in the cu ltura l context of

I s lamic soc ie ty . We can use fu l ly employ a concept f rom the I s lamic

sc iences here , that of a cha in of t ransmis s ion . The re levant ques t ion i s

how far the part icu lar phi losophica l idea or theory can be connected with

predominant ly I s lamic ideas a long a cha in of t ransmis s ion or in f luence .

This leaves us with a ser ies of i s sues and topics which range very wide ly

acros s t rad i t iona l phi losophica l concerns , and that i s how i t should be .

I s lamic phi losophy i s f i r s t of a l l phi losophy, and i t s content i s going to

resemble the content of phi losophy in genera l . Yet there wi l l remain a

connect ion with ideas or th inkers who worked within the context of

I s lamic cu lture a t some s tage .

O f course , there is a l imit to ho w far one can t race the cha in of

t ransmis s ion , and some writers a re wi ld ly over-ambit ious in c la iming to

discover a l ink between aspect s of I s lamic phi losophy and subsequent

developments in Western phi losophy. On the other hand, there are in ter

es t ing l inks , and these have been to a degree descr ibed here , but not a s

part of the commonplace a t t i tude that such a l ink would es tab l i sh the

s ign i f icance of I s lamic phi losophy. The la t ter has a s ign i f icance which i s

entirely su i

generis,

as readers of these volumes will surely realize, but what

makes i t s ign i f icant i s the exce l lence of the phi losophy

itself,

and the

wealth of ideas which were produced . I t i s pa t roniz ing to sugges t that

one has to s t res s the impact of I s lamic phi losophy on the West , and

beyond, for i t to be t aken ser ious ly . None the le s s , tha t impact has to

b e a c k n owle d ge d a n d a s s e s s e d . Th e e m ph a s i s h e re i s n o t on t ra n s m is s ion

either in to or out of I s lamic phi losophy but i s ra ther on the ideas of

t h a t ph i lo s oph y

itself,

s ince i t i s the ideas which u lt imate ly demand our

4


26/124


at tent ion and deserve our respect . I t i s not a lways easy for I s lamic phi loso

phers to pursue those ideas and hold on to the vers ion of I s lam with

which they started, and the tension which often exists as a result is a very

fruit ful feature of the intellectual creat ivity which results .

So wh e n we t a lk a b ou t I s l a m ic ph i lo s oph y we h a ve in m in d a ve ry

genera l conce pt of an I s lamic cu lture out of wh ich that ph i los op hy grew ,

and i t i s consequent ly important to unders tand a spect s of that cu lture i f

t h e ph i lo s oph y i s t o b e prope r ly u n d e r s t ood . Th i s d oe s n o t m e a n t h a t

we should fa l l in to the danger of t rea t ing I s lamic phi losophy as though

it were only a part of the history of ideas . The history of ideas is far too

l imit ing to encompass the scope of I s lamic phi losophy. Yet there has of ten

been an over-concentra t ion on the pursu i t of I s lamic phi losophy as an

his tor ica l t a sk , which has led to what a re rea l ly phi losophica l prob lems

about va l id i ty be ing misrepresented a s h is tor ica l prob lems about a t t r ibu

t ion and context . While these h is tor ica l ques t ions are no doubt in teres t ing

and dif f icult to answer, so that it is an intriguing intellectual task to

resolve them, they are of an ent ire ly d i f ferent order f rom phi losophica l

q u e s t ion s . Th e t im e h a s c om e t o pu t I s l a m ic ph i lo s oph y wi t h in i t s a ppro

pria te context , tha t of phi losophy, so that i t can be recognized a s a dynamic

and l iv ing t rad i t ion which speaks to phi losophers today jus t a s i t d id in

the past .

Although we have s t res sed here the role of I s lamic phi losophy as a v ibrant

a n d im por t a n t ph i lo s oph ic a l a c t iv i t y , i t c a n n ot b e d ou b t e d t h a t m u c h o f

the d iscuss ion of th is type of phi losophy i s carr ied out in terms of explor ing

i t s root s in other areas . That i s , commentators wi l l examine how the non-

phi losophica l a spect s of I s lam a f fect the deve lopment of the phi losophy

which appeared in the I s lamic world , and a lso how di f ferent cu ltura l

fac tors in f luenced I s la mic phi l oso ph y. In part icu lar , a w hol e range o f

that sort of phi losophy was quite c lear ly in f luenced by Greek thought ,

and the per ipa te t ic t rad i t ion in I s lamic phi losophy i s obvious ly based

upon an or ig ina l ly non-Is lamic source . I t i s important to emphas ize that

th is i s but one type of I s lamic phi losophy, and a type which has been

cri t ic ized by some Is lamic phi losophers for i t s very d is tance f rom re l ig ion .

They have argued on occas ion that what we have here i s the mere repl i

ca t ion of Greek ideas in Arab ic dres s , without any rea l a t tempt a t showing

how those ideas l ink up with specif ically Is lamic issues . It will be fa irly

clear to any reader of the sect ions in this book which look at this sort

o f ph i lo s oph y t h a t s u c h a c r i t i c i s m i s m i s p la c e d . Th e re wa s a ge n u in e

a t t e m pt a t s e e in g h ow t h e c on c e pt u a l m a c h in e ry o f G re e k t h ou gh t c ou ld

be appl ied to I s lamic i s sues , and in th is contact between two cu ltura l

movements a grea t dea l of in teres t ing and percept ive work resu lted .

Yet we should be very care fu l in what we say about such cu ltura l

contact . I t i s a l l too easy to l ink d iscuss ions in I s lamic phi losophy with

5


27/124


ear l ier Greek d iscuss ions , and to th ink a s a resu lt that what i s going on

is qu ite d i f ferent f rom what i s rea l ly going on . Let us t ake a s an example

the sort s of d iscuss ions which of ten went on in I s lamic phi losophy

c on c e rn in g po l i t i c a l t h ou gh t . We a re im m e d ia t e ly ob l ige d t o c on f ron t a

d i f f icu lty here , a d i f f icu lty concern ing t rans la t ion . There was a tendency

for Greek terms l ike nomos ( law) to be translated not as

ndmus.,

the new

A ra b ic t e rm c o in e d t o c on ve y t h e s a m e m e a n in g a s t h e G re e k t e rm , b u t

as Shan'ah, the term for law in Ar ab ic . N o w , the la t ter i s a t erm w ith

re l ig ious connota t ions , which i s absent f rom the Greek not ion of law.

What the phi losophers l ike a l-Farab i meant by th is i s tha t the Arab ic

term can be used to i l lus t ra te the sort of point which the Greek th inkers

wished to make , and he t r ied to show this in terms of the language which

would s t r ike a resonance with h is Mus l im compatr iot s . Af ter a l l , he d id

n ot on ly wi s h t o c on ve y th e n a t u re o f t h e a rgu m e n t t o t h e I s l a m ic c o m m u

nity , he wished a lso to natura l ize the argument , to show that th is i s an

argument which i s both re levant and in teres t ing to h is contemporar ies .

This approach i s l ike ly to lead to a d i f f icu lty in in terpreta t ion ,

though. Many readers wi l l observe a l-Farab l us ing re l ig ious terminology

to expres s a point f rom Greek phi losophy, and they wil l a rgue that what

he i s doing i s a rguing that the la t ter form of thought i s compat ib le with

Is lam. That i s , they wil l see the ta sk of reconci l ing reason with re l ig ion

as the lead ing theme of I s lamic phi losophy, whereas a l l tha t an I s lamic

ph i lo s oph e r m a y b e d o in g i s r e pre s e n t in g a n or ig in a l ly G re e k a rgu m e n t

in a manner which would make sense to h is audience , in th is ca se us ing

Is lam ic languag e . O f cou rse , i t m igh t be sa id that i t w ou ld be far mo re

accura te to cons t ruct a new term, a term which wears i t s Greek heart on

it s s leeve , a s i t were , to convey the or ig ina l a rgument . To do otherwise

is to run the r i sk of mis lead ing one ' s audience , s ince i t appears to be a

mat ter of represent ing what was an or ig ina l ly secular a rgument a s in fac t

a re l ig ious argument . Perhaps a l-Farab l was de l ibera te ly t ry ing to pas s of f

Greek thought a s be ing far more re l ig ious , or a t lea s t I s lamic , than i t

rea l ly was . Perhaps he was us ing I s lamic language to descr ibe Greek argu

ments in order to t ake a short cut a long the pa th of reconci l ing I s lam

with Greek phi losophy. Af ter a l l , once the key terms of Pla to ' s Republic

have been t rans la ted in to I s lamic language , i t seems to be an easy mat ter

to argue that Pla to ' s a rgument i s perfect ly compat ib le with I s lam

itself.

Th i s i s n o t a n in e v i t a b le c on c lu s ion . Th e faldsifah t end ed to use the

la n gu a ge wh ic h c a m e m os t n a t u ra l ly t o t h e m , a n d t h i s ob v iou s ly m e a n t

that they would be us ing the sort of language which was most f amil ia r

with the ir peers . In any case , they wanted to show that the k inds of

i s sues which arose with in the Greek world had in teres t ing and important

im pl i c a t ion s f o r c on t e m pora ry prob le m s in t h e I s l a m ic wor ld , a n d t h e

bes t way to present th is v iew is by us ing the ord inary language of

t h e c om m u n i t y f o r wh ic h t h e y we re wr i t in g . N e o log i s m s we re t h e n k e pt

6


28/124


t o a m in im u m . Th os e t h in k e r s wh o we re d i re c t ly c on c e rn e d wi t h t h e

nature of re l ig ion and re l ig ious experience d id not wish to d is t inguish

prec ise ly between the Greek use of phi losophica l t erminology and i t s

I s lamic vers ion , s ince they went on to t ry to show how re levant the

conceptua l d is t inct ions in ques t ion are to the l iv ing experience of f a i th .

I t has to be acknowledged a lso that the phi losophers were in teres ted in

campaign ing for not on ly the acceptab i l i ty , but a l so the inevitab i l i ty of

what they were doing . They wanted to show that the I s lamic sc iences

which were part of the t rad i t iona l canon of doing th ings and sort ing out

prob le m s n e e d e d t o b e s u pp le m e n t e d b y t h e a n c ie n t s c i e n c e s , a n d e s pe

c ia l ly by phi losophy, and th is could on ly be done i f the same sort of

language i s used in both cases .

I f a l l tha t the phi losophers were doing was to use what were or ig

in a l ly G re e k id e a s a n d a pp ly in g t h e m t o I s l a m ic prob le m s , on e m igh t

think that there is not much originality or creat ivity at issue here. All

that was going on would have been highly der iva t ive , and a t the most

we would be ab le to observe an in teres t ing arrangement of mater ia l which

actua l ly was deve loped e lsewhere . In fac t , much of the work which goes

on in I s lamic phi losophy i s of th is na ture , i t looks for the root s of the

discuss ion e lsewhere and implies that the in teres t of the d iscuss ion within

the I s lamic world i s secondary to i t s or ig ina l manifes ta t ion in the Greek

orig ina l context . I s lamic phi losophy then get s re lega ted to the h is tory of

ideas , and i s regarded a s an in teres t ing a spect of cu ltura l contact , a s

c om pa re d wi t h t h e s y s t e m s o f ph i lo s oph y wh ic h c re a t e d t h e c on c e pt u a l

materials of the debate in the f irst place. To this s ituat ion is added the

observat ion that the I s lamic phi losophers d id not have acces s to the Greek

thinkers in the ir or ig ina l language or even in many cases in very accu

ra te t rans la t ions , and they mis ident i f ied some of the authors anyway.

Th e i r in t e rpre t a t ion o f G re e k ph i lo s oph y wa s h igh ly m e d ia t e d b y

Hel len is t ic and Neopla tonic t rad i t ions , and fa i led to represent c lear ly what

the or ig ina l debate was .

Wh a t t h i s ve r s ion o f I s l a m ic ph i lo s oph y d oe s n ot c a p t u re a d e q u a t e ly

is the fac t that cu ltura l contact i s a f a r more complica ted not ion than

many unders tand . I t i s f a r too s imple to sugges t that a t erm moves f rom

the context of Greek cu lture to a new Is lamic home and then takes up

the same form of ex is tence in i t s new surroundings . The whole semant ic

s t ructure of the Greek term has not moved in to the I s lamic world ; on

the contrary , the new term wil l incorpora te a spect s of the or ig ina l t erm

but will a lso be very dif ferent . We have seen how this applies to terms

like nomos a n d Shan'ah, bu t they are far from u ni qu e in this respe ct .

That i s , i t i s pos s ib le to use the new term to make many of the same

point s made by the old term, yet th is should not concea l f rom us that

the new term is d i f ferent f rom the old term. The sys tem of concept s and

pract ices in which the old term was embedded are now absent , or a t lea s t

7


29/124


dif ferent , and the way in which the new term wil l have to be re la ted to

such a system is dist inct .

This i s very re levant to the accusa t ion that I s lamic phi losophy i s

der iva t ive and so not of the f i r s t ca l ibre in so fa r a s phi losophica l thought

goes . I t i s not the case that the I s lamic phi losophers took Greek (and

indeed other) concept s and then used them in the ir a t tempts to make

sense of the I s lamic world . Concept s a re not l ike c lothes which one can

just pick up and put on. But they are l ike clothes to the extent that , i f

they have to go on a dif ferent frame, then they will only f it i f they are

adapted to the new body. I t i s very d i f f icu lt to adapt a concept which

was appropria te with in a part icu lar context to a very d i f ferent s t a te of

a f fa irs , and i t i s on th is that the s ign i f icance of much Is lamic phi losophy

res t s . I t was capab le of t ak ing some of the key phi losophica l concept s

f rom ear l ier cu ltures and us ing them to answer prob lems which arose

within the ir own culture , and of adapt ing the concept s so that they could

c a r ry ou t s u c h a t a s k . Th e c om b in a t ion o f a b s t ra c t ph i lo s oph ic a l t h ou gh t

on t h e on e h a n d wi t h prob le m s wh ic h a ros e wi t h in I s l a m on t h e o t h e r

is a potent and uns tab le mixture respons ib le for the r ichness and d iver

s i t y o f I s l a m ic ph i lo s oph y

itself.

I t might be accepted that I s lamic phi losophy i s in teres t ing , and yet

i t s d e pe n d e n c e on a s y s t e m o f t h ou gh t c om in g or ig in a l ly f rom wi t h ou t

the I s lamic world has led to the deve lopment of a t endency to s tudy i t

f rom an his tor ica l ra ther than a phi losophica l perspect ive . Af ter a l l , i f one

is in teres ted pr imari ly in the phi losophica l i s sues , one might be tempted

to s tudy them within the context of the ir or ig ina l Greek expres s ion ra ther

than via the accret ions which occurred during the ir pas sage through the

Is lamic world . But the I s lamic phi losophers should not be seen a s be ing

pr im a r i ly c on c e rn e d wi t h ersatz ph i lo s oph ic a l n o t ion s d e r ive d or ig in a l ly

f rom non-Is lamic cu ltures . These th inkers certa in ly d id use the not ions

which came to them through the r ich in te l lec tua l background which was

ava i lab le to them, and they t rans formed them in the ways in which they

used them. This was a mat ter not jus t of choice but rea l ly of neces s i ty .

Th e ph i lo s oph ic a l i s s u e s wh ic h a ros e in t h e G re e k wor ld c ou ld n ot a lwa ys

be s imply repl ica ted in the I s lamic world but have to be adapted to make

sen se , s ince the terms themselves when moved f rom one context to another

have a d i f ferent range of meanings .

This i s not to sugges t that some of the t rad i t iona l phi losophica l

i s sues and controvers ies which ar i se with in every developed cu lture d id

not ar i se with in the I s lamic world in much the same way as everywhere

el se .

Som e prob le m s , e s pe c ia l ly t h e m os t a b s t ra c t m e t a ph ys ic a l on e s ,

appear to be common to a whole range of cu ltures . I t i s ju s t that the

nature of a part icu lar cu lture put s the emphas is upon a d i f ferent a spect

o f t h e prob le m d e pe n d in g u pon t h e n a t u re o f t h a t c u l t u re . For e x a m ple ,

in d iscuss ions of the crea t ion of the world i t i s important to note that

8


30/124


the I s lamic world wanted to mark the fac t that accord ing to the Qur 'an

the world had a beginning and wil l have an end . This i s not to say that

I s l a m ic ph i lo s oph e r s c ou ld t h e re f ore a b a n d on A r i s t o t e l i a n a c c ou n t s o f t h e

crea t ion of the world which seem to point to i t s be ing e terna l because i t

we n t a ga in s t t h e s c r ip t u ra l t ru t h . M a n y I s l a m ic ph i lo s oph e r s p rod u c e d

m od i f i c a t ion s o f t h e A r i s t o t e l i a n t h e ory wh ic h m a d e i t c om pa t ib le , o r

a ppa re n t ly c om pa t ib le , w i t h t h e i r u n d e r s t a n d in g o f t h e Qu r ' a n , wh i le

others cr i t ic ized the certa in ty which phi losophers appl ied to Aris tot le ' s

theory . They could not jus t say that Aris tot le was wrong because he

seemed to go aga ins t scr ipture - th is would be very poor phi losophy or

indeed theology indeed . They could not jus t say that Aris tot le was r ight

and the Qur 'an was wrong, s ince th is would a lso be to re fuse to examine

the in teres t ing conceptua l l inks which ex is t between two apparent ly

dis t inct and contrary descr ipt ions of crea t ion . I t i s in the tens ion between

d i f f e re n t a c c ou n t s o f t h e s a m e ph e n om e n on t h a t ph i lo s oph y re a l ly ge t s

to work , present ing a so lut ion which sa t i s f ie s the need for a ra t iona l expla

nat ion of the apparent aporia or d i f f icu lty . Some of these phi losophica l

expos i t ions are more in teres t ing and wel l-cons t ructed than others , o f

c o u r s e ,

but the important point to make i s that they are a l l phi losoph

ica l a rguments , and are to be a s ses sed f rom the perspect ive of phi losophy.

How crea t ive were the I s lamic phi losophers? I th ink i t wi l l be c lear

to anyone who reads many of the chapters in these volumes that many

of them were very crea t ive . They certa in ly d id not have a tabula rasa o n

which to wri te , but , g iven the concept s and ideas which they had ava i l

ab le to them, they used these to the ir fu l le s t extent . They d id not jus t

a c c e pt t h e c on c e pt s wh ic h we re h a n d e d d own t o t h e m , b u t a d a pt e d t h e m

a n d c on s t ru c t e d n e w c on c e pt s t o m a k e s e n s e o f t h e n a t u re o f t h e prob le m

as they saw it . There is a tendency for us to identify creat ivity with an

ent ire ly new way of t ackl ing an i s sue , and we l ive in a per iod of grea t

art is t ic creat ivity in this respect . Art is ts use a vast variety of often novel

forms of expres s ion , some so novel that we are unsure how to a s ses s them.

Yet there is good reason to call creat ive those works by earlier art is ts which

were cons t ructed within the cons t ra in t s of a part icu lar sys tem of repre

senta t ion , and in some ways i t i s ea s ier to say that something i s crea t ive

i f we can judge i t with in the context of an art i s t ic t rad i t ion . We can then

see prec ise ly how the new contr ibut ion to the aes thet ic a rea borrows f rom

wh a t h a s pre c e d e d i t a n d e x t e n d s t h e pre v iou s u n d e r s t a n d in g o f wh a t wa s

pos s ib le t o d o s om e t h in g n e w. A s im i la r po in t c a n b e m a d e a b ou t I s l a m ic

ph i lo s o ph y . W e c a n g ra s p t h e c on t e x t wi t h in wh ic h i t wo rk e d , a n d w e

can of ten see how in f luenced i t was by the compet ing pres sures of a

var ie ty of cu ltura l t rad i t ions , but i t does not fo l low that i t cannot be

crea t ive because i t i s dependent upon previous ly ex is t ing in te l lec tua l t rad i

t ions . O n the contrary , we can see ho w on the bas i s of those t r ad i t ions

it represents a new direct ion of thought , or, at the very least , is capable

9


31/124


of s t e pp in g ou t in a n e w d i re c t ion . M u c h I s l a m ic ph i lo s oph y , l ik e m u c h

ph i loso ph y of any k ind , i s ju s t the accret ion of new technica l represen

ta t ions of ex is t ing i s sues , but some of i t i s capab le of e s tab l i sh ing ent ire ly

new ways of going on which in turn es tab l i sh new t rad i t ions of th inking

about prob lems and resolving d i f f icu lt conceptua l i s sues .

I s l a m ic ph i lo s oph y i s p r im a r i ly ph i lo s oph y , a n d t h e a ppropr ia t e t e c h

n iques to use in order to unders tand i t a re going to be phi losophica l .

Th e re i s c e r t a in ly n o on e ph i lo s oph ic a l a pproa c h pre s e n t in I s l a m ic ph i lo s

ophy, but a la rge var ie ty of d i f ferent techniques which depend upon the

part icu lar point of v iew of the th inkers themselves . The very d ivers i ty of

a pproa c h m igh t l e a d on e t o q u e ry ye t a ga in t h e n ot ion o f ph i lo s oph y

being " I s lamic" a t a l l , s ince we might expect that labe l to represent a

c om m on v ie w or a c on s e n s u s a s t o h ow t o d o ph i lo s oph y . I f t h a t e x pe c

ta t ion was jus t i f ied , then the phi losophy which resu lted would be of f a r

les s in teres t , s ince i t would be comparat ive ly narrow and represent some

t h in g o f a pa r t y l in e on h o w t o ope ra t e . T h e b re a d t h o f I s l a m ic ph i lo s oph y

represents the divers ity of cultures in which Is lam has featured, and in

these volumes we have a t tempted to ce lebra te both .

10


32/124

Introduction

Seyyed Hossein Nasr

Although of course a s ingle rea l i ty in

itself,

I s l a m ic ph i lo s oph y n e ve r t h e

les s has had and cont inues to have severa l h is tor ica l "embodiments " which

are a l so re f lec ted in how the sub ject i s s tudied in both Eas t and West .

There i s f i r s t of a l l the l iv ing and cont inuous t rad i t ion of I s lamic phi los

ophy in Pers ia and certa in ad jacent areas f rom Iraq to India . When one

sits at the feet o f a m aster o f this disc iplin e in Is fahan , Tehr an or Q o m

one experiences a l iv ing t rad i t ion and an organic bond to f igures such a s

Ibn Slna ( the Lat in Avicenna) and a l-Farab l who l ived , v i s i ted or t aught

in those very cit ies or in cit ies nearby over a millennium ago. In this

" e m b o d i m e n t " I s l a m i c p h i l o s o p h y h a s h a d a c o n t i n u o u s h i s t o r y g o i n g

back to the ear l ie s t I s lamic centuries and based not on ly on writ ten text s

but a l so on an ora l t rad i t ion t ransmit ted f rom master to d isc iple over

n u m e rou s ge n e ra t ion s . M ore ove r , in t h i s a m b ie n c e I s l a m ic ph i lo s oph y ,

called falsafah an d la ter hikmah, is an Islamic intellectual discipline in

content ion , debate , accord or oppos i t ion with other in te l lec tua l d isc ipl ines

but in any case i t was and remains a part and parce l of I s lamic in te l lec

tua l l i f e despi te the oppos i t ion of many jur i s t s . One need only look a t

t h e n u m b e r o f s t u d e n t s s t u d y in g I s l a m ic ph i lo s oph y t od a y in Qom in

Iran, that is , in the premier centre of religious s tudies in that land, to

rea l ize how t rue i s th is a s sert ion and how s ign i f icant i s I s lamic phi los

oph y e ve n in c om pa r i s on wi t h ju r i s pru d e n c e , n o t t o s pe a k o f kalam o r

theology which i t overshadows in those in te l lec tua l c irc les in many ways .

T he n there is the t rad i t ion o f I s lam ic phi lo sop hy in the Ar ab part

of the I s lamic world . Although of ten ca l led "Arab ic phi losophy" in the

W est because of the pr edo m ina nt b ut not exc lus ive use of Ara b ic a s i ts

language of d iscourse , s t rangely enough in the Arab world , with the excep

t ion of I raq and to some extent Yemen, th is phi losophy was to have a

shorter l i f e a s an independent in te l lec tua l perspect ive than in Pers ia , be ing

consumed in lands wes t of I raq a f ter the seventh/th irteenth century by

11


33/124


kaldm on t h e on e h a n d a n d d oc t or i a l Su f i s m (al-marifah o r al-'irfdn) o n

the other . In th is world falsafah a s a separa te d isc ipl ine cam e to be marg in

a l ized in the centres of I s lamic learn ing , replaced by kaldm a n d usul al-fiqh

and often considered as a foreign intrusion. In fact it was not until the

la s t century that I s lamic phi lo sop hy was revived in Eg yp t by Ja m al a l-

Dln a l-Afghanl (As t rabadi) who had been a s tudent of the school of

Mulla Sadra in Pers ia before migra t ing to Ca iro . But in any case , despi te

t h e a ppe a ra n c e o f a n u m b e r o f we l l -k n own s c h o la r s o f I s l a m ic ph i lo s

op hy in Eg yp t , Syr ia an d Leba no n s ince Ja m al a l-D in ' s days , the re la t ion

b e t we e n falsafah an d the I s lam ic sc iences in m os t part s o f the Ar ab wo rld

has been dif ferent from what one f inds in such places as Iran and certain

centres of I s lamic learn ing in the Indo-Pakis tan i subcont inent . Nor has

there been the cont inuous ora l t rad i t ion in the domain of phi losophy in

the Ar ab wo rld that one f inds in Iran and ad jacen t areas . To som e extent

th is s i tua t ion a lso holds t rue for Turkey a l though the t rad i t ion of I s lamic

phi losophy survived in a cont inuous manner there longer than i t d id in

E gy pt , t h e A ra b N e a r E a s t a n d N or t h A f r i c a .

There i s a l so an I s lamic phi losophy seen by the West a s part of i t s

ow n inte l lec tua l t rad i t ion an d usua l ly re ferred to a s Ara b ic ph i loso ph y.

Th i s v ie w s a w I s l a m ic ph i lo s oph y a s h a v in g s t oppe d a b ru pt ly wi t h Ib n

R u s h d ( t h e L a t in A ve rroe s ) , wh e n t h e in f lu e n c e o f I s l a m ic ph i lo s oph y

up on the W est d im in is hed an d gradua l ly d ied out . For over seven centuries

in such places a s Par is , Louva in , Padua and Bologna th is vers ion of I s lamic

ph i los op hy has been taugh t a s part and parce l of W estern in te l lec tua l

h is tory . Moreover , th is Eurocentr ic v iew of I s lamic phi losophy has been

taken in the West for I s lamic phi losophy itself, a view that has been

conf irmed during th is century by much of the scholarship f rom the Arab

wo rld , som e of wh ose wel l-k now n f igures h ave fou nd in the Eu rop ean

id e n t i f i c a t ion o f I s l a m ic ph i lo s oph y wi t h A ra b ic ph i lo s oph y a s o l id t h e o

ret ica l sup po rt for the sup po s i t io ns o f Ar ab nat io na l i sm . In any case th is

u n d e r s t a n d in g o f I s l a m ic ph i lo s oph y , h e ld m os t ly in Ca t h o l i c c i rc le s a n d

b y t h os e in t e re s t e d in m e d ie va l E u rope a n ph i lo s oph y a n d t h e o logy , h a s

produced a number of grea t scholars who, however , unt i l qu i te recent ly

have pre ferred to remain impervious to the e ight centuries of I s lamic

phi losophy a f ter Averroes and the fac t that I s lamic phi losophy i s not on ly

" m e d ie v a l " b u t a l so c on t e m pora ry i f n o t m od e rn .

Para l lel with th is v iew is that of Jew ish ph i los op hy wh ich dev elop ed

in a remarkab ly s imilar f a sh ion to I s lamic phi losophy and which a lso used

to a la rge extent the same language and vocabulary a s I s lamic phi lo

sophica l Arab ic a t lea s t unt i l the des t ruct ion of I s lamic ru le in Spa in a f ter

wh ic h We s t e rn J e wi s h ph i lo s op h y pa r t e

history of islamic philosophy_sample

Documents