Hamdard Islamicus 7 Vol. XL, No. 4

IMÓM SUYÕÙÔ’S ORIGINAL THOUGHT ON
THE OPPOSITION TO (GREEK) LOGIC AND

THEOLOGY IN ØAWN AL-MANÙIQ
WA‘L-KALÓM ‘AN FANNAY
AL-MANÙIQ WA‘L-KALÓM*

DR. MUFTI ALI
State Islamic University (UIN)

Sultan Maulana Hasanuddin Banten, Indonesia,
Head of LP2M UIN Banten,

JL, Jenederal Sudirman No. 30, Serang-Banten 42118,
Indonesia.

e-mail: mufti.ali@uninbanten.ac.id

The transmission of Greek philosophy and sciences to the

Islamic world through the translation movement in the eighth and ninth

centuries played a major role in accelerating the Hellenizing process

of that world. The emergence of scholastic theology (kalÉm) and

Islamic Aristotelianism and Neo-Platonism (falsafah) in the Islamic

world is considered, in Madjid’s opinions, as the direct cultural influence

of it.1

This whole marvellous process of cultural transmission which led to

the emergence of a rationalist movement in the Islamic world was not

a matter of chance. History tells us of the systematic attempt by

al-MÉ’mËn (d. 216/833), who was fascinated by the practical use of

Greek philosopy and sciences, and issued an explicit state policy to

promote adoption of ‘the foreign culture’. According to Fakhry, al-MÉ’mËn

himself, the seventh ‘AbbÉsid Caliph, was influenced by Greek philosophy

and, composed several treatises on theological questions in a speculative

spirit. The speculative tendency in his theology promoted popular interest
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

*I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to Prof. Dr. Psj.

Van Koningsveld of Leiden University, who provided invaluable comments and corrections

to the draft of this article.



Hamdard Islamicus 8 Vol. XL, No. 4

in scholastic theology and it supported the cause of the Mu‘tazilites who

sought to apply Greek categories to Muslim dogma.2

As a result of the explicit state policy and a core of learned

individuals, popular interest in learning ‘new culture’ culminated in the

translation into Arabic of a great many Greek treatises and books of

philosophy and science, along with commentaries. Al-MÉ’mËn and

his proponents, who exemplified what Van Koningsveld called ‘the

Ma’mËn cycle’,3 represented the Muslims with the inclusive cultural

perception that it was necessary to enlist the assistance of other cultures

in pursuing epistemology. Thus, they represented the group of Muslims

who regarded their culture insufficient and sought to learn from the

outside world.

According to Von Grunebaum, this cultural perception paved the

way for Muslims to develop (a) “rational forms of thought and

systematisation,” (b) “logical procedures,” (c) “methods of generalization

and abstraction” and, (d) “principles of classification.”4

This inclusive attitude towards a foreign culture drew fervent criticism

from those Muslims who regarded their cultural achievements as self-

sufficient and those who needed to learn nothing from the outside world.5

To borrow Van Koningsveld’s term, these groups who were hostile to

‘things foreign’ were represented by ‘the Umar cycle’.6

Since then history has witnessed consecutive disputes between

those with an inclusive attitude toward foreign cultures and those who

regarded Islamic culture as self-sufficient. If the inclusionists were

represented by rationalist groups, the most extreme of which was the

Mu‘tazilite group, then the exclusionists were represented by the

traditionalists, the most extreme of which were the Ahl al-×adÊth, to

borrow Abrahamov’s classification.7 The ongoing dispute culminated in

the event known as the mihna, the Inquisition by the Caliph al-MÉ’mËn.

This dispute led AÍmad ibn ×anbal, who did not recognize the createdness

of the Qur’Én, to risk his life by challenging a major doctrine of the

Mu‘tazilite’s creed.8

Therefore, it can be said that the ‘fruit’ of Hellenism, i.e. scholastic

theology (kalÉm) and Islamic Aristotelianism and Neo-Platonism (falsafah)

met with opposition from a great number of Muslims when they were

introduced into the Islamic World in the eighth and ninth centuries. The

inclusion of logical concepts into juridical works, such as the theory of



Hamdard Islamicus 9 Vol. XL, No. 4

definition (al-Íadd) and of demonstration (al-burhÉn), which were

included by al-GhazÉlÊ in al-MustaÎfÉ, his legal theory, is an obvious

example of a Muslim scholar’s effort to protect himself from the threat

of Traditionalists.9 The incineration of a great number of Muslim

philosophers’ works is further evidence of the Traditionalists’ fervent

opposition to falsafah.

Like Islamic Aristotelianism and Neo-Platonism (falsafah), scholastic

theology (kalÉm) was considered as a part of the Hellenistic tradition

and it too became the target of Traditionalists who prohibited against

engaging in it by breaking off relations with, and banishing the

MutakallimËn and by refuting MutakallimËn’s tenets.10 The fervour of

the hostility of Muslims towards kalÉm can be seen in al-SuyËÏÊ’s

discussion in Øawn al-ManÏiq wa ‘l-KalÉm (forthwith called: SM), which

comprises more than 200 printed pages.

SM revolves around the history and origin of logic, its introduction

into the Muslim world, the reaction of leading Muslim scholars against it,

its connection to theology and the reaction of Muslim scholars against

theology and the refutation against one who introduced logic into grammar.

Delving into the content of this work (i.e. SM), one is led to know that

al-SuyËÏÊ adopts the persona of a systematic historian drawing our attention

to the fact that logic and theology were opposed by Muslims of various

generations and even from the earliest period of Islamic history. In his

discussion of the Muslim opposition to logic, al-SuyËÏÊ, for instance,

systematically arranges his topic as follows: First he deals with the

community of Islam; furthermore he discusses the historical connection

between the books of uÎËl al-fiqh and uÎËl al-dÊn to logic and the

beginning of its spread among later scholars. Finally, he enumerates

chronologically the scholars who opposed logic, beginning with al-ShÉfÊ‘Ê

(d. 203/820) and ending with Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 729/1329). The same

pattern holds true, when dealing with the Muslim opposition to kalÉm.

The significance of SM is represented, for instance, by al-NashshÉr’s

reference to it as the most complete encyclopaedia dealing with the

criticism of Greek logic. Accordingly he asserts ‘… wa hÉdha ‘l-kitÉb

yu‘tabar awsa‘ mawÌË‘at fima fi maw-Ë‘ naqd al-manÏiq al-yËnanÊ.11

In what follows, I have translated only the introductory part of SM,

namely pages thirty-three to sixty-seven in the printed edition of

al-NashshÉr. These passages contain the original thought of its author.



Hamdard Islamicus 10 Vol. XL, No. 4

The rest of the pages are merely al-SuyËÏÊ’s summarizing of more than

twelve works of his predecessors who dealt with the censure of kalÉm.

I hope that the translation helps us to understand the context of the

religious dispute that drives al-SuyËÏÊ’s composition of SM.

The Translation of SM.12

To Defend [Islamic] Logic and Theology against the Art of [Greek]

Logic and Theology

Introduction

The Reason for Composing this Book [p. 33].

Praise be to God and Peace be upon His worshippers whom He

has chosen. Long ago, in the year 867 or 868 [H] I composed a book

on the prohibition against being occupied by the art of logic, which

I named “Al-Qawl al-Mushriq.”13 I included in it statements of the

learned men of Islam condemning and prohibiting the art of logic.

I related in it that the Shaykh al-IslÉm, one of the scholars who has

reached the degree of ijtihÉd Taqiy al-DÊn ibn Taymiyyah composed a

book to undo logic’s foundations, a book which I had not found at that

time. Twenty years passed without my finding it. Then when this year

came, and I told of what God had endowed upon me in attaining the rank

of independent legal investigation,14 someone mentioned that one of the

conditions for legal investigation is the knowledge of the art of logic,

claiming that this condition was lacking in me. The poor fellow15 did not

understand that I knew logic better than those who claim to know it and

defend it. I know the principles of its foundations, and on that basis

[p. 34]. I derived there from the insights as well as the knowledge

rendered by the leading logicians of the day, with the exception only of

our very learned teacher MuÍyi al-DÊn al-KafyajÊ.16 Thus I searched for

Ibn Taymiyyah’s book until I found it. I saw that he had entitled it

NaÎÊÍah Ahl al-ÔmÉn fi al-Radd ‘alÉ ManÏiq al-YËnÉn. In it, he

expressed excellently his intention to undo the foundations of logic one

by one and explain the corruption of its principles. So I summarized it in

a little composition which I entitled Jahd al-QarÊha fi TajrÊd

al-NaÎÊÍah.17 Then, many of the charlatans, who are far from real

scholarship, eagerly said: What is the argument to prohibit it? On what



Hamdard Islamicus 11 Vol. XL, No. 4

sources did Ibn b. ØalÉÍ rely in his legal decision to that effect? And

other expressions of a similar nature. Surprisingly, they defend logic but

they are not mastering it, and they are busying themselves with it but

they do not use it in their inquiries. They go at random in it like the weak-

sighted she-camel that beats the ground with her forefeet, and they only

follow the right direction in discussion and deduction blindly.

Some of those who spent their life [in studying] logic met me.

When one of them saw the statement of Ibn al-ØalÉÍ in his legal opinions:

Wa laysa al-ishtighÉl bi ta‘allumih wa ta‘lÊmih mimmÉ abÉÍah

al-shÉri‘ wa lÉ ‘stibÉÍah aÍad min al-ØaÍabah wa’l-tÉbÊ‘Ên wa’l-

É’immah al-mujtahidÊn wa’l-salaf al-ÎÉliÍÊn, [studying and teaching

logic is not allowed by the Law-giver, by the Companions, the Followers

and by the leading scholars who are qualified to undertake ijtihÉd, nor

by the Pious Ancestors], he said: This is a testimony to the contrary,

which is not accepted [p. 35]. Thus, I said: By God, you neither followed

the course of the scholars of the religious law nor relied upon that of the

logicians! As for the scholars of the religious law, they say that if

argumentum e contrario originates from the scholars of complete

deduction, it is accepted and to be relied upon. This idea was also

held by scholars of Tradition, law and Arabic, in language, grammar

and syntax, rhetoricians – specialized in ma‘ÉnÊ,18 bayÉn19 and badÊ‘20

and prosodists in a number of questions which are too long to be put

forward.

As for the logicians, they say that the general negative premise can

be undone only by the particular positive one, viz. that it is said that it

was permitted by a specific Companion, Follower of a Companion or

Independent Legal Investigator. Thereby the argument of Ibn al-ØalÉÍ

would be undone. But this is more difficult to find on the authority of one

of the groups mentioned than for a camel to pass through the eye of a

needle.

As for al-dÉfi‘ bi al-Øadr [the way of argumentation entitled in

logic], al-dÉfi‘ bi al-Øadr viz. plainly asserts something, i.e. to assert

what is right or where it was taken from, this is not the manner used by

anyone, be he a juridical scholar or a philosopher.

Thus, I decided to compose an elaborate book [to prohibit it]21

following the course of a comprehensive independent legal investigation

and deduction to  reveal the truth, in which I explain the correctness of



Hamdard Islamicus 12 Vol. XL, No. 4

what Ibn al-ØalÉÍ claimed in relating the negation of permission [of being

occupied by logic] to the people mentioned.

When I had begun [to compose the book], and was obliged to

mention the statements of the leading scholars in prohibiting the study of

theology, because of the intricate connection between the two [p. 36],

I entitled the book awn al-ManÏiq wa’l-KalÉm ‘an Fannay al-ManÏiq

wa’l-KalÉm (To Defend [Islamic] Logic and Theology against the Art of

[Greek] Logic and Theology); but only God enables us to reach our goal.

The Beginning of the Foundation of Logic and the Beginning of

its Passing into the Religious Community of Islam and the Beginning

of Those Who Connected the Books of UÎËl [UÎËl al-fiqh and

UÎËl al-dÊn] to Logic and the Beginning of its Spread among Later

[Scholars].

The first who founded the art of logic was Aristotle,22 an inhabitant

of IsÏakhr23 in the period of Azdashir ibn Dara,24 as it is mentioned by

al-SahrastÉni25 in al-Milal wa‘l-NiÍal, by Ibn al-ØalÉÍ,26 by al-NawawÊ27

in al-ÙabaqÉt, al-Kindi28 and Ibn ZËlÉq in TÉrÊkh MiÎr29 and others

[p. 37]. It is clearly indicated in the words of someone who said:30

We cut our friendship with those stricken by the malady of KitÉb

al-ShifÉ’.31

They died as adherents of the religion of Aristotle, while we died

in the religion of the Chosen.32

Ibn Taymiyyah said in his quoted books: Another [scholar] said:

If you are joined in an affair by an evil person, do not feel ashamed or

embarrassed:33

Aristotle and the rapacious dog necessarily participate among

animals.

Aristotle was mentioned specifically because he was the founder of

logic in which he confirmed that every kind possesses a portion of its

species, and that the human shares animality with the dog and the other

animals. Ibn Taymiyyah said in his mentioned book: Aristotle, the founder

of logic was a Greek and the first who asserted the sempiternality of the

universe. He said: The Greeks were infidel polytheists worshipping the



Hamdard Islamicus 13 Vol. XL, No. 4

planets and idols; they were much worse than the Jews and the Christians

after they had abrogated and altered [the true religion]; they lived more

than 300 years B.C. [p. 38].

When the Christ was sent to them, they stuck to his religion. Then,

when the religion of the Christ had been altered, they entered upon a

religion which was a combination of Íanifiyya and polytheism. Some of

it was true and some of it was false. It was better than the religion which

was followed by their ancestors. (End of quotation).

In another part of this book, he said: The Greeks were polytheists

worshipping idols and they were preoccupied by magic as is related on

the authority of Aristotle and others. Satans led them astray and by them

their magic was performed. However, they did not know that [the magic]

was caused by the Satans. May be they did not believe in the Satans,

but asserted that all that was caused by the force of the soul, by natural

matters or by a celestial power. Because, according to them [the Greeks],

Avicenna and his followers, these three forces were the causes of the

marvels of the universe; but they were ignorant of the other acts of the

Satans which have greater impact in spreading evil in the world than all

this.34

In another place [of this book] he said: The foundation of logic was

initially derived from geometry. They made it in figures similar to the

figures of geometry. They named them limits (ÍudËd) because of the

limits of those figures, in order that they were able to shift from a

sensibly perceived form to an intellectual form. He said that this was due

to the weakness of their intellect and their inability to know them except

by using a far-fetched method. But God paved the way for Muslims to

obtain such a degree of knowledge, eloquence, good deeds and faith that

they excel by it all kinds of the species of man. Praise be to God the

Lord of the Universe. (End of quotation!)35

[p. 39] As for the beginning of its passing into the religious community

of Islam, al-Shaykh NaÎr al-MaqdisÊ who is one of the leading scholars

among our friends, said in his book al-×ujja ‘alÉ TÉrik al-Mahajja36

[the Argument Against One Who Abandons the Mahajja (the Proved

Way): AbË MuÍammad ‘Abd Allah ibn al-WalÊd ibn Sa‘d al-AnÎÉrÊ told

me: I heard that AbË MuÍammad ‘Abd Allah ibn AbÊ Zayd the Malikite

jurist in QayrawÉn37 said: May God regard the Umayyads with mercy.

There has never been among them a Caliph who introduced innovations



Hamdard Islamicus 14 Vol. XL, No. 4

in Islam. Most of their governors and officials were Arabs. But when the

caliphate was removed from them and fell to the ‘AbbÉsids, their dynasty

was based on the support and the rule of the Persians. In the hearts of

most of their rulers lay infidelity and hatred towards the Arabs and the

dynasty of Islam. They created innovations in Islam which formed a

mortal danger for Islam. If there had been no promise of God to the

Prophet (œ) that his religion and its adherents would be victorious till

Doomsday, the Persians would have annihilated Islam, but they have

broken it and marred its pillars. But God will keep His promise, if He

wishes!

The first of the innovations created by them was the importation of

the books of Greekdom to the world of Islam. They were translated into

Arabic, and thus became widespread among the Muslims. The man

responsible for the importation of the books from Byzantium into the

Lands of Islam was YaÍyÉ ibn KhÉlid ibn Barmak.38 There were Greek

books in Byzantium; the King of Byzantium feared that if the Byzantines

would study the books of Greekdom, they would leave Christianity behind

and return to the religion of Greekdom [p. 40]. Thus, they would start

to quarrel and their unity would be broken up. Therefore, he collected the

books in a place on which he built a construction covered by stones and

gypsum so no one had access to it.

When the command of the dynasty of the ‘AbbÉsids fell to YaÍyÉ

ibn KhÉlid, who was an atheist, he got tidings of the books in the edifice

in Byzantium. So he bribed the King of the Byzantines with presents,

without asking anything in return. When he sent him many presents, the

King of Byzantium collected his patriarchs saying: This man, the servant

of the Arab has given me a lot of presents, but without asking anything

from me in return. But I am convinced that he does want something.

I fear that his need will bring me into difficulties. Thus, I became worried.

Then, when YaÍyÉ’s envoy came to him, he asked him: Tell your friend

that if he has a need, he should say what it is. When the envoy told

YaÍyÉ, he answered him: What I need is that the books under the

building be sent to me. I will take from them some of those I need, and

send them back to him. When the King of Byzantium had read his

[YaÍyÉ’s] letter, he danced with joy. Then he gathered the patriarchs, the

bishops and the monks declaring before them: I have told you that the

servant of the Arab did indeed have a need. He has expressed it and it



Hamdard Islamicus 15 Vol. XL, No. 4

is very trivial for me. I have an idea. Please listen. If you acquiesce

I will do it; if you have a different view, we will consult together until

we share the same opinion. They asked [the King] : What is it? He

answered: He wants to have the Greek books. He will take what he likes

and then return them. Then they said: What do you think? He said:

I know that our ancestor only constructed the building because he feared

that if they fall into the hands of the Christians, who would read them,

this would lead to the corruption of their religion and the demolition of

their unity. So I propose to send them to him and ask him not to send

them back so they will be afflicted by them, while we will be rid of their

evil! [p. 41] I am afraid that someone after me will dare to diffuse them

among the people, so that they [the Christians] fall from what frightens

them. Then they said: Yes we agree, King! Please, execute it!

Thus he sent the books to YaÍyÉ ibn KhÉlid. When the books came

to him, he gathered all the heretics and philosophers. When he took out

the book Íadd al-ManÏiq [on the definition of logic], AbË MuÍammad

ibn AbÊ Zayd said: There were few who read this book, but were saved

from heresy. He said: Then YaÍyÉ organized discussions and debates in

his house concerning inappropriate subjects. Every adherent of a religion

spoke about his belief and discussed it while his [personal] safety was

secured.

 I say the implication of these words is that it took place in the

Caliphate of al-RashÊd,39 as al-Barmaki was his minister. During his life,

he fell out of favour. He was murdered in 187 [H].

Al-ØalÉÍ, al-ØafadÊ40 in his SharÍ LÉmiyyat al-‘Ajam said: It is

told that al-MÉ’mËn, when he had concluded a truce with a Christian

king – I think he was king of the island of Cyprus – wrote a letter asking

from him the library of the Greeks. They were collected there in a house

to which no one could enter. The king gathered his advisers and consulted

them about it. All of them, except for one patriarch, advised him not to

supply the books. He [viz. King of island of Cyprus] said: Supply the

books to them, these sciences have not entered any religious state without

destroying it and ensnaring its scholars.

A reliable man told me that al-Shaykh Taqiy al-DÊn ibn AÍmad ibn

Taymiyyah – may God have mercy upon him – used to state: I do not

think that God will overlook [the sins of] al-Ma’mËn [p. 42]. He certainly

will retribute him for what he has committed to this community due to



Hamdard Islamicus 16 Vol. XL, No. 4

his introduction of these philosophical sciences among its people.

Or words to that effect.

Then al-SafadÊ said: Actually, al-MÉ’mËn was not the first to

translate and arabize [foreign books], but there have been many [scholars]

who translated them before him. Thus, YaÍyÉ ibn KhÉlid arabized a lot

of Persian books, like KalÊla wa-Dimna and for his sake, the Almagest,

one of the books of the Greeks,41 was arabized.42

It is generally known that the first to translate the books of the

Greeks was KhÉlid ibn Yaz Êd ibn Mu‘Éwiyah since he was enthusiastically

fond of the books of chemistry.

The translators followed two methods of translating: The first was

the method of YËÍannÉ ibn al-BiÏrÊq,43 Ibn al-NÉ‘ima al-×imÎÊ44 and

others, namely that one had to look at every single Greek word and its

meaning, and then bring a single Arabic word synonymous in meaning

with the Greek one and thereby explain it. Then he moved to the next

word and did the same, until he completed what he wanted to translate.

This method is bad for two reasons: The first is that, one cannot find an

Arabic synonym for each and every Greek word. Hence, it often happens

that Greek words have been rendered by Arabic ones signifying the

opposite. Secondly, the peculiarities of [Arabic] construction and syntax

do not always match their correlative in another language. Besides, many

mistakes may occur when metaphors are used, which in all languages is

frequently the case.

 The second method of translation is the method of ×unayn ibn

IsÍÉq,45 al-JawharÊ46 and others, namely that one had to look at a sentence

and understand its meaning [p. 43]. One would then express its meaning

in a correlative sentence from the other language, regardless of whether

or not the words correspond exactly or differ. This method is more

appropriate. Because of this, books of ×unayn ibn IsÍÉq need no revision

except [his works] on mathematics, because he did not master [this

field], contrary to the works of medicine, logic, physics and theology. The

works he translated in those fields do not need correction. As for Euclid,47

it was revised by ThÉbit ibn Qurra al-×arrÉnÊ,48 and so were the Almajest

and the intermediate works between the two.49

Then he said: There has been a continuous controversy in this

community since the Prophet (œ) passed away concerning his death,

burial, the question of his succession, legacy, the question of killing those



Hamdard Islamicus 17 Vol. XL, No. 4

who refused to pay the zakÉt, etcetera, and even concerning his illness –

may God bless him and grant him peace – when he said: give me an ink-

well and a piece of writing material in order that I write for you a letter

so that you will not go astray after me.

Anas ibn MÉlik narrated that [the Prophet (œ)] said: The BanË

IsrÉ’Êl have split into seventy-one sects, while my religious community

will split into seventy-two sects [p. 44]. All these sects are put in Hell,

except one, namely al-JamÉ‘a.50 He [the Prophet (œ)] was the true

and reliable one who does not talk falsely. He related that the community

will split; once they have split, they will oppose each other. When they

oppose each other, they will rely on confusions and argumentations.

Every sect will dispute those who oppose it, the door of debate will be

opened. Hence, everyone needs to argue in favour of his school and its

statements using either rational or traditional arguments or a combination

of both.

Therefore, this matter had not been safeguarded before al-MÉ’mËn.

On the contrary, it became worse and more harmful and by it the

arguments of the Mu‘tazilites and others became strengthened. The

adherents of heresies, the opponents of the Sunnah, adopted rational

preliminary axioms from the philosophers and introduced them into their

studies. Thereby they broke open the confinements of their debate and

built on them the foundations of their innovations. So the hole [of the

garment] widened before the sewer, and the lighthouse of the single truth

almost resembled the tripod cooking-pot and the traces of wasteland.

This is the end of the words of al-SafadÊ.

In the history of Ibn KathÊr,51 in the biography of KhÉlid ibn

YazÊd ibn AmÊr al-Mu’minÊn Mu‘Éwiyah ibn AbÊ SufyÉn, it is [stated] that

he was a scholar and a poet to whom some expertise in chemistry as

well as physics was attributed, and that he died in the year 90 of the

Hijra.

The conclusion to be drawn from all these facts is that the sciences

of the ancients had reached the Muslims in the first century when they

had conquered the lands of the non-Arabs [p. 45]. But the sciences had

not spread among them widely and had not become generally known

among them since the ancestors had prohibited them from becoming

engrossed in them. However, [the Greek sciences] became popular in

al-BarmakÊ’s period, while their spread increased in the period of



Hamdard Islamicus 18 Vol. XL, No. 4

al-MÉ’mËn because of the innovations he stimulated and the occupation

with the sciences of the ancients as well as the extinguishing of the

Sunnah he promoted.

In The History of Islam,52 it is [stated] that the first who introduced

philosophy into al-Andalus a was Prince of al-Andalus, ‘Abd al-RaÍmÉn

ibn al-×akam ibn HishÉm ibn ‘Abd al-RaÍmÉn ibn Mu‘Éwiyah ibn HishÉm

ibn ‘Abd al-Malik ibn MarwÉn al-UmawÊ. He resembled al-MÉ’mËn

al-‘AbbÉsÊ in searching for philosophical books, and al-WalÊd ibn ‘Abd

al-Malik in his tyranny. He was  the first Umayyad who magnified the

kingdom in al-Andalus and clad it with the most superb magnificence. He

introduced into al-Andalus the wearing of embroidered cloths and the

minting of dirhams, while there had existed no mint-house since its

conquest by the Arabs. He died in 229 [H].

Al-GhazÉlÊ said in his IÍyÉ: Philosophy is not a separate science,

but it comprises, four parts: The first is geometry and calculation; the

second is logic; the third is theology; and the fourth is physics. We will

provide a detailed explanation of these words below.

The First Who Mixed the Books of UÎËl with Logic

Concerning the first who mixed the books of uÎËl53 with it, Ibn

Taymiyyah states in his book: “Never had anyone of the Muslim thinkers

paid attention to the method of the logicians. Nay, the Ash‘arites, the

Mu‘tazilites, the Karamites, the ShÊ‘ites and the other denominations

condemned logic and asserted its corruption. The first who mixed logic

with the uÎËl of the Muslims was AbË ×Émid al-GhazÉlÊ. Muslim scholars

disputed with him, so frequently that it would take too long to enumerate

them all here [p. 46].

As for the beginning of its spread among the later scholars,

al-×ÉfiÐ ‘ImÉd al-DÊn ibn KathÊr said in his book of history [under the

events concerning] the year 687 [H]: “One year after the Tatars had

occupied Baghdad, al-KhwÉjÉh NaÎÊr al-ÙËsÊ made the astronomical

laboratory, and he [also] made a House of Wisdom in which there were

philosophers. Each of them earned three dirhams per day. There was

also a House of Medicine for the medical doctors, who earned two

dirhams. To each MuÍaddith who worked in DÉr al-×adÊth, half a

dirham was paid per day. From that time, the occupation with philosophical



Hamdard Islamicus 19 Vol. XL, No. 4

sciences became widespread and prominent. [In earlier times,] people

were only occupied by the philosophical sciences covertly. [However,

now] instead of the recitation of the Qur’Én, Baghdad became filled by

songs, melodies and the recitation of poems. Even after the recitation of

Prophetic Traditions, [the people] studied Greek philosophy, the methods

of theology and the Qarmatian interpretations.54 Religious jurists were

replaced by philosophers; instead of the ‘AbbÉsid Caliphs, there came

the worst and most stupid rulers; instead of leadership and intelligence

there came vileness and stupidity; instead of dilligent students, there

came the stupid and the scoundrels; the occupation with different kinds

of sciences such as exegesis, Tradition, jurisprudence and the

interpretation of dreams was replaced by the zajal, muwashshaÍ, dËbayt

and mawÉlÊ.55 They were only occupied by these because of their sins.

But God has never done injustice to His worshippers! These are the

words of Ibn KathÊr.

The Leading Scholars of the Muslims Who

Condemned or Prohibited Logic Explicitly

There is no doubt that a scholar who reached the degree of ijtihÉd

is prohibited from fabricating a statement never expressed by any scholar

before, or creating an opinion which has not been expressed before

[p. 47]. Hence, one of the conditions for an independent legal investigation

(ijtihÉd) is the knowledge of the statements – both unequivocal and

controversial – of scholars from among the Companions (f) and

those after them. In order not to undermine the agreement concerning

the view he chooses, he is obliged to mention the sayings of the scholars

which are relevant to this subject before establishing the proof, so that

the book is composed following the method of ijtihÉd.

Therefore I say: As for the Companions (f) the Followers, and

their Followers, there has not reached us any declaration of any sort

concerning them because it did not exist in their time. It only started in

the end of the second century, as mentioned before. In that time,

al-ImÉm al-ShÉfi‘Ê – with whom God may be well-pleased – was alive,

so he discussed it. He was the oldest of those who expressed a

depreciatory view concerning it.



Hamdard Islamicus 20 Vol. XL, No. 4

The Statement of al-ImÉm al-ShÉfi‘Ê on the

Prohibition of Logic

In this regard AbË al-×asan ibn MahdÊ said: MuÍammad ibn HÉrËn

related to us that HamÊm ibn HumÉm related to us that ×armalah told

us saying: I heard al-ShÉfi‘Ê saying: the ignorance of the people and their

controversies are only caused by their leaving the language of the Arabs

and their inclination to the language of Aristotle [p. 48]. This statement

was quoted with this chain of transmittors by the QÉÌÊ al-MuslimÊn

al-×ÉfiÐ ‘lzz al-DÊn ‘Abd al-‘AzÊz ibn QÉÌÊ al-QuÌÉt Badr al-DÊn ibn

Jama‘a56 in his Tadhkirah.

Al-ShÉfi‘Ê pointed by this to what had happened in the period of

al-MÉ’mËn viz. the proclamation of the createdness of the Qur’Én, the

negation of the [Divine] vision and other innovations. [He said that] the

cause of this was to be found in the ignorance of Arabic and its rhetoric

which comprises al-ma‘ÉnÊ, al-bayÉn, and al-badÊ‘. His words “the

language of the Arabs” comprise all these aspects. The texts of the

Qur’Én and the Sunnah which are given in [that language], comprise all

these aspects. [A second cause was that the rendering of [the Arabic

texts] in accord with the language of the Greeks and the logic of Aristotle

follows a system which is different from the language of the Arabs. The

Qur’Én was only revealed and the Sunnah only came by using the

terminology of the Arabs, their ways of discussion, communication,

argumentation and deduction, which is not the same as the terminology

of the Greeks. Each people has its language and conventional terminology.

The Exalted God said:

“We never sent any messenger but with the speech of his people,

that he might make (things) clear to them.”57

Whoever shifts from the tongue of religion to another tongue and

renders the existing religious texts in accordance with it, is ignorant and

goes astray.58 He will never reach his goal. Therefore we see many

logicians discussing a juridical question and wanting to render it according

to their scientific principles, making mistakes and missing what the jurists

have said, without following their [juridical] principles. People know what

has happened between our shaykh mentioned in the preface [of this



Hamdard Islamicus 21 Vol. XL, No. 4

book]59 and the ×anafite jurists viz. the many debates and controversies

concerning fatwÉs, and their attribution to him of the fact that [those

fatwÉs] did not follow the rules of jurisprudence. This was merely caused

by the fact that he rendered them according to the principles of logical

deduction. But the Sharʑah possesses other principles, according to

which the jurisprudence is formulated exclusively. Whoever leaves them

and departs from them will not attain the goal of jurisprudence.

[I say this], notwithstanding the fact that the Shaykh – with whom God

may be well-pleased – is my teacher whose sandal is my crown. But this

is the inescapable truth! He asked me several times to agree with his

legal opinions related to the endowments but I did not agree with him

concerning them at all [p. 49].

The aim of this discussion is the explanation of the statement of

al-ShÉfi‘Ê – with whom God may be well-pleased – namely stating that

whoever renders the Qur’Én, the Sunnah and the SharÊ‘ah according to

the requirement of the principles of logic, will not attain the cases and

will err, while if the rendering is undertaken to solve the principle question,

it will be ascribed to innovation. This is the weightiest argument to

prohibit this art that it is the cause of fabrication and innovation contrary

to the Sunnah as well as the aim of the legislator. It suffices [us]

thereby as proof, derived from the words of al-ShÉfi‘Ê – may God be

pleased with him!

Corresponding to [the above-mentioned prohibition] is the prohibition

against speculating about the ambiguous [passages] of the Qur’Én out of

fear of distortion and dissension. The two Shaykhs and others related from

‘Ó’ishah (g) that she said: the Messenger of God (œ) recited this verse:

“He it is Who hath sent down to thee the Book has included in it clearly

formulated verses; these are the essence of the Book; other (verses) are

ambiguous. Now for those whose hearts are inclined to fall away, they

follow the ambiguous part of it, out of desire for dissension while seeking

explanation, though no one knows its explanation except Allah: No one

takes warning but those of insight.”60 He said: If you see the ones who

follow up the ambiguous passages of [the Qur’Én], [then know that]

those are the ones whom God named, and beware of them!

Al-ÙabarÉnÊ narrated in al-KabÊr from AbË MÉlik al-Ash‘arÊ (d)

that he had heard the Messenger of God (œ) saying: I only fear for my

community three characteristics, viz. that they will abound in property



Hamdard Islamicus 22 Vol. XL, No. 4

and [hence] will envy one another and kill one another; that the book will

be opened to them, and a believer will take it with him seeking its

interpretation, but “no one knows its explanation except Allah”

[p. 50].61

The First Who Asked About the Ambiguous Passages of the

Qur’Én was ‘Abd AllÉh ibn ØabÊgh

Al-DÉrimÊ produced in his MusnÉd on the authority of SulaymÉn

ibn YasÉr that a man called ØabÊgh arrived at MadÊnah and began to ask

about the ambiguous passages of the Qur’Én. So ‘Umar (d) (the

II Caliph) sent for him. He had prepared for him datestalks and asked

[him]: Who are you? He answered: I am ‘Abd AllÉh ibn ØabÊgh. Then

he took one of those datestalks and hit him with it until his head bled.

In [another] narration on his authority, [it is stated that] he hit him with

a palm branch until he felt grave pain. Then he left him until he recovered.

Then he again hit him and left him until he recovered. Then, when he

called him to come back [again], he said: If you want to kill me, kill me

nicely! Then he permitted him to return to his country and wrote a letter

to AbË MËsÉ al-Ash‘arÊ (d) [asking him] not to let any Muslim

befriend him.

Ibn ‘AsÉkir in his TÉrÊkh62 narrated on the authority of Anas that

‘Umar ibn al-KhaÏÏÉb lashed ØabÊgh al-KËfÊ because of a question [posed

by him] concerning a variant reading (Íarf)63 of the Qur’Én till the blood

flew from his back.

NaÎr al-MaqdisÊ in al-×ujja and Ibn ‘AsÉkir narrated on the authority

of al-SÉ’ib ibn YazÊd that a man said to ‘Umar b. KhaÏÏÉb (d):

I passed by a man asking about (some) difficult passage of the Qur’Én

[p. 51]. Then ‘Umar (d) said: “O God, enable me to meet him. Indeed,

one day the man came to ‘Umar (d) asking him [about it]. Then

‘Umar stood and rolled up his sleeves and began to lash him. Then he

said: “Clothe him in breeches, place him on a camel’s saddle and then

send him to his [own] clan! Then let a preacher standup and say: ØabÊgh

sought knowledge, but failed to gain it. Thus, he is still ignoble among his

people after having been a chief among them.

NaÎr al-MaqdisÊ and Ibn ‘AsÉkir narrated on the authority of AbË



Hamdard Islamicus 23 Vol. XL, No. 4

‘UthmÉn al-NahdÊ that ‘Umar (d) wrote a letter to the people of Basra

[asking them] not to befriend ØabÊgh. He said: Would he have come, we

would certainly have split, even if we had been a hundred [people].

Ibn ‘AsÉkir narrated on the authority of MuÍammad ibn

SÊrÊn, saying that ‘Umar b. KhaÏÏÉb (d) wrote to AbË MËsÉ

al-Ash‘arÊ (d) [the governor asking him] not to befriend ØabÊgh and

to stop his payment and sustenance.

NaÎr in al-×ujja and Ibn ‘AsÉkir narrated on the authority of

Zur‘a, saying: I saw ØabÊgh ibn ‘Asal in BaÎra where he looked like a

scabby camel. He came to a group of people and sat down where they

did not know him. Then the other group called them: By order of the

Commander of the Faithful, ‘Umar (d)! Then they stood up and called

for him. Shaykh NaÎr al-MaqdisÊ narrated in al-Íujja on the authority

of AbË IsÍÉq that ‘Umar (d) wrote to AbË MËsÉ al-Ash‘arÊ:

Al-AÎbagh has exerted himself sufficiently and lost what he had power

over. If this letter of mine comes, do not give him a pledge of allegiance;

if he is ill, do not visit him; and if he dies, do not attend [his burial].

NaÎr also narrated on the authority of AbË ×urayrah, saying: When

we were with ‘Umar ibn KhaÏÏÉb (d), suddenly a man came to him

asking about the Qur’Én, viz. whether it is created or not. Then ‘AlÊ said:

This is a word which will bear fruit! If I were invested with your

authority, I would cut off his head!

The Prohibition of al-ShÉfi‘Ê to Study Theology

For this very reason, al-ShÉfi‘Ê - may God be pleased with him –

prohibited the study of theology [p. 52]. Al-HarawÊ produced in his book,

Condemnation of Theology (KitÉb Dhamm al-KalÉm): It was narrated

concerning the theologians and ‘Umar’s verdict on ØabÊgh that this

[verdict] from him indicates that the effective cause for him to prohibit

the study of theology was fear for its stimulation of confusions and its

leading to innovations. Thus he forbade it, based on an analogy with the

prohibition of speculating about the ambiguous passages of the Qur’Én.

This analogy is sound.

This very effective cause is in fact found in logic as well, as

mentioned by al-ShÉfi‘Ê. So the evidence for the prohibition of the study

of it is deducted by analogy from the original case to which theology was



Hamdard Islamicus 24 Vol. XL, No. 4

compared, namely the ambiguous [verses of the Qur’Én] which it is

explicitly forbidden to speculate about. This is a valid analogy which is

weakened neither by a contradiction nor an objection. Maybe the opponent

[of this kind of analogy] refutes the existence of the effective cause

mentioned in logic, but this kind of refutation is [a kind of] contention.

No attention should be paid to it, because induction and deduction

invalidate it.

Al-DhahabÊ said in al-MÊzÉn in the biography of AbË‘l-×asan

al-ZagËnÊ, the ×anbalite jurist. He has a number of writings containing

elements of the explanations of the Mu‘tazila. He attributed him therewith

because he supported them. But this is not one of his characteristics.

However, it is rare that someone who studies theology is not led by his

investigation to contradict the domain of the Sunnah.

On this ground, the scholars of the ancient generation condemned

studying the science of the ancients [asserting] that theology has its

origin in the science of the materialist philosophers [p. 53]. Whoever

wants to combine skillfully the science of the Prophets ( ) and that

of the philosophers will inevitably contradict both of them. But whoever

gives up and walks behind the message released by the

messengers ( ), without being pedantic or extreme – may God bless

them for releasing their messages without going too far! follows the

course of the pious ancestors. This religion and belief are blameless. We

ask God for the blamelessness of our religion. (End of quotation).

It may also be claimed that this particular form, viz the prohibition

of the study of logic falls under the general scope of the texts which

denote explicitly the prohibition of anything which stimulates corruption

or anything from which dissension may be feared. So the prohibition

would be deduced from the general meaning of the texts and not from

the specific result of the deduction by analogy. The deductionist has to

make use of both matters, so that both arguments support one another,

while the peculiar result of the analogical deduction matches the general

meaning of the texts.

The Qur’Én Uses the Way of Thinking of the Arabs and

Their Conventional Terminology

A remark: The comments of one of the scholars of the rational



Hamdard Islamicus 25 Vol. XL, No. 4

[sciences] on God’s saying “If there were any gods in the two of

them except Allah, there would have been confusion in  both…”64 [that

scholar] testifies to the soundness of what al-ShÉfi‘Ê referred to. He

said: This is a convincing argument, because He aimed at rendering it

following the principles of logical deduction. But the Qur’Én follows

the way of thinking of the Arabs and their conventional terminology

in the argumentation. The leading rhetoricians have classified the

expression (ÊrÉd) of this Qur’Énic passage into the prosodic kind of

[expression], which is called by later scholars as a theological matter

and [a kind of] speculative argumentation; while the Arabs and the

Muslims after them to whom the Qur’Én was revealed said that this

verse is one of the weightiest arguments for the unity of God [p. 54]. If

a human being is ashamed before God, he will not speak about [this

verse] with such words. I do not aim by this as derogation (al-ÍaÏ)

of the mentioned man, but as explanation that logic does not lead [us]

to anything good. Whoever pays attention to it, is far away from

grasping the objectives of the Sharʑah. Thus there is a grave distance

between him and religious truths. Corresponding to this is what also

befell the mentioned man when he was [interpreting] the words of

the Exalted God: “They will ask thee about the new moons …” until the

end of the verse.65 He said: They asked about the crescent which did

not appear in a thin form, then it increased gradually till it was full.

So they were answered by explaining the underlying reason for it!

And he turned away from answering what they asked about, because

they were not among those who are investigating easily the details of

astronomy. This saying comprises some distinct fallacies: The first is

that the Occasions of the Revelation indicate that they asked about

the underlying reason not about what he mentioned. Secondly, it is

unworthy to suspect that the Companions (f) who had a deeper

comprehension than all non-Arabs and than the whole ummah did not

belong to those who investigate the details of astronomy easily, while

individuals of the later non-Arab [scholars] have investigated them. Third,

that it was beyond Divine omnipotence to convey this to their minds

through an expression which they could comprehend. Fourth, the

Companions (f) have studied many details of religious jurisprudence,

difficult parts of the laws of inheritance, as well as of the acts of the

hearts. What is the science of astronomy in comparison to that? It is



Hamdard Islamicus 26 Vol. XL, No. 4

more despicable and contemptible, even if it is based on a principle that

deserves to be taken into consideration. Most of the science is baseless

and not supported by any argument [p. 55]. In contrast, arguments derived

from the Prophetic Traditions and reports point to the contrary, as

I explained in a separate composition. The author of this treatise was

encouraged to compose it and the like by his striving [to study] the

philosophical sciences and his being excited by intellectual abstruseness,

with the result that he even thought that it was only easy for him and

for his equals and that is impossible for anyone [else] to reach them

easily, even the Companions! But to Allah we belong, and to Him is our

return! Al-QuÏb al-RÉzÊ asked the Shaykh Taqiy al-DÊn al-SubkÊ about

the prophetic Tradition [stating]: “Every child is born in the original

disposition,” and cast doubts on it derived from logic. The Shaykh Taqiy

al-DÊn answered that the accident (al-maÍËl fih) in it was equal to its

substance (al-mawÌË) and not more specific than it. He argued for this

similarity by a Divine light [springing from the one] who was strengthened

by prophecy.

Then he carried a long discussion in which he finally said: It is not

possible to relate this Prophetic Tradition to it, but had this occurred in

the words of someone other than the Prophet (œ) – may God bless him

and grant him peace – it would have been possible to do so. Then

al-QuÏb al-RÉzÊ repeated the discussion about it saying: You negated the

possibility of relating this Tradition to it, while you confirmed the possibility

of relating the words of any one else to it; what is the difference? Then

al-SubkÊ answered him that the person who says this is either insane or

sealed-hearted so that he cannot differentiate between the speech of a

prophet (*) and that of others.

The Reason for the Innovation is Ignorance of the

Language of the Arabs

I found that the ancestors before al-ShÉfi‘Ê have indicated what

he indicated, viz. that the reason for the innovation is ignorance of the

language of the Arabs. Al-BayhaqÊ narrated concerning al-ba‘th,66 on

the authority of al-AÎma‘Ê: ‘Amr ibn ‘Ubayd came to AbË ‘Amr ibn

al-‘AlÉ to discuss with him [the issue of] the necessity of the punishment



Hamdard Islamicus 27 Vol. XL, No. 4

for the disobedient: He told him: O ye AbË ‘Amr. Does God break His

promise? He answered: God will never break His promise. Then ‘Amr

said: But [God] said: … and he then mentioned the verse of wa‘Êd

[threat].67 AbË ‘Ubayd then said: You have a non-Arab background! The

threat is not a promise (al-Ê‘Éd), then he recited a passage of a poem:

“And verily, whether I threaten him or promise him, I fail to perform

my threat, but fulfil my promise.”

Al-BukhÉrÊ narrated in his Great History on the authority of

al-×asan al-BaÎrÊ that he said: The only thing destroying them was their

lack of having Arabic!

Ibn Qutaybah in his Book on the Interpretation of the

Difficult Passages of the Qur’Én

Ibn Qutaybah in his book Ta’wÊl Mushkil al-Qur’Én said: The only

person who knows the excellence of the Qur’Én is the one who studies

it often and has a broad knowledge [of it] and understands the ways of

expression of the Arabs, the influence on the styles [of expressions] and

[the points by which] God has distinguished the language of the Arabs

above all the [other] languages. Certainly, there is not a single community

to which eloquence as well as variety of expressions was given like

those given by God specifically to the Arabs. Thus God made his

knowledge, like He made the knowledge of every prophet among the

messengers most similar to the things that exist in the era in which he

was sent. Thus, to MËsÉ (*) belonged [the power to] split the sea, the

hand, the cane as well as the eruption of the sea of TÊh as well as the

other signs in the period of magic. To ‘Ôsa (*) belonged [the capability

to] revive the dead, create birds from clay, cure leprosy, and other signs

in the period of medicine. To MuÍammad (œ) belonged the Qur’Én, the

like of which could not be produced by the whole of mankind and genii,

even if they were to gather together to do so and even if they would

back up each other with help and support and the other signs in the

period of al-hayÉn.

The preacher of the Arabs when he extemporized a speech at a

wedding, a taÍdÊd, a truce, etc. did not express it in one rhythm (wÉd)



Hamdard Islamicus 28 Vol. XL, No. 4

but would fluctuate, sometimes abridging it for moderation, sometimes

prolonging it with the purpose of making it better understood. Sometimes

he would repeat it with the purpose of assertion, while concealing some

of its meanings so they became obscure for most of the audience.

He might reveal some of it in order that some of the non-Arabs

could understand it; he might allude to something and mention it

metonymically [p. 58]. His attention to the speech would be in accordance

with the condition and the consideration of the gathering, the quantity of

the congregation as well as the nobility of the position. Moreover, he

would not bring a completely corrected and purified speech, but one that

was mixed, denoting the abundant with the deficient, the thick with the

thin. All poetical metres into one metre, its goodness la baÍasahu

bahÉ’uhu wa la salabahu mÉ’uhu. It is like a flame of the live coal

which you take out to kindle; like two planets coming close, the two lights

diminish and the cloud is strung with yÉqËt, marjÉn, ‘aqÊq and ‘uqbÉn.

He does not make all of it of one kind, viz the noble with the high-priced

and the valuable with the preserved.

The words of the Arabs are based on 28 letters. They are the

utmost limits of the tongue, while the words of all the [other] communities

are less than 28 letters. I can not find in any of their speeches a letter

which is not found in our letters unless deviating a little in its pronunciation,

like the intermediate letter uttered between the utterance of qÉf and

kÉf, and the intermediate letter which is uttered between the utterance

of bÉ’ and fÉ’. This is the way the Arabs construct their words. To them

belong the desinential inflection (al-i‘rÉb) which God created as a

means to express them and as a power to order them and as a distinction

in some conditions between two similar speeches and two different

meanings, like the subject and the object. There is no difference between

the two if the conditions of both of them are the same, viz when it is

possible that the verb belongs to both of them, except by [using] its

desinential inflection.

Thus, when someone says: HÉdhÉ qatÊlun akhÊ with tanwÊn; while

the other says:

HÉdhÉ qatÊlun akhÊ with the prefixing, the tanwÊn certainly denotes

that he did not kill him while the omission of tanwÊn denotes that

he in fact killed him.



Hamdard Islamicus 29 Vol. XL, No. 4

And when someone reads falÉ yahÐunka qawluhum innÉ na‘lam

ma yusirruna wa mÉ yu‘linËn, (so let not what they say grieve thee;

verily We know what they keep secret and what they say publicly)

with the fatÍ and departs from the rule of being inchoative by [reading it]

anna [instead of innÉ], and he made al-qawl in it to work as

nasb, following the school of those who pronounce the alif of anna with

nasb after al-qawl, like they pronounce it [anna] after al-Ðann, he

turns the meaning certainly away from its [right] direction and shifts it

from its course, he makes the Prophet (œ) become sad because of

their saying: “Verily God knows what they hide as well as what they

disclose.”68 This is a form of unbelief from the part of him who does so

deliberately and a sort of grammatical mistake, which is not allowed to

expressed during the prayer, and worshippers are not allowed to tolerate

it [p. 59].

The Messenger of God (œ) said: “LÉ yuqtal quraysh sabran

ba‘d al-yawm,”Quraysh is not allowed to be killed after this day. Whoever

pronounces it in the apocopate form (viz. lÉyuqtal), implies as the apparent

meaning that the Qurayshite is neither to be killed if he apostatized, nor

to be afflicted by the retaliation (qiÎÉÎ) if he has killed. Whoever

pronounces the final consonant with u (raf‘) it as raf‘, shifts the

interpretation to the predicate of Quraysh, namely is that he does not like

one of them [the Qurayshes] to withdraw from Islam, thus deserving to

be killed. As you see, the desinential inflection is how one differentiates

between these two meanings.

The two meanings differ by one letter by [using] the haraka

al-binÉ’, by saying for instance: a man is cursed (lu‘na) if the people

curse him; but if he used to curse the people they say he is a curse

(la‘na), by vocalizing ‘ayn with a fathÉ. And a man is insulted if the

people insult him. But if he used to insult himself, they say that a man

insulted him. The same is true of huz‘at [one who is mocked] and

huzaat (one who mocks) Ìahika (laughing at), khuda‘a (one who

deceives), khad‘a (delusion).

Two close meanings sometimes differ by changing a single letter so

that the similarity between the two words is like the similarity between

the two meanings [p. 60]. This is the case when they call salted water,

which is drunk only in a state of emergency, sharËb, while it is called

sharÊb when [there is less salt] so the water can be drunk. Thus they



Hamdard Islamicus 30 Vol. XL, No. 4

call a drop of urine falling on a cloth, if it is as small as the heads of a

needle, nuÎÍ, so it is valid. One is to sprinkle water on it, the sprinkling

serving in lieu of washing. If there is more than that, then it is called

nuÌh (to sprinkle). This can only be compensated by washing. Similarly,

they call the act of holding with the fingers qabÌ (to grasp), the same

word used for holding in the palm of the hand. To eat with the utmost

parts of the teeth is qadm (to crunch), and to eat with the whole of the

mouth is khaÌm.

Something that rises from the earth is called Íazn (rugged and hard

ground), but if it stands out a little more it is called Íazm (elevated

ground). The person who suffers from cold is [called] khaÎir (a man

feeling cold in his extremities); if this is mixed with hunger, it is called

khirÎ (hungry and cold). A flame that becomes extinguished is called

hÉmida (in a state of extinction), but if its flame ceases while something

of its coal still exists it is called ÍÉdida. A camel standing is sÉ’im

(standing upon its four legs) but if it attenuated because of being bruised

it is called ÎÉfin (standing upon three legs and the extremity of the hoof

of the fourth leg). ‘AtÉ (to give) is first called shakl, but if it is a

compensation then it is called shakm (recompense). Committing a single

mistake in speech is called ghalÏah (a mistake), but if it is for calculation,

it is called ghalaÏ (committing error). The straightness in the eye is called

khawas (narrow eyes), thus it is said khuwiÎat ‘aynuh takhuÎu khawÎÉ,

wa rajulun akhwaÎ wa ‘mra’atun khawÎa’u. The likes can also be

called al-khawÎ (narrowness or contraction of the outer angle of the

eye) [p. 61]. The origin of al-ÍawÎ is al-ÍawÎ which stands for enclosing

the eye (ÍiyÉÏa al-‘ayn), but if it is in its end, it is called Íaws (to

sew up).

One thing may comprise many meanings, so from each meaning is

derived the name of such a thing, like the derivation of mubÏÊn from

al-baÏn al-khamÊs (empty belly); one who is big in the belly is called

khalqat al-baÏÊn; but if it is because of much eating, it is called mibÏÉn

(big or large in the belly in consequence of much eating). The insatiable

is called baÏn while belly sickness is called mabÏËn (having a complaint

of the belly).

They say: wajadta al-ÌÉlla and wajadta fi al-qaÎab, wa wajadta

fi’l-Íuzn wa wajadta fi ’l-istighnÉ. All are attributed by fatÍ, and then

they make substantive (al-ism) in al-ÌÉlat wujËdan and wujdÉnan [viz



Hamdard Islamicus 31 Vol. XL, No. 4

wajadta wujud or wujdÉn al-ÌÉlat], and in al-Íuzn wujdan [viz

wajadta fi’l-Íujn wujdÉn], in al-ghaÌab mawjuda [viz wajadta fi’l-

ghaÌab mawjidatan], and in al-istighrÉ’i wajdan [viz wajadta fÊ‘l-

istighnÉ” wujdan] stand for many things.

To the Arabs belong the metaphors in their speech. Their meaning

is the method of the saying and its source of derivation. So some of them

are al-isti‘Érah, al-tamthÊl, al-qalb, al-taqdÊm, al-ta’ÍÊr, hÉdhf, al-tikrÉr,

al-ikhfÉ, nuzhÉr, al-ta‘rÊd, al-ifsaÍ, al-kinÉya, al-idÉÍ, mukhÉÏabat

al-wÉhid, mukhÉtabat al-jamÊ. All communicate the one with the other;

the groups speak with both. The objective is that the particular word

stands for the general meaning and the general word stands for particular

meaning. You will see many things in the chapter on al-majÉz (metaphor),

If Allah wills.

The Qur’Én was revealed in accordance with all these rules [p. 62].

Therefore no one of the translators is able to translate it into any of the

languages like the Bible was translated from the Syriac language to

Abyssinian and Greek. The Torah, the Book of Psalms and all the books

of God – the Exalted and the Eternal – were translated into Arabic

because the metaphors of the non-Arabs are not of the same extensive

range as those of the Arabs. Do you not see yourself that if you want

to translate His words: “wa imma takhÉfanna min qawmin khiyÉnatan

fa ‘nbidh ilayhim ‘alÉ sawÉ;” “if you fear treachery at all from any

people throw back to them (their covenant) equally.”69 You cannot have

these words derived directly from a meaning which you put down so that

you encompass the whole of it and understand their contexts and show

their hidden meanings.

Thus we can say: If there is a truce and a covenant between

you and a people, and you worry for their unfaithfulness and that

they might break it, tell them that you broke what you stipulated to

them, and let them wage war in order that you and they know the

breaking equally. The same holds for His word: “faÌarabnÉ ‘ala

ÓdhÉnihim fi ‘l-kahf sinÊna ‘adada:”70 “So we sealed up their ears in

the cave for a number of years.” If you translate this literally, the person

to whom it is translated will not understand it. If you say: “We have

made them dead for years,” you are a translator of the meaning and

not of the actual words. This also holds true for the words of the



Hamdard Islamicus 32 Vol. XL, No. 4

Exalted and the Eternal “wa‘l-ladhÊnÉ idhÉ dhukkiru bi ÉyÉti rabbihim

lam yakhirru ‘alayhÉ Îumman wa ‘umyÉnÉ,” (Those who, when they

are admonished with the Signs of their Lord, droop not down at them as

if they were deaf or blind).71 If you translate this literally, it can not be

understood. But if you say lam yataghaffalË (they neglected not) you

have provided the meaning by using another. The book of God has been

opposed with criticism by the impugners of religion.

They talk nonsense about it, left it, and followed its ambiguous

passages by wishing dissension and allegorical interpretation, making use

of dull understandings, poor sights and far-fetched speculation [p. 63].

So they took words out of context, and shifted them from their courses.

Then they judged them to be contradictory, an impossibility, an error, a

corruption in naÐm and in controversy. Then they provided argument that

might convince the weak and the inexperienced. So they spread the

confusion in the hearts and put doubts in the minds. Even though  their

inclination depends on their own consideration and interpretation, he who

continues to be the Messenger of Allah (œ) already criticized this

providing of proof from the Qur’Én against him, thus turning it to science

because of his prophecy, and to the proof of his trustworthiness, challenging

him, passage after passage, to bring a sËrah similar to it. Nevertheless,

they are scholars of eloquence, rhetoricians, preachers, poets, and some

of human kind who are characterized by sharp tongues and strong

opposition in dispute together with mind, intelligence, and accuracy of

opinion. God has described them thereby in several places of the Book.

Sometimes they used to say the words are magic, poetry, and the words

of kÉhins, and sometimes they say they are myths of the ancients.

But the Holy Qur’Én did not tell [us] about them. Neither did any

of the narrations convey to us that they would attack it from the side of

the critics. Thus, I wished to draw good advice from the book of God,

and to support it with clear arguments and evidences, and reveal to the

people what they want. So I composed this book, to comprehend the

interpretation of the ambiguous passages of the Qur’Én, deriving this

from the exegesis with additional explanations. It comprises [information]

about which I do not know any treatise by a scholar enjoying authority

for his expertise in the languages of the Arabs. [By composing this book,

I want] to show the obstinate, the place of faithlessness and the way of

potentiality without deciding the matter by an opinion or judging it by an

interpretation [p. 64].



Hamdard Islamicus 33 Vol. XL, No. 4

According to al-ShÉfi‘Ê, the Reason for the Prohibition of

Theology is to be Found in Logic

(There is no command to [make use of] it which can be found in

the Qur’Én and the Sunnah).

Al-ShÉfi‘Ê indicated another reason concerning [the prohibition] of

theology. It can be found in logic. Al-NawawÊ condemned theology on

the authority of al-KarÉbisÊ72 who said: I saw al-ShÉfi‘Ê, while Bishr

al-MarÊsÊ came to see him. He said to Bishr: Tell me what you are

propagating. Is it [studying] an eloquent and rational book, a binding

obligation and an established prophetic Tradition about which you

found that the ancestors studied and questioned it? Then Bishr answered:

LÉ illÉ annahu lÉ yasa‘unÉ khilÉfuhu (It is only that we cannot stand

for its contention). Then al-ShÉfi‘Ê said: You confessed yourself that

you made a mistake. What is the use of disputation in jurisprudence

and Prophetic Traditions? When he left, al-ShÉfi‘Ê said: He is not

happy.

This statement denotes that the reason for the prohibition against

studying theology is that there is no command [to make use of] it to

be found in the Qur’Én and the Sunnah. No discussion about it can

be found among the ancestors. This is also the case with logic, namely

that there is no command [to make use of] it to be found in the

Qur’Én and the Sunnah. There is no discussion held by the ancestors

about it, contrary to the study of Arabic which is commanded in the

Tradition. Discussion about this can be found among the ancestors. This

is the reason upon which Ibn al-ØalÉÍ relied, when he decided to prohibit

logic, saying: Being occupied by learning and teaching it is not allowed

by the Law-giver nor by any of the Companions (R.A.), Followers, and

leading scholars who reached the degree of ijtihÉd. Ibn al-ØalÉÍ seems

to have deduced this reason from the reasoning by al-ShÉfi‘Ê about

theology [p. 65].

According to al-ShÉfi‘Ê, Another Reason for the

Prohibition of Theology can be Found in Logic

(The fact that its style is different from that of the Qur’Én and the

Sunnah).

Al-ShÉfi‘Ê has indicated a third reason to prohibit theology found



Hamdard Islamicus 34 Vol. XL, No. 4

in logic. Al-HarawÊ also produced [argument based on the authority

of] AbË Thawr,73 who said: I heard al-ShÉfi‘Ê say: My judgment of

theologians is that they should be hit by a palm-branch, put on a camel

and shown around the communities and tribes. This is the punishment for

those who have neglected the Qur’Én and the Sunnah and approached

theology.

By the authority of al-ShÉfi‘Ê, he said: My way of dealing with the

theologians is to strike their heads with whips and drive them away from

their lands. This statement denotes that the reason for the prohibition of

the speculation in theology is identified in the fact that its style is different

from the Qur’Én and the Sunnah. Or it is because of neglecting the

Qur’Én and the Sunnah and forgetting them. This reason also pertains

to logic.

Indication of the Prohibition of the

Philosophical Sciences: Statement of al-ShÉfi‘Ê

In condemning theology, al-HarawÊ said: GhÉlib ibn ‘AlÊ told us that

MuÍammad ibn al-×usayn related to us that al-×asan ibn Rashiq told us

that Sa‘Êd ibn AÍmad ibn ZakariyÉ al-LahmÊ told us that YunËs ibn ‘Abd

al-A‘lÉ related to us that he said: I heard al-ShÉfi‘Ê saying: If I hear a

man calling a name for the unnamed and a thing nothing, then testify

against him that he is a heretic!

The Statement of AbË ×anÊifah in Condemning the

Philosophical Sciences

A statement on the authority of AbË ×anÊfah – may God be pleased

with him – was mentioned explicitly for condemning the philosophical

sciences. In condemning theology, al-HarawÊ said: Tayyib ibn AÍmad

told me that MuÍammad ibn al-×usayn told us that AbË al-QÉsim ibn

Matawayh told us that ×amÊd ibn Rustam related to us that al-×asan ibn

al-MutÊ‘ that IbrÉhÊm ibn Rustam said on the authority of ... : I said to

AbË ×anÊfah: What are your comments on the disputes people innovated

about the forms and bodies? Then he said: [These are] the utterances

of the philosophers. You have to follow the Tradition and the course of



Hamdard Islamicus 35 Vol. XL, No. 4

the ancestors and beware of any novelties because they are innovations.

This was produced by al-MuÐaffar ibn al-Sam‘ÉnÊ in KitÉb al-IntiÎÉr,

who said: A reliable man from among our friends related to us that

al-Shaykh AbË ‘Abd al-RaÍmÉn al-SulamÊ related to us that AbË

al-QÉsim ibn Matawayh told it to us.

KalÉm was also explicitly prohibited following the principles of the

rest of the founders of the schools. They argued this prohibition on the

basis of the content of logic. For this reason later scholars of their

adherents prohibited it explicitly, applying their principles.

By the authority of ‘Abd al-RaÍmÉn ibn MahdÊ al-HarawÊ

said: I came to see MÉlik to whom a man was asking a question. He

said: Maybe you are one of ‘Amr ibn ‘Ubayd’s adherents. God

has cursed ‘Amr, because he fabricated the innovations of theology.

If theology were a [real] science, the Companions and the Followers

would have discussed it, as they have discussed the religious rules and

laws.

This statement from MÉlik who states clearly the reason for the

prohibition of theology, like [the argument] on the authority of al-ShÉfi‘Ê,

mentioned earlier, and relying on Ibn al-ØalÉÍ concerning logic. Likewise,

all the leading Muslim scholars who explicitly prohibited theology also

identified its ‘illÉ in [the fact] that the ancestors did not discuss it. Thus

[also] the prohibition of logic was produced following their principles

because of the existence of this ‘illÉ in it. Therefore it is necessary that

we trace statements of the leading scholars concerning the prohibition of

theology and their words about that. Consequently, we will continue

dealing with the subject-matter at hand.

Notes and References

1. Madjid, Nurcholish, Ibn Taymiyya in ‘Kalam’ and ‘Falsafa’ (A Problem of

Reason and Revelation in Islam), Michigan, UMI Dissertation Services, 1997,

p. 221.

2. Fakhry, Majid, A History of Islamic Philosophy, New York, Columbia University

Press, 1983, 2nd Edn., pp. 10-11.

3. Van Koningsveld, P.S., “Greek Manuscripts in the Early AbbÉsid Empire: Fiction



Hamdard Islamicus 36 Vol. XL, No. 4

and Facts about their Origin, Translation and Destruction,” in Bibliotheca

Orientalis, LV no. 3/4, Mei-August, 1998, pp. 345-370.

04. Von Grunebaum, G.E., “Islam and Hellenism,” in Logic in Classical Islamic

Culture (Ed.) G.E. von Grunebaum, Wiesbaden, Otto Harrassowitz, 1970,

p. 25.

05. Gibb, Sir. H.A., “The Influence of Islamic Culture on Medieval Europe,” in

Bulletin of the John Ryland’s Library, Manchester, 38, 1955, pp. 82-98.

06. The ‘umar cycle refers to the group of Muslim scholars who were hostile to

‘things foreign’, including the sciences of the Greek. This cycle are the proponent

of the policy of the Caliph ‘Umar ibn KhaÏÏÉb (d) who issued an order to Sa‘d

ibn AbÊ WaqqÉÎ (d) for the destruction of Persian books during the Muslim

conquest. They upheld the truth of a notorious legend ‘according to which Caliph

‘Umar had ordered his general ‘Amr ibn al-‘ÓÎ (d) to destroy the famous

ancient library of Alexandria, after the conquest of the city by the Muslim army.’

Van Koningsveld op. cit., pp. 362-365.

07. Abrahamov, Binyamin, Islamic Theology: Traditionalism and Rationalism,

Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press, 1998, vol. ii-x, pp. 1-12.

08. It is plausible that AÍmad rejected the concept of the createdness of the Qur’Én,

for, according to Wensinck, the doctrine was understood by AÍmad ibn ×anbal

as ‘the very heart of the question of the qualities. We [viz Wensinck] may

suppose, therefore, that his rigorous defence of the eternity of the Qur’Én had

its root in the feeling that this dogma followed from the unique nature of the

Holy Book, whereas the Mu’tazilite view in his eyes tended to lower the

position of the words of Allah.’ See Wensinck, A.J., The Muslim Creed, Its

Genesis and Historical Development, New Delhi, Oriental Books Reprint

Corporation, 1979, 2nd Edn., p. 86.

09. Al-GhazÉlÊ’s attempt to disguise his adoption of Aristotelian logic by including

it in his books on legal theory drew fervent criticism from a number of scholars

of the traditionalist group, such as AbË IsÍÉq al-MarjinÉnÊ (d. 513/1119),

al-QushayrÊ, al-TurtËshÊ (d. 520), al-MazÊrÊ, Ibn al-SalÉÍ and al-NawawÊ. See

Al-NashshÉr, ‘Ali SÉmi, ManÉhij al-BaÍth ‘inda MufÉkkiri al-IslÉm, Cairo, DÉr

al-Ma‘arif, 1978, pp. 143-144.

10. Abrahamov op. cit., p. 27.

11. Al-NashshÉr op. cit., p. 224.

12. The printed edition of Sawn al-ManÏiq that I rely on in this translation was edited

by ‘AlÊ ShÉmi al-NashshÉr and Su‘Éda ‘AlÊ ‘Abd al-RÉziq, Cairo, DÉr al-Nashr

wa’l-TibÉ‘a, 1970.

13. In this work al-SuyËÏÊ discusses either explicitly or incidentally the opposition

of more than 40 leading scholars of various law schools against logic by referring

to more than 28 works which deal either explicitly or incidentally with the same

issue.

14. ×ÉdhihÊ muqaddimat al-‘ulËm kulliha wÉ man lÉ yuhÊÏu bihÊ falÉ thiqata lahË

bi‘ulËmih aÎlan. [Logic] is the introduction to all sciences. One who is not well

versed in it, his authority in the sciences is not reliable at all.’ The first who

heralds this – generally claimed – is al-GhazÉlÊ, in the introduction of Al-MustasfÉ

fi UÎËl al-Fiqh, Cairo, al-Matba’a al-Amiriyya, 1322/1904, I, 10.



Hamdard Islamicus 37 Vol. XL, No. 4

15. This refers to one of al-SuyËÏÊ’s chief opponents, Shams al-DÊn MuÍammad ibn

‘Abd al-Mun‘im al-JawjarÊ, one of al-SuyËÏÊ’s rivals ever since they were in the

×ijaz together as students in 869/1464-5. According to Sartain al-JawjarÊ called

a meeting for a formal debate in the presence of the sultan, emirs and other

notables. In response to the calling, al-SuyËÏÊ requested the presence of two other

mujtahids besides himself, one to debate with him and one to referee, since he

could not debate with any individual of inferior status. See, Sartain, E.M.,

Jal‘Él al-DÊn al-SuyËÏÊ: Biography and Background, Cambridge, Cambridge

University Press, 1975, p. 59.

16. MuÍyi al-DÊn AbË ‘Abd AllÉh al-KafyajÊ the ×anafite”: MuÍammad ibn SulaymÉn

ibn Sa‘d ibn Mas‘Ëd al-RËmÊ al-BarghamÊ to whom was given surname al-KafijÊ

because of his being occupied much by the book al-KÉfiyah on grammar. He was

one of the teachers of al-SuyËÏÊ to whom he had drawn attention Isagoge, an

Introduction to Logic by Porpyry. He was born in 788/1387 and died in

879/1475. See, al-SuyËÏÊ, KitÉb al-TaÍadduth bi Ni‘mati ’llÉh, Cairo, al-Matba‘a

al-‘Arabiyya al-Haditha, Ed. E.M. Sartain, pp. 29-124.

17. The abridgement of Ibn Taymiyyah’s NaÎiÍah Ahl al-ÔmÉn fi al-Radd ‘alÉ ManÏiq

al-YËnÉn.

18. A part of rhetoric dealing with verbal expression of concepts and content. See,

RuhÊ al-Ba‘albÉkÊ, al-Mawrid, Arabic English Dictionary, Beirut, DÉr al-‘llm li

‘l-MalÉyinÊ, 1988.

19. Branch of Arabic rhetoric, dealing with metaphorical language and rhetorical art

of the Arabs generally. Ibid.

20. A part of rhetoric dealing with figures of speech and the art of beautiful style

generally. Ibid.

21. The original sentence is cut off here. Perhaps it is fi taÍrÊmih [to prohibit it].

22. Aristotle was the son of Nicomachus, the son of Asclepius. His mother, Phaestics,

descended from one of the colonists who led the Greek settlers from Chalcis to

Stagira. He was born ca. 384 B.C. during the archonship of Diotrephes (384-

383 B.C.). He died in 322 B.C. at the age of sixty-three. See Chroust, Anton-

Herman, Aristotle New Light on his Life and Some of His Lost Works, London,

Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1973, I, p. 73.

23. Istakhr or Stagira (also Staegeiros or Stagiros) was a city assigned to either

Macedonia or Thrace. Stagira was founded during the 31st Olympiad or in 656-

652 B.C. It was a joint colony of Andros (the island of Aristotle’s paternal

ancestors) and Chalcis, the town of Aristotle’s maternal ancestors. Stagira was

a relatively poor and unimportant town, which was destroyed during the Chaldician

War (349-348 B.C.). Chroust op. cit., I, pp. 288, 11.

24. Perhaps AzdashÊr ibn DÉrÉ is identical with Diotrephes (384-383 B.C.). See,

Chroust op. cit., I, p. 73.

25. Al-ShahrastÉnÊ: AbË al-FatÍ MuÍammad ibn AbÊ al-QÉsim, a thinker and historian

of religious and philosophical doctrines who was born in ShahristÉn, KhurasÉn

(currently in the Republic of Turkmenistan). His monumental work, al-milal wa

‘l-nihal was written in 521/1127. He died in 548/1153. See, Monnot, G.,

‘al-ShahrastÉnÊ,’ EI2, IX, pp. 214-216.

26. Ibn al-ØalÉÍ was born in 577/1181 in IrbÊl and died in Damascus in 643/1245.



Hamdard Islamicus 38 Vol. XL, No. 4

His Muqaddimat Ibn al-ØalÉÍ fi ‘UlËm al-HadÊth was considered the standard

work on the science of the Tradition, and who was considered by al-SuyËÏÊ

himself as one of the most knowledgeable persons of his time in Exegesis,

Tradition and Jurisprudence. See, al-SuyËÏÊ, TH, 500.

27. MuÍyi al-DÊn AbË ZakariyyÉ’ YaÍyÉ ibn Sharaf ibn Mira ibn ×asan ibn ×usayn

ibn MuÍammad ibn Jum‘a ibn ×izÉm al-HizÉmÊ al-DimashqÊ, who was born in

MuÍarram 631/October 1233 in Nawa south of Damascus and died on Wednesday,

24 Rajab 676/22 December 1277 in Nawa. Heffening, W., “al-Nawawi” in The

Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition, Leiden and New York, E.J. Brill, 1993,

Ed. C.E. Bosworth et al., vol. VII, pp. 1041-1042.

28. AbË YËsuf Ya‘qËb ibn IsÍÉq, well-known as “the philosopher of the Arabs” and

the author of almost 225 treatises, was given several acknowledgements by

several medieval Muslim scholars. Ibn al-NadÊm regards him as the closest to

Aristotle among the Muslim philosophers. Al-KindÊ, according to Ibn al-Juljul,

was the one who has written an essay on tawhÊd according to the methods of

the Logicians. BayhaqÊ considered al-KindÊ to have combined in his works the

principles of the law and those of the rational sciences. Ibn al-KhaldËn, however,

does not include him in his list of Islamic philosophers, despite frequent references

to him. See, Jolivet, J & R. Rashed, “al-KindÊ,” in The Encyclopaedia of Islam,

New Edition, Leiden, E.J. Brill, 1986, Ed. C.E. Bosworth et al., vol. V, pp. 122-

123.

29. Ibn ZËlÉq: AbË MuÍammad al-×asan ibn IbrÉhÊm al-LaythÊ who was born in

306/919 and died in 386/996 was an Egyptian historian, the author of a number

of biographical, historical and topographical works on Egypt in the time of

Ihsidid and the early FÉÏimids. See, Lewis, B. et al., ‘Ibn Zulaq,’ in EI2, III,

p. 979.

30. In Jahd al-QariÍa, al-SuyËÏÊ identifies the poet with Ibn al-QushayrÊ. See, Hallaq,

W.B., Ibn Taymiyya Against the Greek Logicians, Translation with an Introduction

and Notes, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1993, p. 173.

31. KitÉb al-ShifÉ’ (book of the healing [of the soul]) is one of the two principle

works besides al-QÉnËn fi al-Tibb (canon of medicine) of Ibn Sina which made

him an undisputed master in medicine, natural science, and philosophy (EI2, II,

944). According to Ja‘far ‘AlÊ YasÊn, the book is written because of (1) the urge

of Ibn SÊnÉ’s disciples who asked him to write a comprehensive encyclopaedia

in philosophy; (2) the defence for the intellectual dispute in which he was

engaged; and (3) his inclination and keenness on being occupied with Greek

sciences. See, YasÊn, Ja‘far ‘AlÊ, Faylasuf ‘Alim: Dirasa TaÍlÊliyya li ÍayÉt ibn

SÊnÉ’ wa Fikrih al-Falsafi, Beirut, DÉr al-Andalus, 1984/1404, 1st Edn., pp. 74-

75.

32. Viz, The Prophet MuÍammad (œ).

33. Viz, NaÎÊhat Ahl al-ImÉn fi al-Radd ‘alÉ ManÏiq al-YËnÉn.

34. Ibn Taymiyyah al-Radd ‘alÉ al-MantiqiyyÊn, (Ed. ‘Abd al-Samad Sharaf al-DÊn

al-KutubÊ), Bombay, Qayyima Press Sharafuddin and Sons, 1368/1949, p. 106.

There are a number of literal differences in quoting a number of words, which

may spring from an error of typewriting of the editors of both books, between

al-SuyÏËÏÊ’s Sawn al-ManÏiq which is edited by ‘AlÊ ShÉmi al-NashshÉr and Ibn



Hamdard Islamicus 39 Vol. XL, No. 4

Taymiyyah’s al-Radd which is edited by ‘Abd al-Samad Sharaf al-DÊn al-KutubÊ.

Such as wa qad la ya’rifuna in al-Radd, in Sawn: wa lÉ ya‘rifuna: wa qad lÉ

yuqirrËna and bal qad la yuqirrËna: bal yuftuna anna dhÉlika and bal yazunnuna

dhÉlika: ‘indahum (wa ‘inda) Ibn SÊnÉ and ‘inda Ibn Sina.

35. The typographical errors also occur in this place. A number of words are wrongly

quoted such as wa sammuh ÍudËd li ÍudËd instead of wa sammuh hudËdan ka

ÍudËd; wa’l-‘amÉl al-ÎÉlÊÍ instead of ma‘a’l-‘amÉl al-ÎÉlÊÍ. See, Ibn Taymiyyah,

KitÉb al-Radd ‘ala ’l-MantiqiyyÊn, Bombay, al-MaÏba’a al-Qayyima, 1949,

Ed. Sharaf al-DÊn al-KutubÊ, pp. 137-138.

36. This work was edited by MuÍammad ibn IbrÉhÊm ×ÉrËn as a part of his thesis

in the University of Madinah in 1409/1988.

37. QayrawÉn, arabized form of a Persian KarawÉn, was a big city in Africa, into

which the celebrated AbË Bakr al-BaqilÉnÊ and MuÍammad ibn AbË Bakr ‘Abd

AllÉh MuÍammad ibn AbË NaÎr ×ibat Allah ibn ‘AlÊ ibn MÉlik AbË ‘Abd AllÉh

al-TamÊmÊ were affiliated. Al-×amawÊ, YÉqËt ibn ‘Abd AllÉh al-RËmÊ, Jacut’s

geographisches Worterbuch, Ed. F. Wustenfeld, Leipzig, 1866-1873, IV, pp. 212-

214.

38. YaÍyÉ ibn KhÉlid was appointed wazir by ×ÉrËn al-RashÊd. He was appointed

a Governor of Adharbayzan in 158/775. In 161/778 he became a secretary tutor

to Prince ×ÉrËn, and he remained in office for 17 years, from 170/786 to 187/

803. See, Sourdel, D., ‘al-Baramika,’ EI2, I, p. 1034.

39. Al-RashÊd bi’llÉh, AbË Ja‘far al-ManÎËr, the thirtieth ‘AbbÉsid Caliph, the son

of al-Mustarshid, was born ca. 501/1107-8. He was appointed a caliph after his

father’s death in 529/1135. He died in 532/1138. See, Hillenbrand, C., EI2, VIII,

pp. 439-440.

40. Al-ØalÉÍ, al-ØafadÊ, ØÉlÉÍ, al-DÊn AbË al-Ø afÉ KhalÊl ibn Aybak al-ØafadÊ the

ShÉfi‘Ête died in 746/1345. He was the author of the celebrated al-WafÊ bi’l-

WafayÉt.

41. KitÉb al-MajisÏÊ, to the Arab astronomers, was the name of the great astronomic

work by Ptolemy (the great compilation). Al-Ya‘qubi says in his historical work

(written in 278/891, Ed. M. th. Houtsma, Leiden, 1883, p. 151; “The book

al-MajisÏÊ treats of the science of the stars and their movements; the meaning of

al-MajisÏi is “the greatest book”. See, EI1, I, p. 313.

42. The elaborate discussion of this matter can be found in Van Koningsveld’s Greek

Manuscript op. cit., pp. 345-372.

43. YËÍannÉ ibn al-BiÏrÊq was a younger contemporary of ×unayn ibn IsÍÉq with

whose aid he translated De Antidotes. It is related that he was the physician of

al-Muwaffaq TalÍa (d. 276/891) brother and mainstay of the weak Caliph

al-Mu‘tamid. His son BiÏrÊq ibn YËÍannÉ was physician to the Caliph

al-Muqtadir and al-RaÌÊ, and died in 329/941. See, Meyerhof, Max, “New Light

on ×unain ibn IsÍÉq and his Period,” in ISIS (1925), VIII, pp. 685-724.

44. ‘Abd al-MasÊÍ ibn Allah ibn NÉ‘ima al-×imÎÊ was a translator who worked for

the Caliph al-Mu‘taÎim (218-227/833-842). He died in 220/835.

45. Hunayn ibn IsÍÉq AbË Zayd died in ca. 260/873. He was the headmaster of the

well-known school of translation. He lived at Baghdad during the reigns and

partly at the court of ten calips, viz Al-AmÊn (809-813), al-Ma’mËn (d. 216/833),



Hamdard Islamicus 40 Vol. XL, No. 4

al-Mu‘aÎim (d. 225/842), al-WÉthiq (d.231/847), al-Mutawakkil (d.245/861),

al-MuntaÎir (d. 246/862), al-Musta‘in (d. 250/866), al-Mu‘tazz (d. 253/869),

al-MuhtadÊ (d.254/870), and al-Mu‘tamid (870-892). See, Meyerhof ibid em.

46. Perhaps this refers to AbË NaÎr IsmÉ‘Êl ibn ×ammÉd al-JawharÊ, a celebrated

Arabic lexicographer of Turkish origin who died ca. 393/1002-3. His fame was

associated with his monumental dictionary TÉj al-Lugha wa ‘l-SihÉÍ

al-‘Arabiyya. See, Kopf, L., EI2, II, pp. 495-497.

47. Euclid is one of the most well-known mathematicians whose name was

synonymous with geometry until the twentieth century. He lived after the pupils

of Plato (d. 397 B.C.) and before Archimedes (d. 287 B.C.). He taught in

Alexandria. Euclid’s fame rests preeminently upon Elements, written in thirteen

books. According to Bussard, translation of Elements is made by IsÍÉq ibn

×unayn (d. 295/910) son of the most famous of the Arabic translators, ×unayn

ibn IsÍÉq. See, Busard, H.L.L., (Ed.), The First Latin Translation of Euclid’s

Elements, Commonly Ascribed to Adelard of Bath: Books I-VIII and Books X. 36-

XV.2, Canada, Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1983.

48. According to Busard, ThÉbit ibn Qurra (d. 288/901) was a scholar who prepared

the second recension of Euclid’s Elements. He was a scholar who in his own right

holds a major position within the history of Islamic mathematics. See, Busard

op. cit, p. 3.

49. HÉjji KhalÊfa, Kashf al-ÚunËn, vol. II, p. 388.

50. Sunan Ibn MÉjah, Cairo, DÉr al-IÍyÉ’ al-Kutub al-‘Arabiyya, 1373/1953,

Ed. MuÍammad Fu’Éd ‘Abd al-BÉqÊ, vol. II, p. 1322.

51. Probably this refers to the most important of Ibn al-KathÊr’s works on the

history of Islam, al-BidÉya wa ‘l-NihÉyah. On Ibn KathÊr, see, Loust, H., “Ibn

KathÊr,” EI2, vol. III, pp. 817-818.

52. TÉrÊkh al-DhahabÊ, TÉrikh al-IslÉm by Shams al-DÊn al-DhahabÊ (d. 748/1348).

This book is the greatest work of the author since it summarizes a number of

historical books. Thus it became a reference of great importance of historians

such as al-SafadÊ, Ibn ShÉkir al-KutubÊ, al-SubkÊ, al-IsnawÊ, Ibn KathÊr, Ibn Rajab,

al-FayËmÊ, Ibn DaqmÉq, al-Sibt ibn al-JawzÊ, al-SakhÉwÊ, Ibn ‘Abd al-HÉdÊ,

al-SuyËÏÊ. See, Ma‘rËf, BashshÉr ‘AwwÉd, al-DhahabÊ wa MinÍÉjuhu fi KitÉbih

TÉrikh al-IslÉm, Cairo, Matba‘a ‘IsÉ al-BÉbÊ al-×alabÊ wa ShirkÉhu, 1976,

pp. 9-17.

53. Here he means the books on uÎËl al-fiqh.

54. According to Ibn KathÊr, Qarmatian interpretation means batinite interpretation

(esoteric or allegorical interpretation) of the Qur’Én, (Ibn KathÊr, al-BidÉya wa’l-

NihÉyah, VI, p. 92). Ivanov maintains that the term bÉÏin (from batn, “belly”

means ‘deduced’ (with the help of allegorical interpretation (ta’wÊl). It leads to

the doctrine that there is no ÐÉhir without its corresponding bÉÏin and vice versa.

Thus, the knowledge of the bÉtin of each ÐÉhir, to its full extent, formed an

exclusive prerogative of the ImÉm, as did therefore the privilege of conveying its

ta’wÊl. Qualified theologians, or anyone, could only offer a ta’wÊl explanation with

the authorisation and endorsement of the ImÉm. The principles of ta’wÊl, Ivanov

maintains, was violently condemned by the orthodox as easily leading to possible

abuse, and chaos in religion. See Ivanov, W., Brief Survey of the Evolution of

Ismailism, Leiden, E.J. Brill, 1952, pp. 24-25.



Hamdard Islamicus 41 Vol. XL, No. 4

55. Al-Zajal is a popular Arabic poem in strophic form; al-Muwashshah is a post-

classical form of Arabic poetry arranged in stanzas; DËbayt is a rhymed poem

consisting of four hemistitches; while Mawali is a poem in colloqueal language.

See, Lane, E.W., Arabic-English Lexicon, Cambridge, The Islamic Texts Society,

1984, vol. I, p. 94.

56. The QÉÌÊ al-MuslimÊn al-HÉfiÐ ‘lzz al-DÊn ‘Abd al-‘AzÊz ibn QÉÌÊ al-QuÌÉt Badr

al-DÊn ibn JamÉ‘a, belonging to the distinguished ShÉfi‘Ê family of the MamlËk

period in Syria and Egypt, was appointed ShÉfi‘Ê Chief Judge of Egypt in

738/1340 and remained in this position for 25 years. He died in 767/1366. See,

Salibi, K.S., “Ibn DjamÉ‘a”, EI2, III, pp. 748-749.

57. Al-Qur’Én, XIV (IbrÉhÊm), 4, Bell, I, p. 236.

58. Viz The Greek system.

59. Namely al-KÉfÊjÊ.

60. Al-Qur’Én, III (‘Ól-Ê ‘ImrÉn), 7, Bell, I, pp. 44-45.

61. Al-Qur’Én, III (‘Ól-Ê ‘ImrÉn), 7, Bell, I, p. 45.

62. TÉ’rikh MadÊnat Dimashq. See, GAL, G. I, p. 331.

63. ×arf may mean various ways of reading the Qur’Én, as it is attached to the

expression al-aÍruf al-sab‘a, sometimes identified with al-qira’at al-sab‘a of the

prophetic Tradition ”unzila al-qur’Én ‘alÉ sab‘ati ahruf and another tradition:

“… qÉla: faqulnÉ innama ‘khtalafnÉ fÊ al-qirÉ’a. qalÉ: fa ‘hmarr wajh RasËl-

allÉh wa qÉla: innamÉ halaka man kana qablukum bi ‘khtilafihim baynahum…”

See, Mukarram, ‘Abd al-‘Ali SÉlim, et al., Mu‘jam al-QirÉ’at al-Qur’Éniyya,

Kuwayt, Matbˑat Jamʑat al-Kuwayt, 1406/1986, I, p. 32.

64. Al-Qur’Én, XXI (Al-AnbiyÉ’), 22, Bell, I, p. 306.

65. Al-Qur’Én, II (al-Baqarah), 189, Bell, I, p. 26.

66. Al-ÙabarÊ interpreted yawm al-ba‘th as the day when the people were awakened

from their graves. See, TafsÊr al-ÙabarÊ, XVIII, p. 58.

67. There are a number of verses in the Qur’Én which deals with the concept of

wa‘Êd, such as XIV:14; XX:113; L: pp. 20, 28, 14, 45.

68. Al-Qur’Én, XXXVI (YÉsÊn), 76, Bell, II, p. 439.

69. Al-Qur’Én, VIII (al-AnfÉl), 58, Bell, I, p. 168.

70 Al-Qur’Én, XVIII (al-Kahf), 11, Bell, I, p. 274.

71. Al-Qur’Én, XXV (al-FurqÉn), 73, Bell, II, p. 351.

72. Al-Husayn ibn ‘AlÊ ibn YazÊd al-BaghdÉdÊ al-KarabisÊ was referred to by

al-DhahabÊ as FaqÊh BaghdÉd who studied jurisprudence under ImÉm al-ShÉfi‘Ê.

He was the author of many works. He died in ca. 245/860. Al-DhahabÊ, SAN,

XII, pp. 79-82.

73. This probably refers to AbË Thawr IbrÉhÊm ibn KhÉlid ibn AbÊ ’l-YamÉn al-KalbÊ

who died in Baghdad in 240/854. AbË Thawr, according to Schacht, was a

prominent jurisconsult and founder of a school of religious law. Due to his stay

in Irak one generation after al-ShÉfi‘Ê, AbË Thawr, Schacht argues, “seems to have

been influenced by al-ShÉfi‘Ê’s methodological insistence on the authority of the

ÍadÊth of the Prophet (œ), without, however, renouncing the use of ra’y as had

been customary in the ancient schools of law.” See Schacht, J., “AbË Thawr,”

in EI2, I, p. 155.



Hamdard Islamicus 42 Vol. XL, No. 4

Bibliography

Abrahamov, Binyamin, Islamic Theology: Traditionalism and Rationalism, Edinburgh,

Edinburgh University Press, 1998.

Al-Ba‘albaki, RËÍÊ, al-Mawrid, Arabic English Dictionary, Beirut, DÉr al-‘llm li‘l-

MalÉyÊnÊ, 1988.

Bell, R., The Qur’Én, translated with a critical re-arrangement of the SËrahs, Edinburgh,

T&T. Clark, 1937, 2 vols.

Brockelmann, Carl, Geschichte der arabischen Literatur, 2 vols., Leiden, E.J. Brill,

1943-1949); 3 Supplements, Leiden, E.J. Brill, 1937-1942.

Busard, H.L.L., (Ed.), The First Latin Translation of Euclid’s Elements, Commonly

Ascribed to Adelard of Bath, Books I-VIII and Books X.36-XV.2. Canada,

Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1983.

Chroust, Anton-Herman, Aristotle New Light on his Life and on Some of His Lost

Works, London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1973, 2 vols.

Al-DhahabÊ, Siyar A‘lÉm al-NubalÉ’, Beirut, Mu’assasa al-Risala, 1986-1992, 25 vols.,

Ed. Shu’ayb al-Arna’ut.

Al-GhazÉlÊ, AbË ×Émid, al-MustasfÉ min ‘Ilm al-UÎËl, Cairo, Al-Matba‘a al-AmirÊyya,

1322/1904, 2 vols.

Gibb, Sir. H.A., “The Influence of Islamic Culture on Medieval Europe,” In: Bulletin

of the John Ryland’s Library, Manchester, 38 (1955), pp. 82-98.

Goichon, A.M., “Ibn SÊnÉ,” in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition, Leiden &

London, E.J. Brill & Luzac & Co, 1971, Ed. B. Lewis et al., vol. III, pp. 941-

947.

Hallaq, W.B., Ibn Taymiyya Against the Greek Logicians, translation with an introduction

and notes, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1993.

Al-HamawÊ, Yaqut ibn ‘Abd Allah al-RËmÊ, Jacut’s Geographisches Wörterbuch,

Ed. F. Wüstenfeld, Leipzig, 1866-1873, 6 vols.

Heffening, W., “al-Nawawi” in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition, Leiden &

New York, E.J. Brill, 1993, Ed. C.E. Bosworth et al., vol. VII, p. 1041.

Hillenbrand, C., “al-RashÊd,” in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition, Leiden,

E.J. Brill, 1995, Ed. C.E. Bosworth et al., vol. VIII, pp. 439-440.

Ibn MÉjah, Sunan Ibn MÉjah, Cairo, DÉr al-IhyÉ’ al-Kutub al-‘Arabiyya, 1373/1953,

Ed. MuÍammad Fu’Éd ‘Abd al-BÉqÊ, vol. II.

Ibn Taymiyyah, KitÉb al-Radd ‘ala ’l-ManÏiqiyyÊn, Bombay, al-MaÏba‘a al-Qayyima,

1949, Ed. Sharaf al-DÊn al-KutubÊ.

Ivanov, W., Brief Survey of the Evolution of Isma‘ilism, Leiden, E.J. Brill, 1952.

Jolivet, J and R. Rashed, “al-KindÊ,” in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition,

Leiden, E.J. Brill, 1986, Ed. C.E. Bosworth et al., vol. V, pp. 122-123.

KhalÊfa, ×ÉjjÊ Kashf al-ÚunËn ‘an asÉmÊ ‘l-Kutub wa ‘l-Funun, Ed. Serefettin Yaltkaya

and Kilisli Rifat Bilge, Istanbul, 1941-1943, 2 vols.

Kopf, L., “al-DjawharÊ,” in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition, Leiden & Paris,

E.J. Brill, G.-P. Maisonneuve and Larose S.A., 1965, Ed. B. Lewis et al., vol. II,

pp. 495-497.



Hamdard Islamicus 43 Vol. XL, No. 4

Lane, E.W., Arabic-English Lexicon, Cambridge, The Islamic Texts Society, 1984,

2 vols.

Laoust, H., “Ibn KathÊr,” in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition,

Leiden & London, E.J. Brill and Luzac & Co., 1971, Ed. B. Lewis et al., vol. III,

pp. 817-818.

Lewis, B., et. al., “Ibn ZËlÉq,” in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition, Leiden &

London, E.J. Brill and Luzac & Co, 1971, ed., B. Lewis et al., vol. III,

p. 979.

Madjid, Nurcholish, Ibn Taymiyyah  in ‘Kalam’ and ‘Falsafah’ (A Problem of Reason

and Revelation in Islam), Michigan, UMI Dissertation Services, 1997.

Ma‘rË, BashshÉr ‘AwwÉd, al-DhahabÊ wa MinÍÉjuhË fi KitÉbihÊ TÉrÊkh al-Islam, Cairo,

Matba‘at ‘IsÉ al-BÉbÊ al-×alabÊ wa ShirkÉhu, 1976.

Meyerhof, Max, “New Light on ×unain b. IsÍÉq and his Period,” in ISIS, 1925, VIII,

pp. 685-724.

Monnot, G., ‘al-Shahrastani,’ The Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edn., Leiden, E.J. Brill,

1998, Ed. C.E. Bosworth et al., vol. IX, pp. 214-216.

Mukarram, ‘Abd al-‘Ali Salim et al., Mu‘jam al-Qira’a al-Qur’aniyya, Kuwayt, MatbË’Ét

Jami‘at al-Kuwayt, 1406/1986.

Al-Nashshar, ‘Ali Sami, Manahij al-BaÍth ‘inda MufakkirÊn al-Islam, Cairo, Dar

al-Ma’arif, 1978.

Salibi, K.S., “Ibn Djama’a,” in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition, Leiden &

London, E.J. Brill and Luzac & Co., 1971, Ed. B. Lewis et al., vol. III, p. 748-

749.

Sartain, E.M., JalÉl al-DÊn al-SuyËÏÊ: Biography and Background, Cambridge, Cambridge

University Press, 1975.

Schacht, J., “AbË Thawr,” in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition, Leiden &

London, E.J. Brill and Luzac & Co., 1960, Ed. H.A.R. Gibb et al., vol. I, p. 155.

Sourdel, D., ‘al-BarÉmika,’ in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition, Leiden &

London, E.J. Brill and Luzac & Co, 1960, Ed. H.A.R. Gibb et al., vol. I, p. 1034.

Suter, H., “al-Magest,” in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, 1st Edition Leyden & London,

E.J. Brill and Luzac & Co, 1913, Ed. M. Th. Houtsma et al., vol. I, p. 313.

Al-SuyËÏÊ, KitÉb al-Tahadduth bi Ni‘mati ’llÉh, Cairo, al-Matba’a al-‘Arabiyya

al-×adÊtha, Ed. E.M. Sartain

——, TabaqÉt al-HuffÉz, Cairo, Maktaba Wahba, 1973, Ed. ‘Ali Muhammad ‘Umar,

2 vols.

Al-ÙabarÊ, Ibn JarÊr, TafsÊr al-ÙabarÊ, Cairo, 1954-1957, XVIII, Ed. A.S. ‘Ali, MustafÉ

al-SaqqÉ et al.

Van Koningsveld, P.S., “Greek Manuscripts in the Early Abbasid Empire: Fiction and

Facts about their Origin, Translation and Destruction,” in Bibliotheca Orientalis,

LV No. 3/4, Mei-August (1998), pp. 345-370.

Von Grunebaum, G.E., “Islam and Hellenism,” in Logic in Classical Islamic Culture

(Ed.) G.E. von Grunebau, Wiesbaden, Otto Harrassowitz, 1970.

Wensinck, E.J., The Muslim Creed: Its Genesis and Historical Development, New

Delhi, Oriental Books Reprint Corporation, 1979.

YÉsÊn, Ja‘far ‘AlÊ, FaylasËf ‘Alim: DirÉsa TaÍÊliyya li ×ayÉt ibn SÊnÉ wa Fikrih

al-FalsafÊ, Beirut, DÉ al-Andalus, 1984/1404.