ibntaymiyyahs-jarh-of-ibnsina

Journal of Islamic Studies 14:2 (2003) pp. 149–203

� Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies 2003

A MAML?K THEOLOGIAN’S

COMMENTARY ON AVICENNA’S

RIS2LA ADEAWIYYA

BEING A TRANSLATION OF A PART

OF THE DAR8 AL-TA62RUD OF IBN

TAYMIYYA, WITH INTRODUCTION,

ANNOTATION, AND APPENDICES

PART I

YAHYA J. MICHOTFaculty of Theology, Oxford University

Avicenna’s Epistle on the Ma6:d for the Feast of the Sacrifice (al-Ris:latal-A@Aawiyya f; amr al-ma6:d)1 is probably his most important work oneschatology. It starts with a definition of ma6:d as the place or statereached by humans when they die. It surveys and refutes what thephilosopher calls ‘false ideas’ about the hereafter. It then demonstratesthe purely immaterial nature of the human self and, consequently, itsnecessary permanence after death. Finally, it distinguishes variouscategories of humans and their respective future destinies, and examinesthe question of bodily resurrection. Because of its sometimes very daringviews, the work has been judged by various modern scholars as

1 See G. C. Anawati, Essai de bibliographie avicennienne–Mu8allaf:t Ibn S;n:(Cairo: Al-Maaref, Millenaire d’Avicenne, 1950), 256–7, no. 200; Y. Mahdavi,Bibliographie d’Ibn Sina–Fihrist-e nuskhath:-ye muBannaf:t-e Ibn-i S;n:(Tehran: Tehran University, 1333/1954), 39–41, no. 30. Editions by S. Duny:,Ibn S;n:, al-Ris:lat al-A@Aawiyya f; l-ma6:d (Cairo: D:r al-fikr al-6Arab;, 1328/1949); F. Lucchetta, Avicenna, al-Ris:lat al-A@Aawiyya f; l-ma6:d–Epistola sullaVita Futura (Padova: Antenore, 1969), 5–227; E. 62B;, al-A@Aawiyya f; l-ma6:dli-Ibn S;n: (Beirut: al-Mu8assasat al-j:mi6iyya li-l-dir:s:t wa-l-nashr wa-l-tawz;6,1404/1984), 85–158. Translations into Italian by F. Lucchetta, Epistola, 4–226;Persian in H. Khadiw-i Djam, al-A@Aawiyya by Ibn Sina (Tehran: EttelaatPublications, 1364/1985), 31–85. I use F. Lucchetta’s edition (hereafter L), whichis the one most commonly referred to in Western scholarship.

particularly ‘esoteric’, reserved for the circle of Avicenna’s closestdisciples and friends, and—even—justifying Ab< E:mid al-Ghaz:l;’saccusations of heresy against him!2 As for the dating of the A@Aawiyya,these scholars have generally taken the view that such a work could havebeen written only when Avicenna’s thought had fully matured, duringthe last years of his life, ‘nelle ultime tappe del suo burrascosoperegrinare’.3

I have contested the usefulness of the concept of ‘esotericism’ asan approach not only to the A@Aawiyya but to Avicenna’s writings ingeneral, and I have argued that this epistle is an early work.4 In myopinion, it must be identified with the Book on the Return (Kit:b al-Ma 6:d) mentioned in Avicenna’s long bibliography, and thereforewas written during his stay in Rayy in 405/1014–15. According toal-Bayhaq; (d. 565/1169),5 it was dedicated to the vizier Ab< Sa6dal-Hamadh:n;. This statement can be accepted and helps to understandthe circumstances in which the epistle was composed: it was not directedto any circle of close disciples or friends but to a potential patron, in aperiod when Avicenna, a young Bukh:ran immigrant newly arrived inone of the most brilliant B<yid courts, was facing social and professionaldifficulties.6 In this respect, Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728/1328) is completelyright when, referring to its introduction, he writes that the philosophercomposed the A@Aawiyya ‘for some of the statesmen (ra8;s) whom hewas seeking to get closer to so that they would give him what he soughtfrom them: a position (j:h) and money. He stated that openly at thebeginning of this epistle’.7

As established by F. Lucchetta,8 the A@Aawiyya almost certainlyremained unknown to the medieval European philosophers. It wastranslated for the first time into Latin at the beginning of the sixteenth

2 See e.g. G. C. Anawati, ‘Un cas typique de l’esoterisme avicennien:Sa doctrine de la resurrection des corps’, in La Revue du Caire, 141, specialnumber: Millenaire d’Avicenne (Abou Ali Ibn Sina) (Cairo, June 1951), 68–94;90–4; F. Lucchetta, Epistola, xiv–xvi; ‘La cosidetta ‘‘teoria della doppia verita’’nella Ris:la a@Aawiyya di Avicenna e la sua trasmissione all’Occidente’, inOriente e Occidente nel Medioevo: Filosofia e scienze (Rome: AccademiaNazionale dei Lincei, 1971), 97–116.

3 See F. Lucchetta, Epistola, xvii; Teoria.4 See Y. Michot, Ibn S;n:, Lettre au vizir Ab< Sa6d (Paris: Albouraq, 1421/

2000), 28*.5 See al-Bayhaq;’s text translated in Y. Michot, Vizir, 27*.6 On this important aspect of Avicenna’s career, see Y. Michot, Vizir, 31*–51*.7 See p. 10. (References in bold are to the pages of the Arabic text of Ibn

Taymiyya’s commentary translated below, where they are given in squarebrackets).

8 F. Lucchetta, Teoria, 108–9.

150 yahya j. michot

century, by Andrea Alpago of Belluno (c.1450–1522).9 From about 1487to, it seems, 1517, the Italian served as physician to the Venetianconsulate in Damascus. Apart from medicine and philosophy, he alsobecame interested in the political developments of that time in Syria (thelast Maml<ks and the Ottoman menace), the economic situation of thatregion, and Arabo-Islamic culture, for which he shows sympathy andadmiration in various writings. It is, however, for his Latin translationsof Avicenna that he is most famous: he not only revised Gerard ofCremona’s translation of the Canon of Medicine (twelfth century)10 butproduced the first translation of a group of minor writings oftenconcerning psychology, among others the A@Aawiyya. Alpago died toosoon after his return from the Middle East to see his translations inprint. However, his nephew Paolo, who had accompanied him inSyria, ensured they were eventually published. The Canon came outin 1544; the Libellus Avicennae de Almahad in 1546, in Venice,apud Iuntas.

Alpago had been able to acquire his impressive knowledge ofArabic, medicine, and philosophy because, as his nephew reports,he ‘had sought out, in his old age, the hiding places of the Arabiclanguage and trustworthy manuscripts (fides codicum) in Cyprus, Syria,Egypt, and virtually the whole Orient’.11 Moreover, during his long stay

9 A. Alpago, De mahad .i. de dispositione, seu loco, ad quem revertiturhomo, vel anima eius post mortem, in Avicennae philosophi præclarissimi acmedicorum principis Compendium de anima, De mahad [. . .], Aphorismi deanima, De diffinitionibus & quæsitis, De divisione scientiarum [. . .] ex arabico inlatinum versa cum expositionibus eiusdem Andreæ collectis ab auctoribusarabicis, omnia nunc primum in lucem edita (Venice: Apud Iuntas, 1546). Offsetreprint (Westmead, Farnborough: Gregg International, 1969), fos. 40–102. OnA. Alpago, see the pioneering studies of M.-T. d’Alverny reprinted in herAvicenne en Occident (Paris: J. Vrin, 1993), §§xii–xv; G. Levi dellaVida, ‘Alpago, Andrea’, in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, ii (Rome:Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, 1960), 524–7; the authoritative monographby F. Lucchetta, Il medico e filosofo bellunese Andrea Alpago (þ 1520),traduttore di Avicenna; Profilo biographico (Padova: Antenore, 1964);G. Vercellin, Il Canone di Avicenna fra Europa e Oriente nel primoCinquecento: L’Interpretatio Arabicorum nominum di Andrea Alpago (Turin:UTET, 1991).

10 On the historical and scientific importance of Alpago’s version of theCanon, see N. G. Siraisi, Avicenna in Renaissance Italy: The Canon and MedicalTeaching in Italian Universities after 1500 (Princeton: Princeton University Press,1987).

11 Paolo Alpago quoted in C. Burnett, ‘The Second Revelation of ArabicPhilosophy and Science: 1492–1562’, in C. Burnett and A. Contadini (eds.),Islam and the Italian Renaissance (London: Warburg Institute, 1999),185–98; 191.

ibn taymiyya on avicenna’s RIS2LA ADEAWIYYA 151

in Damascus, he had enjoyed the friendship and teaching ofsomeone he himself calls ‘Rays Ebenmechi, praeceptor meus’ and‘Ebenmechi, physicus inter omnes Arabes primarius’,12 i.e. MuAammadShams al-D;n Ibn al-Makk; (d. 938/1532), the famous ‘shaykh ofthe physicians in Damascus and, even, elsewhere’, according to Najm al-D;n al-Ghazz; (d. 1061/1651), who also knew and taught ‘cosmography,geometry, astronomy’, ‘physics’, and ‘the science of divinity’.13 TheBellunese’s interest in the A@Aawiyya and other Avicennan writingspreviously unknown in Europe can almost certainly be traced back to hisrelationship with this important Syrian scholar.

Once translated and published in Latin, the A@Aawiyya was, inAlpago’s mind, sure to be of great help in promoting in Europe aspiritualist and personalist conception of man and the hereafter,against Averroes’ materialist and unitarist psychology, or Pompon-azzi’s eschatological agnosticism.14 As for the influence this epistle hadon Islamic thought during the five centuries separating Avicenna fromAlpago, it has not yet been investigated. Avicenna’s modern biblio-graphers do not mention any commentary on, or refutation of, theepistle. Interestingly, it is among the Avicennan texts collected in thephilosophico-eschatological majm<6a copied in the Madrasa Muj:hi-diyya of Mar:gha in 596–7/1200, which probably preserved thetextbooks then taught in a school attended at some point intheir careers by, among others, Shih:b al-D;n al-Suhraward; (d. 587/1191) and Fakhr al-D;n al-R:z; (d. 606/1210).15 In any case, one is

12 Quotations in F. Lucchetta, Medico, 34.13 See Appendix I, pp. 195–8.14 See Alpago’s declaration quoted by F. Lucchetta, Medico, 75–6; Teoria,

110–3. According to M.-T. d’Alverny (‘Andrea Alpago, interprete et commenta-teur d’Avicenne’, in Aristotelismo Padovano. Atti del xii CongressoInternazionale di Filosofia (Florence, 1960), 1–6; reprinted in her Avicenne,§xiv; 2), the fact is however that the Libellus Avicennae de Almahad became‘a rare book’ that would be read only by a few people. It was also ‘coming toolate, as the great battles [between humanists and Averroists] had quietened downby the time it was published’ (M.-T. d’Alverny, ‘Survivance et renaissanced’Avicenne a Venise et Padoue’, in Venezia e l’Oriente fra Tardo Medioevo eRinascimento (Florence, 1966), 75–102; reprinted in her Avicenne, §xv; 102).For references on these battles, see M. Cruz Hernandez, Ab< l-Wal;dMuAammad Ibn Rusd (Averroes); Vida, Obra, Pensamiento, Influencia(Cordoba: Cajasur Publicaciones, 1997), 489–93.

15 See N. Pourjavady, Majm<6ah-ye falsaf;-e Mar:ghah: A PhilosophicalAnthology from Maraghah, Containing Works by Ab< E:mid Ghazz:l;, 6Ayn al-Qu@:t Hamad:n;, Ibn S;n:, 6Umar Ibn Sahl:n S:v;, Majdudd;n J;l;, and others;facsimile ed. with introductions in Persian and English (Tehran: Iran UniversityPress, 2002), iii–iv and 365–402.

152 yahya j. michot

entitled to think that the A@Aawiyya was read by some of the mostimportant thinkers of medieval Islam.

In an earlier publication, I indicated a few textual parallels betweenthe last pages of the epistle and parts of one of the versions of the Kit:b al-Ma@n<n bi-hi 6al: ghayr ahli-hi widely attributed to Ab< E:mid al-Ghaz:l; (d. 505/1111).16

In the Tamh;d:t, 6Ayn al-Qu@:t al-Hamadh:n; (d. 525/1131) ex-plicitly refers to the A@Aawiyya. However, the passage from it he claims

16 See Y. Michot, ‘Avicenne et le Kit:b al-Ma@n<n d’al-Ghaz:l;’, in Bulletinde Philosophie medievale, 18 (Louvain: SIEPM, 1976), 51–9. The parallelsrelate to the Cairo edition of the Ma@n<n (al-Ghaz:l;, al-Ma@n<n bi-hi 6al:ghayr ahli-hi, ed. M. M. Ab< l-6Al:8, al-QuB<r al-6aw:l; min ras:8il al-im:mal-Ghaz:l;, II (Cairo: Maktabat al-Jand;, 1390/1970), 124–69; 147–8, 152–3).This edition differs from the text of the Ma@n<n preserved in the Mar:ghaMS (see N. Pourjavady, Majm<6ah, 1–62). More or less dissimilar versionsof some pages of the Cairo edition of the Ma@n<n can be recognized in partsof Ghaz:l;’s al-Mas:8il al-ukhrawiyya also preserved in the Mar:gha MS(N. Pourjavady, Majm<6ah, 191–224), giving the impression of two stu-dents’ reports of the same oral teachings. These parts of al-Mas:8il unfortunatelydo not seem to include any correspondence to the passages of the Cairo edition ofthe Ma@n<n containing parallels with the A@Aawiyya.

On the question of Ghaz:l;’s authorship of the Ma@n<n and its variousversions, see M. Bouyges, Essai de chronologie des œuvres de al-Ghazali(Algazel), edited and updated by M. Allard (Beirut: Imprimerie Catholique,1959), 51–3, no. 39; N. Pourjavady, ‘2th:r-e al-Ma@n<n-e Ghazz:l; darmajm<6ah-ye falsaf;-e Mar:ghah’, in Ma6:rif, vol. viii, 2 (Mord:d-2b:n 1380/Nov. 2001), 3–28, (reprinted in his Two Renewers of Faith: Studies onMuhammad-i Ghazz:l; and Fakhrudd;n-; R:z;. Preface by H. Landolt(Tehran: Iran University Press, 2002), 291–316); D< sanad-e d;gar darb:reh-yeKit:b al-Ma@n<n-e Ghazz:l;, in Renewers, 317–23; Majm<6ah, pp. iv–v. IbnTaymiyya believed the work to be authentic. Further study will, however, benecessary to verify which text of the Ma@n<n he knew, the Cairo-edition text,that of the Mar:gha MS, or yet another text. ‘Those took the way of thephilosophers which Ab< E:mid [al-Ghaz:l;] refers to in The Balance of Action(M;z:n al-6amal), and which consists in saying that somebody eminent has threecreeds: one creed with the commonalty, according to which he lives in this world,like fiqh e.g.; one creed with students, which he teaches them, like Kal:mtheology; and a third one about which he informs nobody but the elite. This iswhy he composed The Books to be preserved from those who are not worthy ofthem (al-Kutub al-ma@n<n bi-h: 6al: ghayr ahli-h:). Their [content] is purephilosophy, for which he took Avicenna’s way’ (Ibn Taymiyya, Kit:b al-Nubuww:t (Beirut: D:r al-Fikr, n.d.), 81–2). ‘As for The Book to be preservedfrom those who are not worthy of it, a . . . group of scholars deny its authenticity.The specialists of [al-Ghaz:l;] and of his life however know that all this is said byhim as they know the subjects he speaks about and their similarity one toanother. He and his like, as said earlier, were confused (mu@3arib) and did notstick to any firm saying’ (Ibn Taymiyya, Majm<6 al-fat:w:, ed. 6A. R. b. M. IbnQ:sim, 37 vols. (Rabat: Maktabat al-ma6:rif, 1401/1981), iv. 65; hereafter F).


to quote is part of a different writing, The Guidance (al-Irsh:d), whoseattribution to Avicenna is itself questionable.17

Fakhr al-D;n al-R:z; is far more serious when, in his Commentary onAvicenna’s The Sources of Wisdom (SharA 6Uy<n al-Aikma),18 heexplains what follows:

The Shaykh [i.e. Avicenna] mentioned, concerning the practical sciences, thattheir principles and their ultimate developments (gh:ya) are acquired from theauthors of the [religious] Laws (arb:b al-shar:8i 6). Concerning these theoreticalsciences, he mentioned that their principles are also acquired from the authors ofthe [religious] Laws; as for their perfections and their ultimate developments,they are made clear (mubayyan) by the rational faculty, through argumentation(6al: sab;l al-Aujja). Now, the difference between the two matters is what[Avicenna] mentioned in his epistle which he called al-A@Aawiyya. The Lawgiver,he said, is under the obligation to invite [people] to confess the existence ofGod—exalted is He—, His being exempted from deficiencies and vices, and Hisbeing qualified by the epithets of perfection and the marks of majesty. As forstating openly that [God]—praised is He—is not occupying space (muta-Aayyiz),19 nor effectively existing (A:Bil) in location (mak:n) and position20

(jiha), these are among things that [the Lawgiver] is under no obligation to stateopenly. Similar topics of research are indeed among the things at which the witsof most of the creatures do not arrive. Were he to invite people to that, it woulddeter them from accepting his missionary call (da6wa). Certainly, [the Lawgiver]was under the obligation to be content with such a summary (mujmal) call. Asfor the subtle details [of these matters], he was under the obligation not to statethem openly [but] to entrust them to the intellects of smart people.

Now that you know that, we will say that the meaning of [Avicenna’s] words‘The principles of these parts of theoretical philosophy are acquired from theauthors of the divine religion (milla) through [some] awakening (tanb;h)’ is what

17 See 6A. Q. al-Hamadh:n;, Tamh;d:t, ed. A. Osseiran (Tehran: Intish:r:t-eMin<tchihr;, 1377/1999), 349; C. Tortel, 6Ayn al-Quz:t Hamad:n;: LesTentations metaphysiques (Tamh;d:t) (Paris: Les Deux Oceans, 1992), 306;Y. Michot, Vizir, 61*. See also H. Dabashi’s opinion that the A@Aawiyya ‘appearsprominently and approvingly in 6Ayn al-Qud:t’s Tamh;d:t’ (Truth andNarrative: The Untimely Thoughts of 6Ayn al-Qu@:t al-Hamadh:n;(Richmond: Curzon Press, 1999), 274).

18 See F. D. al-R:z;, SharA 6Uy<n al-Aikma, ed. A. E. A. al-Saqq:, 3 vols.(Cairo: Anglo-Egyptian Bookshop, 1400/1986), 19–21. I am grateful to AymanShihadeh for this reference.

19 On the meaning of taAayyuz as ‘ubication’ and mutaAayyiz as ‘occupyingspace’, see R. Frank, Beings and Their Attributes: The Teaching of the BasrianSchool of the Mu6tazila in the Classical Period (Albany: State University ofNew York Press, 1978), 39, 56. For the Mu6tazil; Ab< H:shim al-Jubb:8;,‘the essential characteristic of the atom—its essential attribute—is that itoccupy space (Aayyiz) and to occupy space entails being in one particularposition or location and not in another’ (ibid. 96).

20 On the meaning of jiha as ‘position’, not ‘direction’, see ibid. 114–15.

154 yahya j. michot

we have mentioned, i.e. that the Lawgiver is under the obligation to guide thecreatures towards confessing [God’s] absolute exemption [from deficiencies](tanz;h) and towards confessing His being qualified by all perfection and majesty.As for his words ‘And left free to obtain them perfectly by the rational faculty,through argumentation’, their meaning is what we have mentioned, i.e. that thesesubtle subjects of study, [the Lawgiver] is under the obligation to entrust theknowing of them to the intellects of smart creatures.

In this important passage, al-R:z; is not paying attention to theideas developed in the A@Aawiyya concerning psychology or eschatologybut, rather, to Avicenna’s understanding of the purpose and limits of anyprophetic mission, as expressed in the third section of the epistle.21

Avicenna’s philosophy of prophethood is not idealist but pragmatic andethically oriented.22 The Messengers are sent to guide humans on theright path and establish law, justice, and order in their jungle, not toteach them theology or any other science. To lead people to Paradise,revelations must be obeyed by them literally rather than interpreted asimages or symbols of some intellectual or esoteric truth that mustnecessarily be learnt by all. What the Qur8:n tells the masses about Godis in fact limited to a few general but ethically useful statements. As forthe very subtle doctrines of scholastic theodicy elaborated bythe Mutakallim<n, God never intended to teach them to the populace,and the theologians cannot claim to have any explicit scriptural basis.For Avicenna, the problem is not only that the Kal:m theologiansmake such illegitimate claims, but that they are incoherent: whereas theydo not mind elaborating about God’s nature, attributes, and actions, atconsiderable remove from the most obvious meaning of the revealedtexts, they become strict and narrow–minded literalists in eschatologicalmatters and speak of bodily resurrection in physical and materialisticterms. As for himself, the philosopher argues in the A@Aawiyya thatthere is no more reason to rely on scriptural statements to build adoctrine of the hereafter than to develop a theodicy: ‘Haec igitur omnia

21 Avicenna, A@Aawiyya, 42–62; trans. Alpago, De mahad, fos. 43v–45v;trans. Lucchetta, Epistola, 43–63; see below, p. 10–8. The hermeneutical pagesof the A@Aawiyya are well analysed by F. Lucchetta in Teoria.

22 See Y. Michot, La Destinee de l’homme selon Avicenne: Le retour a Dieu(ma6:d) et l’imagination (Louvain: Peeters, 1986), 30–43. The main ideas ofAvicenna’s political philosophy of the prophetic mission and its strategyfor success are also present in his al-Shif:8, Al-Il:hiyy:t (2) (La Metaphysique),ed. M. Y. Moussa, S. Dunya, and S. Zayed (Cairo: OGIG, 1960), X. ii. 441–3;Avicenna Latinus, Liber de Philosophia Prima sive Scientia Divina, Livres V–X,ed. S. Van Riet (Louvain: Peeters; and Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1980), 531–5. However,in this work, they develop neither into an hermeneutic of the Scriptures nor intoa deconstruction of Kal:m theology, as is the case in the A@Aawiyya.


supradicta sunt sermones, ad docendum homines scientia excellentes,non vulgares, quod sensus exterior legis, ut verba sonant, est nonnecessarium, neque utilis ad concludendum aliquid in his capitulis’.23

The essential purpose of the Qur8:nic descriptions of Paradise and Hell isto inspire fear, hope, and other feelings of great ethical benefit, not tofound any eschatological science.

Al-R:z; does not share this Avicennan prophetology and reads thepassage of the A@Aawiyya to which he is referring in a sense that has verylittle to do with the philosopher’s intentions in that section of his epistle.Whereas Avicenna develops his hermeneutic of the revealed texts inorder to criticize Kal:m, al-R:z; misuses it in order to legitimize the kindof rationalist theology for which he himself is famous!

Is it al-R:z;’s suspect interpretation of an important part of theA@Aawiyya which, a bit more than one century later, led the Shaykh al-Isl:m Ibn Taymiyya to devote his attention to the same text? In thepresent state of Taymiyyan studies, it is impossible to give a definiteanswer to this question. One thing, however, is certain—the greatinterest of the theologian in the Shaykh al-Ra8;s’ works,24 among themthe A@Aawiyya. According to his disciple Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya(d. 751/1350), he indeed wrote some ‘Rules (qaw:6id) concerning theEstablishment of the Return (ma6:d) and Refutation of Avicenna in hisRis:la A@Aawiyya. About one volume’.25 Moreover, he comments on thehermeneutical pages of the epistle in his long Averting the Conflictbetween Reason and [religious] Tradition (Dar8 ta6:ru@ al-6aql wa-l-naql), also known under the title The Agreement between what issoundly transmitted [in religious matters] and what is clearly intellected

23 Avicenna, A@Aawiyya, trans. Alpago, De mahad, fo. 45v; see below, p. 18.24 Ibn Taymiyya’s Avicennism, be it positive or negative, is indubitable in

many respects. It is what originally aroused my interest in him and, in thepublications I have since devoted to him, I have situated him vis-a-vis theShaykh al-Ra8;s in places too numerous to mention here. This essential aspectof Ibn Taymiyya’s thought, however, remains to be studied systematically.For some of his general opinions on the philosopher, see the texts translated byY. Michot, Musique et danse selon Ibn Taymiyya: Le Livre du Sam:6 et de ladanse (Kit:b al-sam:6 wa-l-raqB) compile par le Shaykh MuAammad al-Manbij;(Paris: J. Vrin, 1991), 77–9; by W. Hallaq, Ibn Taymiyya against the GreekLogicians (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), 63–6; and by D. Gutas, ‘TheHeritage of Avicenna: The Golden Age of Arabic Philosophy, 1000–c.1350’, inJ. Janssens and D. De Smet (eds.), Avicenna and his Heritage (Louvain: LeuvenUniversity Press, 2002), 85.

25 Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, Asm:8 mu8allaf:t Shaykh al-Isl:m Ibn Taymiyya,ed. 4. D. al-Munajjid (Beirut: D:r al-kit:b al-jad;d, 1403/1983), 20, no. 2.A ‘Refutation of Avicenna in his Ris:la A@Aawiyya. Almost one volume’ isalso mentioned by Ibn 6Abd al-H:d; (d. 744/1343), al-6Uq<d al-durriyya minman:qib Shaykh al-Isl:m AAmad bin Taymiyya, ed. M.E. al-Fiq; (Cairo:

156 yahya j. michot

(Muw:faqa BaA;A al-manq<l wa-Bar;A al-ma6q<l).26 The Rules men-tioned by Ibn Qayyim do not seem to have survived. As for thecommentary in the Dar8, it is the object of the following translation.

The Dar8 is a long refutation of the ‘rationalist objection’ (al-mu6:ri@al-6aql;) in religious matters, that is, the claim that precedence shouldalways be given to so-called rational evidence in cases of supposedconflicts between Reason and Scripture. Ibn Taymiyya traces back suchan advocacy of the priority of rational ‘certainties’ (6aql) over thereligious tradition (naql) to al-R:z; and his like, and, before them, to al-Ghaz:l;27. In order to refute it, he develops his attacks from no fewerthan forty-four viewpoints (wajh).28 He comments on Avicenna’s

Ma3ba6a Eij:z;, 1357/1938), 53. An ‘Establishment of the return [of the bodies]and refutation of Avicenna’ is mentioned by 4al:A al-D;n Khal;l al-4afad; (d. 764/1362) in Kit:b al-w:f; bi-l-wafay:t: Das Biographische Lexikon, vol. vii, ed. I.Abbas (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1969), 25, and by MuAammad b. Sh:kiral-Kutub; (d. 764/1362) in Faw:t al-wafay:t wa-l-dhayl 6alay-h:, ed. I. 6Abb:s,2 vols. (Beirut: D:r 4:dir, 1973), i. 76. Zayn al-D;n Ibn Rajab (d. 795/1393)does not mention these titles in his al-Dhayl 6al: Fabaq:t al-Ean:bila, ed.A. E. U. bin Easan and A. Z. E. 6A. Bahjat, 2 vols. (Beirut: D:r al-kutubal-6ilmiyya, 1417/1997), ii. 332–3.

26 Ibn Taymiyya, Dar8 ta6:ru@ al-6aql wa-l-naql aw muw:faqa BaA;A al-manq<l li-Bar;A al-ma6q<l, ed. M. R. S:lim, 11 vols. (Riy:@: D:r al-kun<zal-adabiyya, 1399/1979). On the Dar8, see Y. Michot, ‘Vanites intellectuelles . . .L’impasse des rationalismes selon Le Rejet de la contradiction d’Ibn Taymiyya’,in Oriente Moderno, 19/80 NS (Rome, 2000), 597–617; esp. 598–600; N. Heer,‘The Priority of Reason in the Interpretation of Scripture: Ibn Taym;yah and theMutakallim<n’, in M. Mir (ed., in collab. with J. E. Fossum), Literary Heritage ofClassical Islam: Arabic and Islamic Studies in Honor of J. A. Bellamy (Princeton:Darwin Press, 1993), 181–95; 188–92. The first part of the Dar8, corresponding tovols. i–iv of the S:lim edition, was published in 1321/1903 under its second title:Ibn Taymiyya, Bay:n muw:faqa Bar;A al-ma6q<l li-BaA;A al-manq<l, marginaliaof Ibn Taymiyya, Minh:j al-sunnat al-nabawiyya f; naq@ kal:m al-Sh;6a wa-l-Qadariyya, 4 vols. (Bulaq: al-Ma3ba6at al-kubr: l-am;riyya, 1321/1903; offsetreprint, Beirut: D:r al-fikr, 1400/1980).

27 As correctly noted by M. R. S:lim, editor of the Dar8 (see his introduction,i. 14), Ibn Taymiyya has probably in view the kind of statement one findse.g. in al-Ghaz:l;’s The Rule of Exegesis (Q:n<n al-ta8w;l): ‘Fundamentally,the demonstration [provided by] the Reason (burh:n al-6aql) does not lie. Reasonindeed does not lie. If Reason were lying, it would perhaps lie when it establishes[the truth of] the religious Law (f; ithb:t al-shar6)’ (al-Ghaz:l;, Q:n<n al-ta8w;l,ed. with Ma6:rij al-quds by M. M. Ab< l-6Al:8 (Cairo: Maktabat al-Jand;, n.d.),232–46; 240). For other Ghaz:lian and R:zian texts and, more generally,this conflict between Reason and Scripture, see N. Heer, Priority.

28 Viewpoint IX is translated in Y. Michot, Vanites, 603–17. In IbnTaymiyya: Lettre a Ab< l-Fid:8 (Louvain-la-Neuve: Universite Catholique deLouvain, 1994), mainly 18–38, I translated various passages of Muw:faqacorresponding mainly to Dar8, i. 6–20. Other passages of Dar8 are translatedby N. Heer, Priority.


A@Aawiyya in the first part of the twentieth of these,29 which heintroduces as follows:

Viewpoint XX. It is that we will say that [the path] on which those deniers of the[divine] attributes trod—that is, opposing the divine texts by means of their[own] views—is in itself what the eternalist (dahr;) heretics used as argumentagainst them in order to reject the things that God had told His servantsconcerning the Last Day. [They went] as far as considering that no knowledgecan be derived from what the prophets have told about God and about the LastDay. Then, they transferred this [judgement] to the actions30 they had beencommanded [to perform], like the five prayers, almsgiving, fasting, thepilgrimage, and they considered them as prescribed upon the commonalty, notthe elite. Therefore, they eventually got to the point where they became hereticsabout the three fundamentals on which the religions (milla) are agreed, just as Hehas said, exalted is He: ‘Those who have faith, those who are Jews, theNazarenes, and the Sabaeans—whoever has faith in God and the Last Day andacts virtuously—will have their recompense with their Lord. No fear shall be onthem, neither shall they grieve’ (Q. 2. 62). [4] The matter led those who weretreading on the path of these unto heresy, concerning faith in God and the LastDay as well as virtuous action. This even spread among many of those who delveinto the true realities (Aaq:8iq)—the adepts of speculation (naCar) and devotion(ta8alluh) among the Kal:m theologians and the Sufis.31

In the A@Aawiyya, it is Avicenna’s hermeneutic of the revealed textsthat interests Ibn Taymiyya, as it did al-R:z;, not his psychological andeschatological views. This is already clear when, at the very beginning ofthe Dar8, he briefly mentions Avicenna’s epistle for the first time:

Avicenna and his like based on this principle the rule (q:n<n) they [follow whenreading the revealed texts], as [is the case with] the rule he mentions in his Epistlefor the Feast of the Sacrifice (al-Ris:lat al-A@Aawiyya). By these terms, thosepeople say, the prophets meant their outward meanings. They wanted the crowdto understand, by them, these outward meanings, even if these outwardmeanings, as far as the matter itself is concerned, are a lie, something vain,opposed to the truth. They wanted to make the crowd understand by means oflies and vain things, in their [own better] interest (maBlaAa).32

29 The Viewpoint XX is in Dar8, v. 3–203. The commentary on the A@Aa-wiyya extends from p. 10 to p. 87 (hereafter S).

30 i.e. by a process of transfer, they also started to think that, from the teachingsof the prophets, no knowledge could be derived concerning the actions . . .

31 Ibn Taymiyya, Dar8, v. 3–4.32 Ibn Taymiyya, Dar8, i. 9. For the context, see my translation of the

corresponding pages of Muw:faqa in Lettre, 21–7. So far as I can judge aftersearching the CD-ROMs Majm<6 fat:w: Ibn Taymiyya, version 1.0 (Cairo: EarfInformation Technology, 1999) and Mu8allaf:t al-shaykh wa-tilm;dhi-hi, version1.0 (Amm:n: al-Tur:th, 1420/1999), Ibn Taymiyya does not seem to mention the

158 yahya j. michot

Ibn Taymiyya obviously rejects Avicenna’s understanding of thepurpose of prophethood as a guidance relying on an imaged discoursecapable of mobilizing imaginations and estimative faculties, to befollowed by the crowd in its literality, independently of the question of itstruth or falsehood but unacceptable as a source of knowledge for anykind of theological or eschatological research. The Shaykh al-Isl:m isnevertheless greatly interested in Avicenna’s arguments against theKal:m doctrine of God as he considers them legitimate and to the point.According to him, the Shaykh al-Ra8;s is indeed completely right whenhe criticizes the discontinuity between the literality of the Qur8:n and thesubtile lucubrations of theologians like the Mu6tazil;s and their likeconcerning divinalia. That being so—Ibn Taymiyya seems to relishadding—Avicenna should realize that he will himself be carried off by theattack he launches against the Mutakallim<n, as his own philosophicalideas about God, the hereafter, etc. are as diametrically opposed to theimmediate meaning of revealed texts as scholastic theology is . . .33

Ibn Taymiyya’s treatment of the A@Aawiyya could be called a ‘flowingcommentary’. Its beginning is clearly marked with an extended excerptfrom the Avicennan text but its end is not indicated in any formal

A@Aawiyya explicitly anywhere other than in the passages of the Dar8 translatedhere. See also R. Y. al-Sh:m;, ‘Ibn Taymiyya: MaB:diru-hu wa-manhaju-hu f;taAl;li-h:’, in Journal of the Institute of Arabic Manuscripts, 38 (Cairo: Alecso,1415/1994), 183–269; 235.

The last sentences of this passage can be compared with various Ghaz:liantexts, e.g. Q:n<n, 226: ‘They accused the prophets, prayer and peace be uponthem, of lying in the [public’s] interest (li-ajl al-maBlaAa) . . . They say that theProphet mentioned only what he mentioned, in opposition to what he knew,in the [public’s] interest (li-l-maBlaAa).’ Al-IqtiB:d f; l-i6tiq:d (Cairo: al-B:b;l-Ealab;, 1385/1966), 120: ‘those who accept as true the Artisan andprophethood. They accept the Prophet as true but believe in things that areopposed to the texts of the religious Law. They say, however, that the Prophetknew the truth (muAiqq) and that he had no other purpose (qaBd), by[mentioning] what he mentioned, than the interest (Bal:A) of the creatures. Hehowever was not able to state the truth openly because the wits of the creatureswere too dull to grasp it. These are the philosophers.’ FayBal al-tafriqa, ed. M. M.Ab< l-6Al:8 in al-QuB<r al-6aw:l; min ras:8il al-im:m al-Ghaz:l;, I (Cairo:Maktabat al-Jand;, 1390/1970), 123–59; 142: ‘The interest (Bal:A) of thecreatures, they said, consisted in their believing in the reassembling of theorganisms, as their intellects were too deficient to understand the intellectualreturn [of the souls in the hereafter]. Their interest also consisted in theirbelieving that the exalted God knows what happens to them and watches them,so that this would produce desire and fear in their hearts. It was thus permitted tothe Messenger, peace be upon him, to make them understand that [by anymeans]. Now, somebody who acts in the interest of others is not a liar.’

33 See p. 24.


manner. On a statement in the A@Aawiyya where he thinks thephilosopher speaks of God in too abstract a way, the theologian simplyturns to quotation from and commentary on the Ish:r:t, re-examiningonce more a metaphysical question he is quite keen on—the non-existence of universals outside of the mind. As to ‘structure’ in hiscommentary on the Epistle on the Ma6:d for the Feast of the Sacrifice,the most one might venture to claim is that it unfolds in three main parts.

In the first part, Ibn Taymiyya analyses Avicenna’s hermeneutics anduses the latter’s attacks against the Mu6tazil;s to invalidate all negationisttheology. Such a recourse to Avicenna’s ideas is paradoxical in that IbnTaymiyya then denounces the perverse consequences of the philosopher’spolitical prophetology.34 The theologian’s situation, in doing so, ishowever less uncomfortable than Avicenna’s in that he is able to pointout how the latter’s philosophical theology can itself become a legitimatetarget of his own anti-Mu6tazil; attacks. Comments on three particularhermeneutical statements of the A@Aawiyya conclude this section.

A second part of Ibn Taymiyya’s commentary is purely theological—inthe narrow sense of the word—and addresses the problem of the essence,the knowledge, and the other attributes of God. The point is to refuteAvicenna’s negationist philosophical theology. In relation to specificpassages of the A@Aawiyya, Ibn Taymiyya is led not only to clarifyvarious scholastic notions and doctrinal facts but also to enter a

34 One could accuse Ibn Taymiyya of naıvete, or of playing with fire, when hepraises Avicenna’s denunciation of the non-scripturality of Mu6tazil; theology, asthis denunciation is developed by the Shaykh al-Ra8;s within a philosophy ofreligion that is obviously unacceptable to the theologian: an exclusively socio-political conception of the purpose of prophethood and an hermeneutic denyingto the Qur8:n any kind of immediate usefulness in matters of theology oreschatology. As soon as he acknowledges Avicenna’s merits, Ibn Taymiyya isindeed compelled to underline and condemn the seriously perverse consequencesof his ideas: since the prophets do not really teach any clear truth, many will bethose—‘saints’, ‘im:ms’, ‘gnostics’, etc.—eager to supply the lack with their ownteachings and then claim to be equal or superior to the prophets, not only intheology or eschatology but, even, in Legal matters. The socio-politicalusefulness of prophethood is an idea that Ibn Taymiyya himself accepts only aslong as it is properly understood, i.e. not in the Avicennan perspective of aguidance having nothing to do with knowledge of the truth. On the otherhand, the analysis and rejection of the perverse consequences of Avicenna’sQur8:nic hermeneutics somehow fit in with the general project of refutingthe ‘rationalist objection’ pursued in Dar8. Negationist theologians, philosophers,gnostics, and other ‘holy’ or sectarian esotericists all share a similar contemptfor the outward meaning of the Scripture, and the will to substitute their ownideas for the Prophetic message. That said, there remains the peculiarity of thegreat Maml<k theologian’s love–hate relationship with the ideas of the Shaykhal-Ra8;s.

160 yahya j. michot

relatively long excursus. As a case study, he examines some passagesof the late Mu6tazil; theologian Ab< l-Eusayn al-BaBr; (d. 436/1044),with extensive textual quotations, commentaries on specific statements,and insertion of a text by yet another author, the Eanbal; Ab< l-Easanal-Tam;m; (d. 371/982). Just like Russian dolls or 1001 Nights stories, acommentary is fitted within another, within another. . . Commentson three particular theological statements of the A@Aawiyya concludethis section.

In the last part, Ibn Taymiyya goes back to hermeneutics, in relation tovarious specific passages of the A@Aawiyya. The core questions are,again, the scope and limits of the scriptural and prophetic teachings and,correlatively, the nature and validity of theological research. Theapproach is now multi-confessional, as Avicenna’s text refers to notonly the Qur8:n but the Bible. Ibn Taymiyya’s anger becomes noticeableconcerning what he regards as Avicenna’s contemptuous opinion of theProphet’s Companions and early Muslims, as well as of Moses’ Hebrews.

Ibn Taymiyya alludes to or examines at some length many unexpectedtopics during the course of his commentary, either because he wants todelve deeper into a question or because he cannot resist a digression. Byway of example, suffice it to mention here the links he establishesbetween Avicennan hermeneutics and esotericism or anomialism (pp.22–3), or between negationist theology and associationism (p. 52) orcharlatanry (pp. 62–3), his exposure of pseudepigraphic literature inIslam (pp. 26–8), his radical detraction of the philosophers’ achieve-ments in politics (p. 65) and his critique of their assimilationism (pp. 81–3).

The following outline of the content of his commentary should give aclearer idea of its design:

Quoted pages of the A@Aawiyya (pp. 10–18)

Commentary (pp. 18–86)

I. Avicenna’s hermeneutics (pp. 18–33)A. Refutation of Avicenna’s ideas (pp. 18–30)

1. The validity of Avicenna’s attacks against the negationisttheologians (pp. 18–23)(a) The deniers’ tawA;d (pp. 19–20); Ibn T<mart, Ibn Sab6;n(p. 20); (b) Avicenna’s hermeneutical attack against the deniers’tawA;d (p. 21); (c) Perverse consequence of Avicenna’shermeneutics: philosophers, saints, and im:ms can claimto be superior to the prophets (p. 22); Examples of al-Suhraward;, Ibn Sab6;n, Ibn 6Arab;, and Ism:6;l;s (pp. 22–3)


2. The vain nature of Avicenna’s ideas: his argument can be usedagainst himself (pp. 24–30)(a) The explicit and clear message of the Messengers (pp. 24–8); The Messengers’ ‘esotericism’ and the lies told aboutthe Prophet, 6Al;, and others (pp. 26–8); (b) Nobody candispense with being guided by the Prophet (p. 29); (c)Avicenna’s attack against the deniers’ tawA;d is correctand whoever agrees with them is ignorant, including himself(p. 30)

B. Commentary on Avicenna’s hermeneutical particular statements(pp. 30–3)1. The aim of revelation (pp. 30–1)2. Where is the pure tawA;d in the Qur8:n? (p. 31)3. Where are the subtleties of tawA;d theology in the Qur8:n? For

Ibn Taymiyya, the Qur8:n has a very comprehensive and cleartheology (pp. 32–3)

II. The problem of the essence, the knowledge, and the other attributes ofGod (pp. 33–59)A. Refutation of Avicenna’s negationist views (pp. 33–4)B. Theological precisions and verbal disputes (pp. 34–6)

1. Definition of essence (dh:t) (pp. 34–5)2. Attributes and states (p. 35)3. The sectarian divisions between attributists and Mu6tazil;s

(p. 36)C. A case study: Ab< l-Eusayn al-BaBr; (pp. 36–50)

1. Ab< l-Eusayn al-BaBr;’s quotation (pp. 36–8)2. Commentary on Ab< l-Eusayn al-BaBr;’s statements (pp.

38–50)(a) Essence, attributes, pre-eternity, significates, and states (pp.38–42); (b) The Kull:b;s and the Nazarenes (p. 43); (c) Twoarguments of Ab< l-Eusayn al-BaBr; against the attributists (p.43); (d) Significates, states, and attributes (pp. 44–6); (e) Thedeniers defame the attributists about the multiplicity of pre-eternity and alterity of the attributes (pp. 46–50); Ab< l-Easanal-Tam;m; about pre-eternity of God and His attributes(pp.47–9); Quotation of Ab< l-Easan al-Tam;m; (pp. 47–8);Three views on the alterity of the attributes (Ibn Eanbal, al-Ash6ar;, al-B:qill:n;) (pp. 49–50)

D. Commentary on Avicenna’s statements concerning the essenceand the attributes (pp. 50–9)1. Avicenna’s tactic against the deniers can be used against him by

the attributists. The revelation is clearly attributist (pp. 50–1)

162 yahya j. michot

2. The oneness of God. Ultra-negationist theology and associa-tionism (pp. 52–5)(a) Negationist theology and negation of the Prophet’sprophethood (pp. 53–4); (b) The mental existence of anessence without attribute (pp. 54–5)

3. God, space, and position (pp. 55–6)(a) The notion of space (Aayyiz) (pp. 56–8); Rationality of therevelation, questionability of the Kal:m theses (p. 57); (b) Thenotion of position (jiha) (pp. 58–9)

III. Commentary on Avicenna’s hermeneutical particular statements(pp. 59–86)A. Is theological research necessary? (p. 59)B. Is the true tawA;d clearly taught in the revelation? (pp. 59–60)C. Were the Hebrews and the Arabs forced to theologize? (pp. 60–3)

1. The missionary methodology of negationist theologians (p. 61)2. Pristine natures (fi3ra) favour attributism as they are predis-

posed to grasp the true essence of things (pp. 61–2)3. Negationist theology and charlatanry tricks (pp. 62–3)

D. Avicenna’s contempt for the Hebrews and the Arabs (pp. 63–73)1. Superiority of the people around the prophets MuAammad

and Moses (pp. 63–4)2. Ignorance of Avicenna, his like, and his predecessors: Aris-

totle, etc. (pp. 64–9)(a) Stupidity of the followers of the Ism:6;l;s (p. 64); (b) Thefiasco of philosophers in politics (p. 65); (c) Scientific clevernessand lack of religion (p. 65); (d) Jews and Nazarenes aresuperior to the philosophers, and less of a corruption than thecommonalty of Ism:6;l;s, Tatars, etc. (pp. 66–7); (e) Ignoranceof the astrologers, sorcerers, etc. (pp. 67–8); (f) Aristotle was anassociationist wizard and the vizier of Alexander (pp. 68–9);Alexander and Dh< l-Qarnayn (p. 69)

3. Perfection of the intellects of the followers of the prophets (pp.69–73)(a) Superiority of the Companions of the Prophet, ignorance oftheir critics (pp. 69–70); (b) There is no smarter communitythan the Arabs (p. 71); (c) Perfection of the Arabic language,and then Hebrew (p. 71); Al-Ghaz:l;’s opinion (p. 71); (d)How could Avicenna despise the perfect intelligence of Islam’sgreat names, and their submission to the Companions? (p. 72);Al-Sh:fi6;’s opinion (p. 73)

E. Avicenna’s idea that God does not want to teach the truth to thecrowd (pp. 73–6)


1. It is true that it is not proper for everybody to know allsciences. Scriptural proofs of that point (pp. 73–6); God’srevelation follows a method (p. 76)

2. Negationist theology is rejected by intelligent people as well asby the crowd (p. 76)

F. Avicenna’s remark that the whole of the Jewish Bible is assimi-lationism (pp. 77–81)1. This is an important argument for the attributists against the

negationists (pp. 77–8); The Prophet and Moses confirm eachother (p. 78)

2. Avicenna is right to say that it would be impossible to falsifythe Bible entirely (pp. 78–81); The Prophet did not criticize theanthropomorphisms of the Jewish Bible (pp. 79–81)

G. Avicenna’s remark that the whole of the Jewish Bible is assimi-lationism (bis) (pp. 81–5)1. Some assimilationism is inevitable and acceptable (p. 81)2. Examples of philosophical assimilationism (pp. 81–3)3. The People of the Book’s assimilationism is better than

any philosophical one (p. 83)4. Association in characteristics and difference, in the case of

God and others (pp.83–5)H. Avicenna’s statement that the revelation must hide the truth

(pp. 85–6)1. The science of secrets and Islam (pp. 85–6)2. The agreement between true inner reality and true outer

reality (p. 86)

Transition: commentary on Avicenna’s negationist tawA;d (p. 87)

One may reasonably assume that the A@Aawiyya continued to be read inIran after Fakhr al-D;n al-R:z;. Mull: 4adr: al-Sh;r:z; (d. 1050/1640), for example, refers to it explicitly in the Asf:r,35 concerning thedifference between imaginal forms and forms perceived by the senses.However, this Eastern destiny of Avicenna’s work has yet to beinvestigated systematically. In addition to its rich content, one of themain interests of Ibn Taymiyya’s commentary on the A@Aawiyya is todemonstrate that this most controversial writing of the Shaykh al-Ra8;swas also studied and its authority recognized in Maml<k Syria as early asthe beginning of the eighth/fourteenth century, long before Andrea

35 See M. 4. al-Sh;r:z;, al-Eikmat al-muta6:liya f; l-asf:r al-6aqliyyat al-arba6a, ed. M. R. al-MuCaffar, 9 vols. (Beirut: D:r iAy:8 al-tur:th al-6Arab;, 1423/2002), ix. 130. I have already mentioned the existence of an ancient anonymoustranslation of Avicenna’s epistle into Persian (see H. Khadiw-i Djam, A@Aawiyya).

164 yahya j. michot

Alpago would discover it there. The Damascene theologian’s commen-tary therefore not only provides a useful milestone to trace the historicalitinerary followed by the text from Iran to Venice but also contributes toa better understanding of the fate and metamorphoses of falsafa in theSunn; Near East during the later Middle Ages.

The work done by F. Lucchetta on Alpago and the A@Aawiyyadeserves the greatest consideration. The Italian scholar is neverthelessmistaken when she writes, in relation to this epistle of Avicenna, that‘nell’Islam sunnita le opere del filosofo erano state proibite’.36 Around1500, the A@Aawiyya and other philosophical texts of the Shaykhal-Ra8;s circulated in Damascus in the intellectual milieu of the mostimportant Syrian professor of medicine of the time. Moreover, some twocenturies earlier, a Eanbal; theologian had not hesitated to use some ofits most daring ideas to oppose Kal:m of the Mu6tazil; type and boost hisown literalist rationalism in Qur8:nic hermeneutics.

About philosophical matters as well as in medicine, the ideas of thegreat philosopher thus were far from having lost their seductive poweron the western side of the Euphrates as well. And, as I have explainedelsewhere,37 it is not because there were no more fal:sifa as such thatfalsafa would have become extinct. In Maml<k Syria around 700/1300,it was now practised, not by a few professional philosophers for an eliteof emirs, viziers, or other private patrons, but by various mutafalsifscholars philosophizing in one way or another, often negatively, as anti-philosophers, but—in the best cases—at an unprecedented level ofsophistication and in deeper connection with other disciplines (notablymedicine) in the collective centres of religious and intellectual activity:the mosques, the madrasas, and the kh:nq:hs, the observatories and, aswould most probably happen later on with Alpago, the hospitals ormedical circles.38 In order to question the importance of such a socio-cultural evolution of philosophical practice in the Sunn; Near East, itcould be argued that Ibn Taymiyya was an exceptional character who,as Shams al-D;n al-Dhahab; (d. 748/1348) is purported to have said,

36 F. Lucchetta, Teoria, 110.37 Y. Michot, Vanites, 602; see also D. Gutas, Heritage, 92–3. Al-

Suhraward;’s tragic condemnation by Saladin in Aleppo (587/1191) offers agood illustration of the change of social and professional environment that led tothe extinction of the fal:sifa; see J. Walbridge, The Leaven of the Ancients:Suhraward; and the Heritage of the Greeks (Albany: State University of NewYork Press, 2000).

38 On intellectual life in Damascus during the 7th/13th century, see L.Pouzet, Damas au VIIe/XIIIe siecles: Vie et structures religieuses dans unemetropole islamique (Beirut: Dar el-Machreq, 1988), 199–205. On the teaching


had become poisoned by philosophy.39 Can it however have been formere unthinking taql;d, vis-a-vis his master, that Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya—although he undoubtedly had a less philosophically orientedmind—does himself not renounce quoting the whole of the hermeneu-tical pages of the A@Aawiyya in his Book of the Thunderbolts sentagainst the Jahm;s and the Reductionists?40 In fact, positive and/or

of philosophy in relation to medicine in Damascus during the 7th/13th centuryand earlier, see A. M. Edde, ‘Les Medecins dans la societe syrienne du VIIe/XIIIe siecle’, in Annales islamologiques 29 (Cairo: IFAO, 1995), 91–109; 96–7;G. Leiser, ‘Medical Education in Islamic Lands from the Seventh to theFourteenth Century’, in Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences,38 (Bethesda, Md., 1983), 48–75; 64. On the Damascene madrasas andhospitals where medicine was taught at the end of the Maml<k sultanate, seeA. E. al-6Ulab;, Dimashq bayna 6aBr al-Mam:l;k wa-l-6Uthm:niyy;n(Damascus: al-Sharikat al-muttaAida li-l-3ib:6a wa-l-nashr, 1402/1982), 176–7, and the critical remarks of G. Leiser, Education, 57–9. According to D.Behrens-Abouseif (FatA All:h and Ab< Zakariyya: Physicians under theMamluks (Cairo: IFAO, 1987), 9), the teaching of medicine during theMaml<k period was carried on mainly in the teacher’s house rather than inmadrasas, mosques, or hospitals, as these were inaccessible to non-Muslims,who were numerous in the medical profession. Various types of professionalcombinations were possible and a physician could also be a poet, a musician,etc. Under the Ayy<bids, some physicians had also been philosophers (see A.M. Edde, Medecins, 98–9). On the contrary, during the Maml<k period, ‘theone combination that is not mentioned . . . is that of the philosopher andphysician’ (D. Behrens-Abouseif, FatA All:h, 10). Such a socio-culturalevolution is not surprising as faylas<f, ‘philosopher’, was no longer apatronized, respected, and attractive profession. Tafalsuf, however, continuedto be practised under various guises.

39 See the text quoted in Y. Michot, Vanites, 600. ‘[Some] groups, amongthe im:ms of the traditionists, those of them who knew the Qur8:n by heartand their jurists, loved the shaykh and considered him great. They however didnot love his deep involvement (tawaghghul) with the Kal:m theologians andthe philosophers, just as it had been the way of the earlier im:ms of thetraditionists like al-Sh:fi6;, AAmad [b. Eanbal], IsA:q [b. R:hwayh], Ab<6Ubayd [al-Q:sim b. Sall:m] and their like. Likewise, many scholars, amongthe jurists, the traditionists and the virtuous, hated his dedication (tafarrud) tosome odd questions which the Ancients (salaf) had disapproved (Ibn Rajab,Dhayl, ii. 326).

40 See Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, al-4aw:6iq al-mursala 6al: l-Jahmiyya wa-l-Mu6a33ila, ed. 6A. b. M. al-Dakh;l All:h, 4 vols. (Riy:@: D:r al-6:Bima, 1418/1998), iii. 1097–105 (hereafter Q). Ibn Qayyim’s purpose in his 4aw:6iq is toaddress the following question of his shaykh: ‘The offspring of the philosophi-zers, the followers of the Indians and of the Greeks, the heirs of the Magi and ofthe associators, the erring Sabaeans, their like and their peers, how would they bemore knowledgeable about God than the heirs of the prophets, the people of theQur8:n and of faith?’ (4aw:6iq, i. 170; see Ibn Taymiyya, MF, v. 12). His longdemonstration of this impossibility is divided into 24 chapters. The last chapteris itself divided into 4 parts, the second of which is a refutation, from 241

166 yahya j. michot

negative tafalsuf under the Maml<ks is still an almost unexploredcontinent in the history of intellectual Islamic thought. Ibn Taymiyyaand Ibn Qayyim’s use of the A@Aawiyya suggest that its topography

viewpoints, of the people saying: ‘When Reason and the texts of the revelationconflict with each other, we adhere to Reason and do not turn to the revelation’(4aw:6iq, i. 174; see also iii. 796). Ibn Qayyim explicitly recognizes that he basesthis refutation on Ibn Taymiyya’s ‘great book’, i.e. the Dar8 (4aw:6iq, iii. 797). Itis in his ‘Viewpoint XCIII’, corresponding to the Dar8’s ‘Viewpoint XX’, that hecites the hermeneutical pages of the A@Aawiyya quoted in the Dar8. It is worthtranslating the few lines with which he introduces this quotation. Oncecompared with Ibn Taymiyya’s text (see above, 158, for the beginning, andbelow, 173, for the last part, 1096–7), they indeed provide an excellentillustration of the way the disciple reworks one of his shaykh’s writings. As theyare sometimes clearer than the latter, they even help one to understand better IbnTaymiyya’s introduction to the Dar8’s ‘Viewpoint XX’:

‘Viewpoint XCIII. The way on which trod the deniers of the attributes,highness, and speech [of God]—i.e. opposing the divine texts by means of their[own] views and of what they call ‘intelligible’—is itself the way on which trodtheir brothers among the heretics in order to oppose the texts concerning thereturn [of the body in the hereafter] by means of their [own] views, of theirintellects, and of their premisses. Then they transferred these in themselves tothe actions they had been commanded [to perform], like the five prayers,almsgiving, the pilgrimage, fasting, and they considered them as prescribedupon the commonalty, not the elite. They therefore eventually got to the pointwhere they became heretics about the three fundamentals on which all thereligions (milla) are agreed and with which all the Messengers came, i.e. faithin God, in the Last Day, and virtuous actions. God has said, exalted is He:‘Those who have faith, those who are Jews, the Nazarenes, and the Sabaeans—whoever has faith in God and the Last Day and acts virtuously—will have theirrecompense with their Lord. No fear shall be on them, neither shall theygrieve’ (Q. 2. 62). [1097] These heretics use as arguments against the deniers ofthe [divine] attributes things on which they agree with them, [notably] to turnaway from the texts of the revelation and denying the [divine] attributes.Avicenna indeed mentioned it in the Epistle for the Feast of the Sacrifice(al-Ris:lat al-A@Aawiyya). He spoke [about that topic] when he mentionedthe argument of those who affirm the return of the body [in the hereafter]and [said] that what prompted them to do so was [precisely] that which theLaw (shar6) states of the resurrection of the dead’ (4aw:6iq, iii. 1096–7).Directly after having quoted the hermeneutical pages of the A@Aawiyya, Ibn

Qayyim writes, ‘Meditate on the words of this heretic, the head, even, of theheretics of this religious community (milla), and his entry into heresy from thegate of the denying of [God’s] attributes, his gaining the supremacy, in his heresy,over the reductionist [attribute] deniers by means of things, [related to] denying[the attributes], in which they agree with him, and his compelling them to acceptthat the [scriptural] discourse on the return [in the hereafter] is destined to thecrowd (jumh<r;), or metaphorical, or figurative, just as they say [it is the case] inthe [scriptural] texts [concerning] the attributes which he and they are associatesin calling ‘assimilationism’ (tashb;h) and ‘corporealization’ (tajs;m), althoughthey are more specific, of a more obvious meaning, and of a clearer evidentialquality than the texts [concerning] the return’ (ibid. 1105).


could have been far more complex and richer than imagined bymany. . .41

Near the end of his commentary, Ibn Taymiyya refers to an inter-pretation of 6Al;’s famous saying ‘Speak to people about things theyknow . . .’ proposed by Averroes (d. 595/1198). The text of theAndalusian philosopher he has in mind is almost surely the one foundin the first pages of his Uncovering the Ways [to be followed] by Proofs(al-Kashf 6an man:hij al-adilla).42 In his opinion, Averroes shares the

41 On the great usefulness of Ibn Taymiyya’s Dar8 to explore this continent,see Y. Michot, Vanites. For a primary survey of post-classical ‘fal:sifa’, see D.Gutas, Heritage (I personally would rather have spoken of tafalsuf ormutafalsifs). D. Behrens-Abouseif offers very valuable suggestions on theevolution of Maml<k tafalsuf in FatA All:h and ‘The Image of the Physician inArab Biographies of the Post-Classical Age’, in Der Islam, 66 (1989), 331–43.Particularly interesting is her idea that ‘Sufism in the fifteenth century becamethe official religious ideology’ and that the role then ‘played by the Sufis,especially the extremists among them, was similar to that formerly played byphilosophers and scholars of Hellenistic and heterogeneous backgrounds inconfrontation with orthodoxy’ (Image, 343). Ibn Taymiyya contributed to thedenunciation of philosophical or rationalist excesses but was unable to bar theway to extremist Sufis.

At the beginning of the 10th/16th century, Ibn F<l<n (see pp. 195–8) offers anexcellent account of the deep disrepute into which falsafa had then fallen: ‘Knowthat science can also be . . . forbidden (Aar:m). It is [the case with] the science ofphilosophy (falsafa), prestidigitation (sha6badha), astrology (tanj;m), geomancy(raml) and . . . magic. Logic is included in philosophy . . . Indeed, someoneoccupying himself with it most often leans towards philosophy. Its prohibition isthus of a preventive nature. Apart from that, logic is not something contrary tothe clear Law and the firm religion’ (Ibn F<l<n, Kit:b al-Lu8lu8 al-manC<m f;-m:ishtaghala min al-6ul<m mu8allifu-hu Ibn F<l<n min ghar:8ib al-fun<n, MSBritish Museum, Add. 7528, fos. 57–104; fo. 57r). For F. Rosenthal (‘ThePhysician in Medieval Muslim Society’, in Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 52(Baltimore, 1978), 475–91; 490–1), ‘during the first two centuries of 6Abb:sidrule, ‘‘philosophy’’ was the slogan of the elite, and the intellectual alliance ofmedicine with philosophy generally added to the reputation of its practitioners.The alliance was always shaky: soon, it became a constantly growing danger tothe physician’s societal standing. The word ‘‘philosophy’’—that is, Greekphilosophy—was anathema to the masses and their leaders.’ Yet, at the end ofthe 9th/15th century, it was most probably through his acquaintance with ashaykh of the Syrian physicians that Andrea Alpago discovered Avicenna’sA@Aawiyya.

42 See below, p. 86. Ibn Taymiyya refers explicitly to Averroes’ Kashf indifferent works, e.g. in Bay:n talb;s al-Jahmiyya f; ta8s;s bida6i-him al-kal:miyya, aw naq@ ta8s;s al-Jahmiyya, ed. M. b. 6A. R. bin Q:sim, 2 vols.(n. p.: Mu8assasa Qur3uba, 1392/1972), i. 239, and Dar8, vi. 212. He also quotesit at length and comments on it on various occasions; see e.g. the quotation ofKashf (ed. M. 6A. J. 6Umr:n in Falsafat Ibn Rushd (Cairo: al-Maktabat al-MaAm<diyyat al-tij:riyya, 1388/1968), 40–158), 93, l. 18–108, l. 1; trans. I. Y.

168 yahya j. michot

hermeneutics and philosophy of prophetic predication of the ‘esotericist[attributes-]denying philosophers’. In other words, he is somehow onthe same wavelength as Avicenna in the A@Aawiyya concerning thenecessity of a philosophical science of divinity and the invalidity oftheologizing popular religion. Ibn Taymiyya does not explicitly linkAverroes’ ideas to those of the A@Aawiyya, but the context in which herefers to the Cordoban philosopher suggests that he considers there is arelation between them.43 His doing so makes one wonder whetherAverroes really had access to the Avicennan text. The temptation isindeed great to recognize echos—distant but clear—of the A@Aawiyya’shermeneutical pages in various propositions of the Decisive Treatise(FaBl al-maq:l). For example, whereas Avicenna writes that ‘what iswanted (yur:mu) by the Law (shar6) and religion (milla) which havecome [to us] through the tongue of any of the prophets is to address(khi3:b) all the crowd (al-jumh<r k:ffa)’,44 Averroes defines theprimary purpose (maqB<d) of the Law as being ‘simply to teacheveryone (ta6l;m al-jam;6)’ and ‘to take care of the majority (al-6in:ya

Najjar, Faith and Reason in Islam: Averroes’ Exposition of Religious Arguments(Oxford: Oneworld, 2001), 62–77) in Dar8, vi. 212, l. 10–237, l. 7, withcomments in 237, l. 8–249, l. 20. These comments are different from thoseincluded by M. 6Umr:n, Falsafa, in the footnotes of his edition of the Kashf. Iintend to return to Ibn Taymiyya’s various comments on the Kashf in a separatearticle. Averroes also quotes this Aad;th in the second chapter of his FaBl al-maq:lf;-m: bayna l-Aikma wa-l-shar;6a min al-ittiB:l (ed. M. 6A. J. 6Umr:n in Falsafa,9–39), 17–8; trans. G. F. Hourani, Averroes on the Harmony of Religion andPhilosophy (London: Luzac, 1976), 52. Although Ibn Taymiyya seems not tohave had the FaBl at his disposal, he knew of its content through the Kashf (seeBay:n, i. 239; Dar8, vi. 226, §2). From this point of view, A. de Libera ismistaken when affirming that the FaBl did not have ‘any immediate influence’ inthe Muslim world (see his introduction to M. Geoffroy, Averroes: Le Livre dudiscours decisif (Paris: Flammarion, 1996), 75). As far as Ibn Taymiyya isconcerned, D. Gutas’s more general comment (Heritage, 91) that Averroes ‘failedto impress Arabic philosophy after his death’ also should be reassessed.

43 This somehow becomes confirmed when, in commenting on the Kashf, IbnTaymiyya likens Averroes to Avicenna. For him, Averroes not only ‘agrees withAvicenna concerning the denying of the [divine] attributes’ (Dar8, vi. 238) but‘what this Averroes says about the [teachings] of the religious Law (al-shar:8i6) isof the sort of that which is said by Avicenna and his like among the heretics, i.e.that they are likenesses (amth:l) invented in order to make the commonaltyunderstand things that they will imagine, with regard to faith in God and the LastDay, and that the clear truth (al-Aaqq al-Bar;A) which is right for the people ofScience only consists in the things said by these philosophers’ (ibid. 242). See alsothe passage of Dar8 translated in Y. Michot, Lettre, 24.

44 Avicenna, A@Aawiyya, 43; trans. Alpago, De mahad, fo. 43v, trans.Lucchetta, Epistola, 42; see below, p. 11.


bi-l-akthar) (without neglecting to arouse the elite)’.45 On the otherhand, exactly as Avicenna states that God could in no way havecharged any of the Messengers to communicate ‘the true meanings(Aaq:8iq) of [theological] matters to the crowd (al-jumh<r)’ becauseof ‘the commonalty’s thick nature (al-6:mmat al-ghal;Ca 3ib:6u-hum)’,46

Averroes insists that ‘allegorical interpretations (al-ta8w;l:t) oughtnot to be expressed to the crowd (al-jumh<r)’ because these are‘abstruse matters, which there is no way for the crowd to under-stand’.47

I am inclined to believe that Averroes did not have the text of theA@Aawiyya and that it is mainly through al-Ghaz:l;—the latter almostcertainly a reader of the epistle—that he became involved in the debateon the respective aims and limitations of prophecy, theology, andphilosophy so ground-breakingly set up by Avicenna. The questiondeserves a thorough study that cannot be undertaken here. Moreover, atthis point, the most important thing is just to be aware of the linkexisting between the A@Aawiyya’s hermeneutics and the FaBl al-maq:l orKashf. Strangely enough, various modern analysts of the two Averroisttreatises do not seem to be aware of the connection.48

As for Ibn Taymiyya, not only did he have the right approach to thesubject, but he can be said to have himself shared some of the ideascommon to Avicenna and Averroes. Indeed, he strongly criticizesMuAammad Ibn T<mart (d. 524/1130) and the Mu6tazil;s for imposingtheir theological creeds on all adult Muslims, although ‘the im:ms areagreed that what is compulsory for the Muslims is what God and His

45 See Averroes, FaBl, 29; trans. Hourani, 64.46 Avicenna, A@Aawiyya, 57; trans. Alpago, De mahad, fo. 45r, trans.

Lucchetta, Epistola, 56; see below, p. 16.47 See Averroes, FaBl, 31; trans. Hourani, 66.48 This is the case in e.g. G. F. Hourani, Averroes; M. Fakhry in his

introduction to I. Y. Najjar, Faith; A. de Libera in his introductions toM. Geoffroy, Livre and Averroes: L’Islam et la Raison (Paris: Flammarion,2000); and M. 6A. al-J:bir; in FaBl al-maq:l f; taqr;r m: bayna l-shar;6a wa-l-Aikma min al-ittiB:l, aw wuj<b al-naCar al-6aql; wa-Aud<d al-ta8w;l (al-d;n wa-l-mujtama6) (Beirut: Markaz dir:s:t al-waAdat al-6Arabiyya, 1997), and al-Kashf6an man:hij al-adilla f; 6aq:8id al-milla, aw naqd 6ilm al-kal:m @iddan 6al:l-tars;m al-;diy<l<j; li-l-6aq;da wa-dif:6an 6an al-6ilm wa-Aurriyyat al-ikhtiy:r f; l-fikr wa-l-fi6l (Beirut: Markaz dir:s:t al-waAdat al-6Arabiyya, 1998). Exceptionsare F. Lucchetta, ‘Avicenna (al-Ris:lat al-A@Aawiyya) e Averroe (FaBl al-maq:l)di fronte alle scritture’, in Recueil d’articles offerts a M. Borrmans par sescollegues et amis (Rome: Pontificio Istituto di Studi Arabi e d’Islamistica, 1996),149–53; and M. Campanini, Averroe. Il trattato decisivo sull’accordo dellareligione con la filosofia (Milan: Rizzoli, 1994), 26, 146. More generally,concerning the limitations of the prophetic mission, hermeneutics, relations

170 yahya j. michot

Messenger have made compulsory, nobody having the right to makecompulsory for the Muslims something that neither God nor HisMessenger have made compulsory.’49 More generally, the Shaykh al-Isl:m and the two philosophers show the same contempt for anyintrusion in popular belief by Kal:m theology of the Mu6tazil;,Ghaz:lian, or R:zian types. They are therefore able to cover somedistance together even if they pursue different courses. In the case ofthe two philosophers, this is to establish exclusive rights to rationallegitimacy for their philosophical discourses on God; in Ibn Taymiyya’scase, it is to reaffirm—against the claims of philosophers as well as ofKal:m theologians—the self-sufficiency of the religious rationalitymanifested in scriptural literality and common faith, and its validity forall, the elite as well as the crowd. Avicenna and Averroes are right toencourage the populace to believe in the outward meaning of therevelation. For Ibn Taymiyya, both should however have motives fordoing so other than exclusively socio-political reasons of publicinterest. Moreover, they should themselves also have faith in the

between Scripture and Reason, and validity of theology, it is now obvious thatAvicenna, al-Ghaz:l;, Averroes, al-R:z;, and Ibn Taymiyya should all be studiedin relation to each other. And as Ibn Taymiyya compares Avicenna’s A@Aawiyyato The Keys of Sovereignty of the Ism:6;l; philosopher Ab< Ya6q<b al-Sijist:n;(d. c.390/1000; see below, p. 18), the latter could also be included in the list.In this respect, A. de Libera’s understanding of Averroes’ FaBl in relation tothe political philosophies of al-F:r:b;, Ibn B:jja, and Ibn Fufayl appearsreductionist and identifies too readily with certain obsolete Orientalistpreferences (see his introduction to M. Geoffroy, Livre, 69–75). Interestingly,in his Early Philosophical Shiism: The Ismaili Neoplatonism of Ab< Ya6q<bal-Sijist:n; (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 125–6, P. E. Walkerpoints to a similarity between Ism:6;l; hermeneutics and Averroes’ FaBl.Unfortunately, he does not investigate the possibility and channels of influencefrom, and gives no attention to, Avicenna’s A@Aawiyya or al-Ghaz:l;’s Q:n<nand IqtiB:d. As for D. Gutas’s statement that issues like the ones addressedby Averroes in FaBl ‘belong, from the point of view of the nature of theircontents, to Islamic law and not to Arabic philosophy’ (‘The Study of ArabicPhilosophy in the Twentieth Century: An Essay on the Historiography of ArabicPhilosophy’, in British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 29 (2002), 5–25; 14), itunfortunately simplifies a debate whose Avicennan aspects, interdisciplinarity,and complexity were better perceived by Ibn Taymiyya.

49 Ibn Taymiyya, Fatw: f; l-Murshida, ed. H. Laoust, ‘Une fetwa d’IbnTaim;ya sur Ibn T<mart’, in Bulletin de l’Institut Francais d’ArcheologieOrientale, vol. lix (Cairo: IFAO, 1960), 158–84; 167 (trans. H. Laoust, ibid.180; see also 171–2). See also Ibn T<mart, Murshida II, trans. H. Masse, ‘LaProfession de foi (6aq;da) et les guides spirituels (morchida) du mahdiIbn Toumart’, in Memorial Henri Basset, 2 vols. (Paris, P. Geuthner, 1928), ii.105–21; 119.


manifest meaning of the Scripture.50 The saying of 6Al; to whichthe theologian refers in the closing passages of his commentary on theA@Aawiyya is often misunderstood. Of course, revelation does notmean total disclosure—areas of secrecy and mystery are maintained bythe religion. This is, however, no reason to disdain the outwardteachings of the Scripture as ‘popular’ and to indulge in an elitistesotericism that conflicts with them. For the faithful, the ‘true innerreality’ is indeed ‘in agreement with the true outer reality’.51 IbnTaymiyya is far removed from the Avicennizing concern of Averroes tosecure both ‘the possibility of fideism for the masses and of rationalismfor the elite’.52 Compared to this dichotomic, disdainful, and irrealisticagenda of the Andalusian philosopher, which soon proved the failureit could logically have been expected to be, the Shaykh al-Islam’shermeneutically economic and socially more egalitarian, humble, andbalanced call for an informed and critical reconciliation of Religionand Reason appears both more humane and closer to what may beconsidered the true spirit of Islam.53

50 It could be said to Ibn Taymiyya that Avicenna’s faith in the outwardmeaning of the revelation is affirmed both by the convergence of his philosophicaldoctrine of divinity with certain fundamental statements of the Qur8:n and byhis willingness and ability to discover in the latter—although the essentialfinality of revelation is not to teach them—images and symbols of a number ofphilosophical ideas, in eschatology or in other matters, which he develops.Further, he would have drawn his critic’s attention to the fact that—unlikee.g. al-F:r:b;—he endeavours to theorize an imaginal form of the resurrectionand of the hereafter that defends the revealed message against all allegations oflying and failure (see Y. Michot, Destinee, 39–49). Although Avicenna’sprophetology is far from devoid of merits in the eyes of the Shaykh al-Isl:m,there is no doubt that such explanations would have been unacceptable to him.

51 See p. 86.52 A. de Libera, introduction to M. Geoffroy, Livre, 74.53 In his comments on the Kashf, Ibn Taymiyya nevertheless considers that

‘people who mix with the Sunn;s and the Aad;th scholars, like Averroes and Ab<l-Barak:t al-Baghd:d;’, develop a ‘discourse (kal:m)’ which is ‘closer to what isclearly intellected (Bar;A al-ma6q<l) and what is soundly transmitted [in religiousmatters] (BaA;A al-manq<l) than Avicenna’s’ (Dar8, vi. 248).

172 yahya j. michot

TRANSLATION

[THE EPISTLE FOR THE FEAST OF THESACRIFICE]

What is aimed at here is [to explain] that these heretics (mulAid), [i.e.Avicenna and his like,] use as arguments against the deniers [of the divineattributes] things on which they agree with them, [notably] denyingthe[se] attributes and turning away from the evidential quality (dal:la) ofthe [Qur8:nic] verses. Avicenna indeed mentioned that in the Epistle forthe Feast of the Sacrifice (al-Ris:lat al-A@Aawiyya), which he composedabout the return (ma6:d) [of the soul in the hereafter] for some of thestatesmen (ra8;s) whom he was seeking to get closer to so that they wouldgive him what he sought from them: a position (j:h) and money. Hestated that openly at the beginning of this epistle.54 He spoke about [thattopic] when he mentioned the argument of those who affirm the return ofthe body [in the hereafter] and [said] that what prompted them to do sowas [precisely] that which the Law (shar6) states of the resurrection ofthe dead.

. Concerning the Law, he said,55 one ought to know one single rule (q:n<n),that is, that [11] what is wanted by the Law and religion (milla) that have come[to us] through the tongue of any of the prophets is to address all the crowd(al-jumh<r k:ffa). Moreover, it is known and it is obvious that it is unac-ceptable (mumtani6) to communicate to the crowd the true doctrine (taAq;q)to which one ought to refer concerning the true tawA;d56—[namely]confessing [the existence of] the Artisan, understood as One (muwaAAad) andsanctified (muqaddas) [far above] the how many and the how, the where andthe when, position and change, so that the belief concerning Him may becomethat He is one essence for which it is not possible to have an associate inspecies, nor to have an existential (wuj<d;) part—quantity-related or meaning-related—, which cannot possibly be external to the world nor internal to it, andwhich is not such that it could correctly be pointed to as being here or there. Ifthis were communicated in this form to the Arab nomads or the uncivilizedHebrews, they would rush to oppose it and they would agree that the faith theyare called to is having faith in something fundamentally nonexistent.57 This iswhy what is in the Torah is all stated in an assimilationist manner (tashb;h).

54 See Avicenna, A@Aawiyya, 7–13; trans. Lucchetta, Epistola, 6–12; trans.Michot, in Vizir, 33*–4*.

55 Avicenna, A@Aawiyya, 43, l. 3–53, l. 6; trans. Lucchetta, Epistola, 42–52.56 The divine oneness, its proclamation, and the way to understand it

theologically.57 bi-ma6d<m LS : l: wuj<d la-hu þ Q nonexistent, having no existence.


Furthermore, in the Furq:n,58 nothing is stated that might point to [12] thismost important matter and no detailed explanation provided [to us] with anexplicit59 [statement] of what one needs to know concerning tawA;d. Instead,some things have come60 [to us] by way of assimilationism, through the outermeaning (C:hir) [of the text], while others arrived in an absolutelyexemptionistic (tanz;h) and very general [formulation], supporting neitherparticularization (takhB;B) nor commentary (tafs;r). As for the assimilationistic[traditional] reports (khabar),61 they are too many to be counted; people arehowever allowed not to accept them. Such being the matter concerning tawA;d,how [a fortiori will things be] concerning the matters of belief coming afterthat?

Some people might say that the Arabs have a way of speaking loosely(tawassu6) and metaphorically (maj:z), and that, although assimilationisticterms like ‘the hand’, ‘the face’,62 ‘coming in the shadows of the clouds’,‘arriving’, ‘going’, ‘laughing’, ‘modesty’, and ‘anger’63 are true, the way theyare used and the direction [followed by] the textual expression (jihat al-6ib:ra)64 indicate that they are used figuratively (musta6:r) and65 metaphori-cally.

. That [these terms] are used non-metaphorically and non-figuratively but,rather, [13] in their real sense (muAaqqaq), [Avicenna also] says,66 is indicated bythe fact that67 the passages which [these people] put forward as an argument[showing] that the Arabs use these meanings in a figurative and metaphoricalway, different from the [corresponding] outer meanings, are passages in the likeof which it is right to have [these terms] used in a manner other than this[figurative and metaphorical one], without any disguise (talb;s) or forgery (tadl;s)occurring in them.

58 i.e. the Qur8:n.59 at: bi-Bar;A LQ : il: Bar;A S60 at: S acr. LQ : il: S61 i.e. the sayings attributed to the Prophet and popular stories.62 al-yad wa-l-wajh SL: al-wajh wa-l-yad Q63 On the various anthropomorphisms of the Qur8:n and the Ead;th and

their interpretations in Islamic theology, see the authoritative study of D.Gimaret, Dieu a l’image de l’homme: Les Anthropomorphismes de la Sunna etleur interpretation par les theologiens (Paris: Cerf, 1997).

64 i.e. the context.65 naAw . . . musta6:ra SL: hiya musta6mala isti6:ratan wa Q true, they are

used figuratively and66 q:la SQ: — L67 anna SQ: wa L. The sequencing of the last two sentences, as proposed in

S and seemingly understood by Ibn Taymiyya, could be corrupted. In L, becauseof the two textual differences just reported, these sentences are formulated in thefollowing way: ‘and the direction [followed by] the textual expression indicatewhen [these terms] are used figuratively and metaphorically, and indicate whenthey are used non-metaphorically and non-figuratively but, rather, in their realsense. Now, the passages which’ (see Lucchetta’s translation, Epistola, 48).

174 yahya j. michot

[God]’s words ‘in the shadows of the clouds’68 and ‘Are they waiting fornothing less than that the angels come to them, or your Lord come, or some ofthe signs of your Lord come?’ (Q. 6. 158) are of the type [just] mentioned. Now,estimative [faculties] (wahm)69 do not at all believe, about analogous [passages],that [the] way they are expressed (6ib:ra) is figurative or metaphorical. Therefore,if [making the crowd understand] such a [figurative or metaphorical character]about these [passages] was wanted implicitly (i@m:ran), [God] will have agreed tothe occurrence of error, of uncertainty,70 and of a creed distorted by [the crowd’s]explicit faith in their outer [meaning].

As for His words ‘the hand of God is above their hands’ (Q. 48. 10) and Hiswords ‘that [14] I was unmindful towards God’ (Q. 39. 56), these are passages[in which there is] figurativeness, metaphor, and speaking in a loose way. Nottwo among the Arabs speaking pure Arabic would have any doubt about that,and it is not dubious for anyone knowledgeable about their language, as is thecase with those [first] examples. [Of] these [last] examples, there is nouncertainty that they are figurative71 and metaphorical. Likewise, about those[first] ones, there is no uncertainty that they are not figurative and that nothingelse is meant by them than [their] outer [meaning].

Moreover, let us admit that all these [passages] are to be taken72 figuratively.Where [then, however,] are the tawA;d and the textual expression openlypointing to the pure tawA;d to which, [in its] true essence (Aaq;qa), thisvaluable73 religion—whose sublimity is acknowledged through the tongues of allthe sages of the world—calls?

[On Islam’s superiority, Avicenna] also74 said, in the course of what hewas talking about:75

. The Law that has come through the tongue of our Prophet [15]MuAammad, God bless him and grant him peace,76 has come up with the

68 See Q. 2. 210: ‘Are they waiting for nothing less than that God shouldcome unto them in the shadows of the clouds, and the angels?’

69 On the nature and functions of the estimative faculty according toAvicenna, see Y. Michot, Destinee, 148–52. In animals, the estimative facultyis the equivalent of the intellect for man. It remains the ‘supreme judge’ in thepsyche of the great number of humans who do not reach the level ofintellectuality.

70 al-shubha SL: al-tashb;h Q71 musta6:ra S: isti6:riyya L isti6:ra Q72 ma8kh<dha L: mawj<da SQ73 al-qayyim SL: — Q this religion74 wa-qad S: thumma Q thereafter75 Avicenna, A@Aawiyya, 85, ll. 3–5; trans. Lucchetta, Epistola, 84. This

apologetic statement by Avicenna is one of the reasons why Ibn Taymiyyaconsiders him far superior to Aristotle and is often referred to by the theologian.See notably MF, trans. Y. Michot, ‘Ibn Taymiyya on Astrology: AnnotatedTranslation of Three Fatwas’, in Journal of Islamic Studies, 11/2 (Oxford, May2000), 147–208; 182–3.

76 MuAammad . . . sallama SL: — Q Prophet has


most eminent77 and the most perfect [things] that Laws could possibly come upwith. It was therefore right for it to be the Seal of the Laws and the last of thereligions (milla).

. And where is there, he said,78 a text pointing (ish:ra) to the subtle (daq;q)ideas pointing to79 the science of tawA;d? For example the [idea] that [God] isknowing by essence or knowing by a knowledge, powerful by essence orpowerful by a power, one in essence despite the multiplicity of [His] attributes orsubject to multiplicity—exalted is He far above that from all points of view—occupying space (mutaAayyiz) in essence or exempted from positions.80

Inevitable indeed is [this alternative]: either it is necessary to acquire a trueunderstanding (taAaqquq) of these ideas and to master the true doctrineconcerning them, or it is permissible to turn away from them and to neglectinvestigating [them] and reflecting about them.

If[, however,] investigating these [ideas] is something one can dispense with,and if an erroneous creed occurring about them is something one is not to becensured for, most of the doctrine of these people who speak of this whole thingis something they burden themselves with and of which one is in no need. If[, onthe other hand, such an investigation] is a firm obligation, it should necessarily besomething openly stated in the Law, not something stated in a cryptic or dubiousmanner, or about which [God] would have limited Himself to [16] [some]allusion and indication, but [rather] something stated in an exhaustivedeclaration, to which attention would have been drawn [by the revelation] andwhich would have fulfilled the conditions for being clear and making [things]obvious, as well as for making [people] understand81 and know its significations.Now, the outstanding people who spend their days, their nights, and the hours oftheir lives in exercising their minds, sharpening82 their wits, and raising83 theirsouls to grasp abstruse ideas quickly are in need, in order to understand these[theological] ideas, of [some] extra elucidation84 and explanation of textualexpressions. How, [a fortiori, will things be] for the jabbering Hebrews and thenomads among the Arabs?

By my life! if God charged one of the Messengers with communicating the truemeanings (Aaq:8iq) of such matters to the crowd—the commonalty of thicknature and whose estimative [faculties] are attached to things that are perceptiblepurely through the senses—then imposed upon him to obtain from them faithand adherence, without negligence on his part in this matter, then85 imposedupon him to undertake the training of the souls of all the people so that they

77 bi-af@al L: af@al SQ78 Avicenna, A@Aawiyya, 53, l. 6–61, l. 3; trans. Lucchetta, Epistola, 52–60.79 al-mush;ra SQ: al-mustanida L ideas founded on the80 Allusion to the doctrinal divergences opposing Mu6tazil; and Ash6ar;

theologies.81 wa-l-tafh;m SL: — Q [people] know82 tadhkiya SL: tazkiya Q purifying83 tarsh;A SL: tars;kh Q deeply rooting84 ;@:A SL: bay:n Q evidence85 thumma SL: wa Q and

176 yahya j. michot

become ready to grasp these [true meanings], He would be charging him with anexcessive burden and forcing him to do something which is not in the power ofhumans. My God! [this would be the situation] unless [some] divine propertyseizes them,86 [some] superior power and [some] heavenly inspiration; [17] inwhich case the mediation of the Messenger could be dispensed with and therewould be no need for his delivery of [the divine message].

Moreover, let us admit that the precious Book came87 according to thelanguage of the Arabs and their linguistic habit88 of [practising] figurativenessand metaphor. What are they89 then going to say about the Hebrew Book whichis entirely, from its beginning to its end, pure assimilationism? One will not beable to say that that Book is entirely falsified. Indeed, how would one falsify theentirety of a book that is propagated in innumerable communities whosecountries are far away90 from each other, whose estimative [faculties] are distinctfrom each other, and among whom there are Jews and Nazarenes, who are twocommunities hostile towards each other?

It appears from all this that the Laws come to address the crowd about thingsthat they understand, bringing things that they do not understand closer to theirestimative [faculties] by striking likenesses (tamth;l) and similitudes (tashb;h). Ifmatters were otherwise, the Laws would be of no use at all.. How then, [Avicenna] said,91 will the outer meaning of the Laws be anargument in this matter?—he means: concerning the return. If we weresupposing the hereafter matters to be spiritual, not made corporeal, [and] theirtrue essence to be [18] far from being perceived a priori by the minds (bad:8ih al-adhh:n), the way [followed by] the Laws to call [people] to [accept] these[spiritual matters] and to warn about them would not consist in drawing theirattention by furnishing evidence about them but, rather,92 by expressing themthrough various likenesses (tamth;l) that would bring [them] closer to the[ir] wits(fahm). How then will the existence of one thing93 be an argument in favour ofthe existence of another thing94 when, if this other thing was not as it is supposedto be,95 the first thing would [still] be as it is?

All this is said to make known, to somebody wanting to be [a member of] theelite (kh:BB) of humans, not of the commonalty (6:mm), that the outer meaningof the Laws cannot be used as an argument in matters like these.

86 tudrika-hum S: yudrika-hu L tudrika-hu Q him87 al-6az;z j:8iyan S: al-6arab; j:8iyan L al-6arab; j:8a Q the Arabic Book came88 6:da SL: 6ib:ra Q and the way they linguistically express themselves,

figuratively and metaphorically.89 i.e. the anti-literalist theologians.90 mutan:8iyya SL: mutab:yina Q distinct91 Avicenna, A@Aawiyya, 61, l. 4–63, l. 4; trans. Lucchetta, Epistola, 60–2.92 munabbihan . . . bal SL: ill: Q them would consist in nothing else than

expressing93 i.e. the literality of the Qur8:nic statements concerning the hereafter.94 i.e. a corporeal hereafter.95 i.e. spiritual rather than corporeal.


[I. AVICENNA’S HERMENEUTICS]

I96 say: these are the words of Avicenna. These words and similar onesare [also] the words of his like—the Qarma3;s,97 the esotericists98

(b:3iniyya), for example the author of The Keys of Sovereignty99

(al-Aq:l;d al-malak<tiyya) and his like among the heretics. Therefutation of this will be of two types. One will consist in makingclear that what he concludes to be necessarily binding is indeed so for thedeniers of the [divine] attributes100—the Jahm;s,101 the Mu6tazil;s, andothers—who call their denial [of the attributes] ‘tawA;d’. [19] The secondwill consist in making clear the vain nature of his words and of theirs, inwhich they agree with him.102

First [refutation]These [theologians] agree with [Avicenna] on the denial of the [divine]attributes and on [saying] that the true tawA;d is the one of the Jahm;swhich implies what [follows]. God has no knowledge and no power, nospeech and no mercy. He is not seen in the hereafter. He is not above theworld. There is no God above the Throne and no Lord in the heavens.MuAammad was not raised to his Lord. For the Qur8:n, according tothem, the best condition is to be created, [God] having created it in[something] else than Him—unless it is a flux (fay@) flowing (f:@a) on thesoul of the Messenger!103 Hands do not rise to Him, praised is He, during

96 i.e. Ibn Taymiyya.97 One of the Ism:6;l; sects; see W. Madelung, EI2, s.v. ‘earma3;’.98 To Ibn Taymiyya, all those who, Sh;6;s, Sufis or philosophers, reject the

manifest meaning of the Scripture in favour of an esoteric meaning (b:3in);see M. G. S. Hodgson, EI2, s.v. ‘B:3iniyya’.

99 Ab< Ya6q<b IsA:q b. AAmad al-Sijist:n; (or al-Sijz;; d. c.390/1000); seeAppendix II, pp. 199–203.

100 i.e. that their negationist theology has no scriptural basis.101 The followers of the theological doctrines of Jahm b. 4afw:n, Ab< MuAriz

(d. 128/746); see W. Montgomery Watt, EI2, s.v. ‘Djahm b. 4afw:n’, ‘Djah-miyya’. Ibn Taymiyya makes Jahm a disciple of Ja6d b. Dirham (d. 124/742)and a precursor of the Mu6tazil;s; see Y. Michot, ‘Textes spirituels d’IbnTaymiyya, XV: La Realite de l’amour (maAabba) de Dieu et de l’homme’, inLe Musulman, 28 (Paris: AEIF, Nov. 1996), 24–7, 26–7.

102 w:faq<-hu: w:faq<-hum S. Another possible correction would be‘w:faqa-hum’ in which he agrees with them. It is, however, less likely due tothe sentence that follows.

103 Allusion to the kind of explanation of the process of revelation proposedby Avicenna; see Ibn Taymiyya, MF, trans. Michot, Musique, 193, and Y.Michot, Destinee, 127–8. According to Ibn Kath;r (al-Bid:ya wa-l-nih:ya, 14vols. (Beirut: Maktabat al-ma6:rif, 1977), xiii. 261), Ibn Sab6;n believed thatprophethood could be acquired and ‘was a flux flowing on the intellect when itbecomes pure’.

178 yahya j. michot

invocations. Nothing goes up to Him and nothing is sent down fromHim, neither an angel nor anything else. Nobody is brought closer toHim and nothing approaches Him. Himself does not get closer toanybody and He does not manifest Himself (tajall:) to anything. There isno veil between Him and His creatures. He does not love and He does notdetest. He is not content and He is not angry. He is neither inside noroutside the world. He is neither distinct from the world nor inhering in it.None of the creatures has the privilege of being near Him; rather, thewhole creation is near Him, [which is] opposed to His saying, exalted isHe: ‘To Him belong those who are in the heavens and on the earth, andthose who are near Him’ (Q. 21. 19). When He is given the names‘living’, ‘knowing’, ‘powerful’, ‘hearing’, ‘seeing’, He is living withouta life, knowing without a knowledge, powerful without a power,hearing (sam;6) without a hearing (sam6), seeing without a sight. . . andother similar things whose denial the Jahm;s call ‘tawA;d’. They give tothemselves the title of ‘adepts of tawA;d’ as the Jahm;s—the Mu6tazil;sand others—give it to themselves and as Ibn [20] T<mart104 gave it tohis companions.105

What [Ibn T<mart] was saying about tawA;d was indeed what thedeniers of the attributes—Jahm, Avicenna, and their like—are saying. Itis said that he learned that from somebody in whose words there issometimes an agreement with the philosophers and, other times, anopposition to them.106 So, I have seen a writing (kit:b) on tawA;d by Ibn

104 The founder and mahd; of the Almohad movement (d. 524/1130); seeJ. Hopkins, EI2, s.v. ‘Ibn T<mart’. Ibn Taymiyya wrote against him a fatwawhich is edited and translated by H. Laoust, Fetwa. See also p. 183 n. 115.

105 The Almohads, al-muwaAAid<n, ‘the proclaimers of the divine oneness’.Ibn Taymiyya rejects all particularization of this appellation as, for him, ‘thewhole community of MuAammad, God bless him and grant him peace,are proclaimers of the divine oneness’ (Ibn Taymiyya, Murshida, 168; trans.Laoust, Fetwa, 180).

106 Ab< E:mid al-Ghaz:l;. On the debated question of Ibn T<mart’s contactswith al-Ghaz:l;, see I. Goldziher, Le Livre de Mohammed ibn Toumert, mahdides Almohades (Algiers: Imprimerie orientale Pierre Fontana, 1903), 1–102;M. Asin Palacios, ‘La Logique d’Ibn Fuml<s d’Alcira’, in Obras escogidas II yIII (Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 1948), 155–62; 161–2; H. Laoust, Fetwa, 170, n. 1; M. Fletcher, ‘Ibn T<mart’s Teachers:the Relationship with al-Ghaz:l;’, in Al-Qantara: Revista de Estudios Arabes,18 ii (Madrid, 1997), 305–30; D. Urvoy, Averroes: Les Ambitions d’unintellectuel musulman (Paris: Flammarion, 1998), 48–52. For some of IbnTaymiyya’s opinions on al-Ghaz:l;, see the texts translated in Y. Michot,Musique, 191–2, and W. Hallaq, Ibn Taymiyya, 111–2; see also IbnTaymiyya, Nubuww:t, 81–2; Bughyat al-murt:d f; l-radd 6al: l-mutafalsifawa-l-Qar:mi3a wa-l-B:3iniyya, ahl al-ilA:d min al-q:8il;n bi-l-Aul<l wa-l-ittiA:d,ed. M. b. S. al-Duwaysh (n. p.: Maktabat al-6ul<m wa-l-Aikam, 1408/1988), 444.


T<mart, in which he openly denies the attributes.107 This is why, in hisGuide (al-Murshida), he does not mention anything concerning theaffirmation of the attributes, he does not affirm the vision [of God in thehereafter], he does not say that the Qur8:n is the uncreated speech ofGod and [he avoids] this type of questions which those who affirmthe attributes are used to mentioning in their condensed creeds.108 So,what he was really saying was agreeing with what is said by IbnSab6;n109 and those who, like him, speak of absolute existence (al-wuj<dal-mu3laq), in agreement with Avicenna and his like among the adepts of

107 A negationist tawA;d is developed in various texts attributed to IbnT<mart and it is not possible to know precisely which one Ibn Taymiyya has inmind here. See e.g. Ibn T<mart, al-TawA;d, ed. Goldziher, Livre, 271–80; ed.6A. G. Ab< l-6Azm, A6azzu m: yu3labu (Rabat: Mu8assasat al-Ghan; li-l-nashr,1997), 313–25; and 6Aq;da, ed. Goldziher, Livre, 229–39; ed. Ab< l-6Azm,A6azzu, 212–22; French trans. by H. Masse, Profession, 105–17.

108 Two texts entitled Murshida are attributed to Ibn T<mart, the secondof which exists in a shorter and in a longer versions (Murshida I, ed. Goldziher,Livre, 240–1; ed. Ab< l-6Azm, A6azzu, p. 223; Murshida II, ed. Goldziher,‘Die Bekenntnissformeln der Almohaden’, in ZDMG, xliv (Leipzig, 1890),168–71; 168–70; Livre, 241–2; ed. M. J. de Goeje, ‘Goldzihers Le livre deMohammed ibn Toumert’, in ZDMG, lviii (Leipzig, 1904), 463–84; 482–3;ed. Ab< l-6Azm, A6azzu, 224). As already noted by H. Laoust (Fetwa, 161–2),it is not easy to determine exactly which text Ibn Taymiyya is referring towhen he speaks of Ibn T<mart’s Murshida, which is the case here just as inthe text studied in Fetwa. It could be the Murshida I (trans. Masse,Profession, 118–19) or the shorter version of the Murshida II (trans. Masse,Profession, 119–20). Both texts are indeed silent concerning the affirmationof the attributes, the future vision of God, the createdness of the Qur8:n, etc.The longer version of the Murshida II (trans. Masse, Profession, 120–1)and 6Aq;da (trans. Masse, Profession, 105–7) expound a somehow lessnegationist theology. The present attacks of Ibn Taymiyya against Ibn T<martcan usefully be compared with his views in the fatwa studied by H. Laoust(Fetwa).

109 Qu3b al-D;n Ab< MuAammad 6Abd al-Eaqq Ibn Sab6;n, philosopherand Sufi (Murcia, 613/1217–Makka, 668/1269); see A. Faure, EI2, s.v.‘Ibn Sab6;n’. According to Ibn Sab6;n, ‘God is the existence of all things,really’ (Ras:8il, ed. 6A. R. Badaw; (Cairo: al-Mu8assasat al-MiBriyyat al-6:mmali-l-ta8l;f wa-l-anb:8 wa-l-nashr, 1965), 89). ‘ ‘‘The identity (6ayn) of what yousee is an essence which is not seen. An essence which is not seen is the identityof what you see.’’ These are words of Ibn Sab6;n. He is among thegreatest heretics—the adepts of associationism, magic, and unification (ittiA:d).He was among their preeminent men, among the cleverest of them, and the mostexpert among them concerning philosophy and the Sufism of thosewho philosophize’ (Ibn Taymiyya, Majm<6at al-ras:8il wa-l-mas:8il, 2 vols.(Beirut: D:r al-kutub al-6ilmiyya, 1403/1983), new version of the M. Rash;dRi@: ed., i. 91).

180 yahya j. michot

heresy.110 It is said, in this respect, that Ibn T<mart mentioned it111 in hisOriental Useful Notes (al-Faw:8id al-mashriqiyya): ‘Existence is shared(mushtarak) between the Creator and the created. The existence of theCreator is stripped (mujarrad) [from characterizations], whereas theexistence of the created is bound (muqayyad).’112 [21]

What is aimed at here is [to say] what [follows]. These [people] gave, tosuch a denial [of the divine attributes], the name of ‘tawA;d’. It is

110 In his hyper-negationist Murshida I (trans. Masse, Profession, 118), IbnT<mart reduces God to pure, necessary, unlimited existence, ‘outside of whichnothing exists, neither earth nor heaven, neither water nor air’, etc. Ibn Taymiyyais right to link such a theology to Avicenna’s conception of God as the Necessaryof existence (w:jib al-wuj<d), Whose essence is to exist, and to Ibn Sab6;n’sonto-theological monism. On absolute existence, see below, p. 55.

111 i.e. absolute existence. In Dar8, iii. 438, which offers another, almostidentical, version of this paragraph, this sentence is formulated with more clarity:‘Ibn T<mart mentioned in his Oriental Useful Notes (al-Faw:8id al-mashriqiyya)that existence is shared . . .’ Al-Faw:8id al-mashriqiyya is not mentionedby Brockelmann (GAL, i. 506). It perhaps corresponds to the text he entitlesal-Kal:m f; l-6um<m wa-l-khuB<B wa-l-mu3laq wa-l-muqayyad wa-l-mujmalwa-l-mufassar wa-l-n:sikh wa-l-mans<kh wa-l-Aaq;qa wa-l-maj:z . . . withwhich it seems to have some partial similarity of content.

112 In Dar8, iii. 439–40, this passage continues as follows: ‘In the Book ofProof and Knowledge, Ibn T<mart said: ‘‘Objects of knowledge are of two types:nonexistent and existent. What exists (al-mawj<d) is of two types: absolute(mu3laq) and bound (muqayyad). That which is bound is that which ischaracterized (mukhaBBaB). Characterization (ikhtiB:B) is of three types.[The first is] characterization by a time with the exclusion of another time.The second is characterization by a position with the exclusion of anotherposition. The third is characterization by a characteristic (kh:BBa) withthe exclusion of another characteristic. The absolute existent is that which isneither bound nor characterized. It is thus neither characterized by a timewith the exclusion of another, nor by a position with the exclusion of another,nor by a characteristic with the exclusion of another. If it was characterized byanything, it would be of its genre. So, as characteristics are denied from itabsolutely, absolute existence is necessary for it.’’ ‘‘The absolute existent’’, hesaid, ‘‘is the pre-eternal, the eternal, for whom bonds (qayd) and characteristicsare impossible, which is characterised by absolute existence, without binding(taqy;d) nor characterization.’’ He mentioned many things in order to deny[God’s] characterization. He even said: ‘‘As finite [entities] are equal in beingcharacterized by a determined position, characterization is impossible for[His essence] on the part of them and on the part of something characterizing oftheir genre. And, as characterization on the part of their genre is vain,characterization on the part of all characterizing [things] is vain, absolutely.’’He moreover said, afterwards: ‘‘He stands alone in knowledge and perfection,sovereignty (Aukm) and choice (ikhtiy:r). He stands alone in triumph (qahr) andpower (iqtid:r). He stands alone in creativity (khalq) and inventivity (ikhtir:6).’’He also said: ‘‘With all these characterizing [things], perfection would beimpossible for [His essence], even if its attributes were mutually complementingin perfection.’’’ These views are then refuted by Ibn Taymiyya (440–1).


[however] an appellation which the Jahm; deniers had innovated andabout which the Book113 did not talk, nor the [Prophetic] Tradition(sunna), nor any of the Ancients (salaf) and of the im:ms. The adepts ofthe affirmation [of the divine attributes] have, on the contrary, madeclear that tawA;d cannot be achieved but by affirming the attributes andworshipping God alone, Him having no associate, as the exalted Godhas reminded [us] in the chapter114 The Devotion (Q. 112) and in theverses of the Qur8:n generally.

As these Jahm;s—the Mu6tazil;s and the others—were agreed with[Avicenna] on denying the attributes and [saying] that this is the truetawA;d, he used as an argument against them the dialectic premisssaying this: the Messengers have not made clear (bayyana) what thetruth is in itself, as far as knowing [how] to proclaim the oneness(tawA;d) of the exalted God and knowing the Last Day are concerned;they have not mentioned what it is that is right or necessary, for theelite of the sons of Adam and for those among them who have wits, tounderstand, to comprehend, and to know of this matter; the Book, theTradition, and the consensus will not be used as arguments concerningfaith in God and in the Last Day, nor about the creation and theresurrection, nor about the origin and the return; the divine Booksprovide only an imaginal representation (takhy;l) from which thecommonalty benefits, not a true realization (taAq;q) that would providescience and knowledge. The greatest of the sciences, the most sublimeand the noblest, which consists in knowing God, the Messengers havefundamentally not made it clear (bayyana), they have not talked aboutit, and they have not guided the creatures towards it. On the contrary,what they have made clear, it is not the knowledge of God, nor theknowledge of the return, nor something which would be the truth asfar as faith in God is concerned, nor something that would be the truthso far as faith in the Last Day is concerned; even, according to these[people], in the words of God and of His Messenger concerning thismatter, there is no science from which those who have wits wouldbenefit; in these [words] there are only imaginal (takhy;l) and esti-mative representations (;h:m) from which the ignorant ones of thecommonalty benefit.115

This being what the Qarma3; and esotericist (b:3iniyya) hereticsreally say, they began to consider one of their leaders as equivalent to

113 i.e. the Qur8:n.114 s<ra: s<ratay S in the two chapters115 On takhy;l and ;h:m, see W. Heinrichs, EI2, s.v. ‘Takhy;l’. For Ibn

Taymiyya (MF, xxxv. 142–3), ‘the philosophizers interpret what the Messengerstold concerning faith in God and the Last Day, by [processes of] denying (nafy)

182 yahya j. michot

the Messenger, or as more important than the Messenger, and theyallowed him to abrogate [22] the Law of MuAammad, God bless himand grant him peace; so did they maintain that MuAammad,116 son ofIsm:6;l, son of Ja6far, had abrogated his Law. Each of these people alsobegan to claim to be a prophet and a Messenger, or, had there been no[threat of punishment by the] sword, would have wanted to declare itopenly as al-Suhraward;117—the one who was killed—did. He didindeed use to say: ‘I will not die until it is said to me: ‘‘Rise, and

and reductionism (ta63;l) that are in agreement with their doctrine. As for thepractical Legal obligations, they do not deny them as the Qarma3;s deny them.On the contrary, they make them compulsory for the commonalty and makesome of them compulsory for the elite, or do not make that compulsory. They saythat the Messengers, in what they told and commanded, did not come up withthe real truths of matters but came up with something in which there is a benefit(Bal:A) for the commonalty even if, in reality, it is a lie. This is why each prattler(mub3il) chose to come up with uncommon deeds (makh:r;q) [supposedly]destined to benefit the commonalty. So did Ibn T<mart, nicknamed ‘the well-guided’ (mahd;). His doctrine concerning the attributes was the doctrine of thephilosophers as he was, in general, similar to them. He [however] was not anhypocrite accusing the Messengers of lying nor reducing the Legal obligations [tonothing]. Nor did he give the practical Law an inward [meaning] in opposition tothe outward one. Rather, there was in him some of the views of the Jahm;s thatare in agreement with the views of the philosophers, and some of the views of theKh:rij;s who are prone to use the sword and condemn one as infidel for a sin’.

116 MuAammad b. Ism:6;l b. Ja6far al-4:diq (c.120/738–after 179/795), theseventh im:m of the Ism:6;l;s, considered to have gone into concealment as theMahd; and expected, when returning, to inaugurate an age of ‘pure spiritualknowledge’ and ‘rule in justice before the physical world is consummated’; seeF. Daftary, A Short History of the Ismailis: Traditions of a Muslim Community(Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1998), 35–6, 53–4. According to ‘someof the dissident Qarmatian Ismailis active at the end of the 3rd/9th century . . . ifhe had already appeared as the Messiah, then . . . the outward law of Islam wasno longer valid’ (P. E. Walker, Early philosophical Shiism: The IsmailiNeoplatonism of Ab< Ya6q<b al-Sijist:n; (Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 1993), 131; Ab< Ya6q<b al-Sijist:n;: Intellectual Missionary (London:I. B. Tauris and Institute of Ismaili Studies, 1996), 74). Ample evidence showsthat Islamic Laws and rituals had often ceased to be observed in their community.

117 Shih:b al-D;n YaAy: l-Suhraward;, theosophist and mystic (b. Suhraward,549/1154; d. Aleppo, 587/1191); see H. Ziai, EI2, s.v. ‘al-Suhraward;’. ‘Al-Suhraward;—the one who was killed—wanted to become a prophet. Hecombined speculation (naCar) and devotion (ta8alluh). He somehow took thepath of the esotericists (b:3iniyya) and joined together the philosophy ofthe Persians and of the Greeks. He gave great importance to the topic of theLights and came close to the religion of the ancient Magi. [His ideas] were a copy(nuskha) of the Ism:6;l; esotericism. He was versed in magic (siAr) andphantasmagory (s;miy:8). The Muslims killed him for free-thinking (zandaqa)in the time of 4al:A al-D;n’ (Ibn Taymiyya, Minh:j al-sunnat al-nabawiyya f;


warn!’’’118 As for Ibn Sab6;n, he used to say: ‘The son of Am;na wasinsolent (zarraba) when he said: ‘‘[There will be] no prophet after me!’’’It is said that he used to stay in the cave of Eir:8119 so that revelationwould come down upon him there. Ibn 6Arab;120 claimed [for himself]something that, according to him, was even more important thanprophethood, that is, the sealing of sainthood (wal:ya).121 [23]According to him, the seal of the saints (kh:tam al-awliy:8) is moreeminent than the Seal of the prophets as far as knowing God isconcerned. He used to say that all the prophets and the Messengersbenefit from the Niche of this seal claiming to know God, [aknowledge] whose reality is [in fact] the unicity of existence, whichmeans the reduction (ta63;l) of the Artisan, praised is He, [to nothing],and which is the secret meaning of what Pharaoh said.122 The im:ms

naq@ kal:m al-Sh;6at al-qadariyya, ed. M. R. S:lim, 9 vols. (Cairo: Maktabat IbnTaymiyya, 1409/1989), viii. 249–50). On al-Suhraward;’s questioning of theMuAammadan sealing of prophecy, his own claims to prophethood, their partlypolitical character and the role they played in his condemnation to death bySaladin, see J. Walbridge, Leaven, 201–10.

118 See Q. 74. 2.119 The ‘Mountain of Light’ (jabal al-n<r), to the north-east of Makka. The

Prophet received his first revelation while staying in a cave on Hir:8, wherehe used to go for spiritual retreats; see T. Weir and W. Montgomery Watt, EI2,s.v. ‘Eir:8’. ‘Ibn Sab6;n came from the Maghreb to Makka. He wanted to becomea prophet and he repeatedly went to the cave of Eir:8 in which, at the beginning,the revelation had come down upon the Prophet, God bless him and granthim peace. It is related about him that he used to say: ‘‘The son of Am;na wascanny (dhariba) when he said: ‘[There will be] no prophet after me!’ ’’ He wasbrilliant (b:ri6) in philosophy, in the Sufism of the philosophizers, and in what isrelated to that’ (Ibn Taymiyya, Minh:j, viii. 250). On Ibn Sab6;n’s stay in Makka(from c.652/1254 till his death in 668/1269), see A. W. al-Taft:z:n;, Ibn Sab6;nwa-falsafatu-hu l-B<fiyya (Beirut: D:r al-kit:b al-Lubn:n;, 1973), 51–60. IbnKath;r (Bid:ya, xiii. 261) reports a similar story, whose authenticity is refusedby A. W. al-Taft:z:n;.

120 MuAy; l-D;n Ab< 6Abd All:h MuAammad Ibn al-6Arab;, theosophistand Sufi (b. Murcia, 560/1165; d. Damascus, 638/1240); see A. Ates� , EI2, s.v.‘Ibn al-6Arab;’.

121 See M. Chodkiewicz, Seal of the Saints: Prophethood and Sainthood inthe Doctrine of Ibn 6Arab; (Cambridge: Islamic Texts Society, 1993). On IbnTaymiyya’s critique of Ibn 6Arab;, see A. Knysh, Ibn 6Arab; in the Later IslamicTradition: The Making of a Polemical Image in Medieval Islam (New York: StateUniversity of New York Press, 1999), 87–111.

122 For Ibn Taymiyya, the adepts of the ‘unicity of existence’ are ‘phar-aonists’ (fir6awn;) in this sense that, affirming the absence of any difference, intheir existence itself, between the creatures and the Creator, they claim to bedivine just as Pharaoh does when he proclaims: ‘Nobles, I did not know, for you,a god other than me’ (Q. 28. 38).

184 yahya j. michot

of the Qarma3;s and of the Ism:6;l;s, like Ibn al-4abb:A,123 learned thepillars of [their] missionary propaganda (da6wa) from al-Mus-tanBir124—the one of their caliphs who reigned the longest and inwhose time al-Bas:s;r;’s sedition (fitna) took place125—and his like.They, Sin:n,126 and his like among the heretics, supported each otherin order to make infidelity appear among their companions. ‘We permitto you’, they said, ‘everything you desire—sex, meat, drink—and weabrogate the acts of worship (6ib:d:t). You do not have to fast, nor topray, nor to go on pilgrimage, nor to give alms.’127 [24]

[Second refutation]This argument, which those heretics use against the deniers [of the divineattributes] in order to establish their heresy, is among the arguments[that can be used] against them by the adepts of the affirmation [of theseattributes] in order to establish their faith.128

God, praised is He, has told [us] that ‘He sent His Messenger with theguidance and the religion of the Real, to cause it to prevail over all

123 Easan-i 4abb:A, Ism:6;l; propagandist and first Niz:r; master of Alam<t(d. 518/1124). Trained in F:3imid Egypt under al-MustanBir, he took the fortressof Alam<t from the Salj<qs in 483/1090 and remained loyal to Niz:r b. al-MustanBir when he was supplanted by his younger brother al-Musta6l; in 487/1094; see M. Hodgson, EI2, s.v. ‘Easan-i 4abb:A’.

124 Al-MustanBir bi-Ll:h, Ab< Tam;m Ma6add b. 6Al; al-G:hir, the eighthF:3imid caliph, who reigned from 427/1036 till his death in 487/1094, afterthe longest rule by a Muslim sovereign; see H. Gibb and P. Kraus, EI2, s.v.‘al-MustanBir’.

125 Ab< l-E:rith Arslan al-Bas:s;r; (d. 451/1060), Turkish emir of the B<yidswho defected to the F:3imids when the Salj<q Toghrul seized the Iraqi capital in447/1055. Taking advantage of Toghrul’s return to Iran, he entered Baghdad in450/1058, making the 6Abb:sid caliph al-Q:8im flee, and was able to imposeal-MustanBir’s sovereignty over the city and southern Iraq for about a year; seeM. Canard, EI2, s.v. ‘al-Bas:s;r;’.

126 Rash;d al-D;n Sin:n b. Salm:n b. MuAammad Ab< l-Easan al-BaBr;, the‘Old Man of the Mountain’ of the Crusaders’ chronicles, the most importantNiz:r; Ism:6;l; leader in medieval Syria (d. 589/1193); see F. Daftary, EI2, s.v.‘Rash;d al-D;n Sin:n’.

127 Allusion to the resurrection (qiy:ma) and abolition of the Law (shar;6a)proclaimed in 559/1164 by Eassan II (d. 561/1166), master of the Niz:r; Ism:6;l;sect of Alam<t and, some time later, by Sin:n in Syria; see M. Hodgson, EI2, s.v.‘Alam<t’.

128 I understand this paragraph in the following way: although it is correct,Avicenna’s assertion against the deniers of divine attributes that there isnothing in the canonical texts of Islam that supports their understanding oftawA;d is an argument that can also be turned against him as it can be said toprove that his own theodicy, which is quite similar to that of the deniers ofattributes, is also devoid of canonical textual basis and is therefore vain and false.Ibn Taymiyya will explain this more clearly a few pages later (see p. 30).


religion’ (Q. 9. 33). He also said, exalted is He: ‘A Book which We havesent down to you that you may make mankind come out from thedarkness unto the light, by the permission of their Lord’ (Q. 14. 1). Healso said, exalted is He: ‘From God have come to you a light and amanifest Book whereby God guides whomever seeks His agreementon the paths of peace, makes them come out from the darkness unto thelight by His permission, and guides them to a straight way’ (Q. 5. 15–6).He also said, exalted is He: ‘And so have We revealed to you a spirit[participating] of Our command. You did not know what the Book was,nor what the faith. But We made it a light whereby We guide whom Wewill of Our servants. You verily do guide to a straight way; the way ofGod, to Whom belongs whatsoever is in the heavens and whatsoever isin the earth’ (Q. 42. 52–3). He also said, exalted is He: ‘Alif. L:m. M;m.This is the Book, whereof there is no doubt, a guidance for those whofear [God]’ (Q. 2. 1–2). He also said, exalted is He: ‘We have sent downthe Book to you, as a [way] to make everything clear’ (Q. 16. 89). He alsosaid, exalted is He: ‘but a confirmation of the previous [Scriptures] and adetailed explanation of everything’ (Q. 12. 111). He also said, exaltedis He: ‘A proof from your Lord has come to you and We have sentdown to you a light that makes [everything] clear’ (Q. 4. 174). He alsosaid, exalted is He: ‘Those who have faith in him, and honour him, andhelp him, and follow the light which was sent down with him, theseare the successful ones’ (Q. 7. 157). [25] He also said, exalted is He:‘The Messenger is only to convey [the message] that makes [everything]clear’ (Q. 29. 18). He also said, exalted is He: ‘And We have sent downto you the Remembrance, that you may make clear to mankind thatwhich had been sent down to them’ (Q. 16. 44). He also said, exaltedis He: ‘This day, I have perfected for you your religion’ (Q. 5. 3). Healso said, exalted is He: ‘God would not lead a folk astray afterHe had guided them until He had made clear to them what they shouldfear’ (Q. 9. 115).

Similar texts make clear that the Messenger guided the creatures, wasexplicit (bayyana) with them, and made them come out from thedarkness unto the light, not that he disguised [things] (labbasa) in regardto them and used imaginal representations (khayyala), concealed thetruth, did not make it clear (bayyana), and did not guide towards it,neither as far as the elite is concerned, nor as far as the commonalty isconcerned. It is indeed known that the Messenger, God bless him andgrant him peace, did not speak with anybody about things contradictingthat which he was making apparent to people. The elite of hisCompanions were not believing about him the contrary of that whichhe was making apparent to people. Rather, each [person] who had amore special relationship to him and was more knowledgeable about his

186 yahya j. michot

circumstances was more in agreement with him and assenting more tohim about that which he was making apparent and was making clear. Ifthe truth, inwardly (b:3in), was the opposite of that which he madeapparent, this would necessarily follow: either he was ignorant of it129 orhe was concealing it from the elite and the commonalty and making itsopposite apparent to the elite and the commonalty.130

Now, each [person] who is knowledgeable about the [Prophet’s]Sunna and his biography knows that what is related at variance withthis is a fabrication and a lie. [It is the case,] for example, with thatwhich some R:fi@;s131 mention about 6Al;,132 that is, that he had withhim a special, esoteric science that was at variance with these outward[teachings of the Prophet]. [26] Now it is established in the authentictraditions, whose authenticity knowledgeable people do not dispute,that when it was said to 6Al;, may God be pleased with him, ‘Have youreceived a book from the Messenger of God, God bless him andgrant him peace?’, he said: ‘No! by Him Who made the grain splitand created the soul, the Messenger of God, God bless him and granthim peace, did not tell us as a secret anything that he would haveconcealed from others, except [some] understanding which God givesto the servant concerning His Book and that which is in this document,that is, the regulations of bloodmoney, the release of the captives, and

129 Earlier in the Dar8, Ibn Taymiyya attributes such an affirmation to a sub-subgroup of the followers of what he calls the hermeneutical ‘way ofreplacement’ (tabd;l) of the outward meaning of the Scripture: those who notonly claim that the revelation offers to the estimative faculties (wahm) of peopleimaginal representations (takhy;l) having no relation, or even opposed, to thereality, but add that the Prophet ignored the reality. Al-F:r:b;, Mubashshirb. F:tik, Ibn 6Arab;, and other thinkers judging philosophers superior to prophetsare, for him, representative of this trend; see the text translated in Y. Michot,Lettre, 21–3.

130 This is the position of another sub-subgroup of the followers of the ‘wayof replacement’: those who also speak of wahm and takhy;l about the Scripturebut say that the Prophet knew the reality. Avicenna and his like, who considerprophets superior to philosophers, are representative of this trend; see the texttranslated in Y. Michot, Lettre, 21–3. Ibn Taymiyya could have includedAb< Ya6q<b al-Sijist:n; in this category of thinkers.

131 Pejorative appellation for the Sh;6;s, who ‘refuse’ (rafa@a) the three firstcaliphs; see Ibn Taymiyya, MF, trans. Y. Michot, ‘Textes spirituels d’IbnTaymiyya, XII: Mongols et Maml<ks: l’etat du monde musulman vers 709/1310(suite)’, in Le Musulman, 25 (Paris: AEIF, Jan. 1995), 25–30; 30, and ‘Textesspirituels d’Ibn Taymiyya, XIII: Mongols et Maml<ks: l’etat du mondemusulman vers 709/1310 (fin)’, in Le Musulman, 26 (Paris: AEIF, Sept. 1995),25–30; 25.

132 6Al; b. Ab; F:lib, the fourth caliph (d. 40/660); see L. Veccia Vaglieri, EI2,s.v. ‘6Al; b. Ab; F:lib’.


that no Muslim should be killed for an infidel’.133 [One also finds] inthe 4aA;A,134 in [another] formulation: ‘Did the Messenger of God,God bless him and grant him peace, entrust to you something which hehas not entrusted to the people?’—‘No,’ he said, ‘by Him Who madethe grain split and created the soul . . .’ and [the rest of] the Aad;th.

There is a consensus of the people possessing the knowledge of the[religious] tradition (manq<l) that what is narrated about 6Al; and Ja6faral-4:diq,135 among these things claimed by the esotericists (b:3iniyya),are fabricated lies. The Sh;6; and Sufi heretics used to trace their heresy to6Al;, who is [however] innocent of that. The followers of The Card (ahlal-bi3:qa),136 among other adepts of heresy, attribute it to 6Al;, and soalso do the esotericist (b:3iniyya) Sh;6;s—the Ism:6;l;s and theNuBayr;s137. Likewise for Ja6far al-4:diq: they have attributed to him

133 This is in fact a composite quotation of two different traditions. For thefirst one, see al-Bukh:r;, al-4aA;A, 9 vols. (Bulaq: al-Ma3ba6at al-kubr: l-am;riyya, 1311–1313/1893–1895), 6Ilm, i. 33 (Maws<6at al-Ead;th al-Shar;f(CD-ROM), 1st edn. (Kuwait: 4akhr, 62lamiyya, 1995) 108); Jih:d, iv. 69(62lam. 2820); Diy:t, ix. 11, 12–13 (62lam. 6394, 6404) ; al-Tirmidh;, al-Sunan,ed. 6A. W. 6Abd al-La3;f, 6A. R. M. 6Uthm:n, 5 vols. (Beirut: D:r al-fikr, 1403/1983), Diy:t, ii. 432, no. 1433 (62lam. 1332); Ibn Eanbal, al-Musnad, 6 vols.(Cairo: al-B:b; l-Ealab;, 1313/1896), i. 79 (62lam. 565). For the second, seeMuslim, al-J:mi6 al-BaA;A, 8 vols. (Constantinople, 1334/1916), A@:A;, vi. 84(62lam. 3657–8); Ibn Eanbal, Musnad, i. 108 (62lam. 813, 816).

134 See Muslim, 4aA;A, Mun:fiq;n, viii. 122 (62lam. 4983–4).135 Ja6far al-4:diq, ‘the veracious’ (Mad;na, c.83/703–148/765), the sixth

im:m of the Twelver Sh;6;s, said to have authored numerous works on occultsciences; see M. G. S. Hodgson, EI2, s.v. ‘Ja6far al-4:diq’. On the lies told about6Al; and Ja6far al-4:diq, see Ibn Taymiyya, MF, trans. Michot, Astrology, 175–80.

136 Ibn Taymiyya says elsewhere that this unidentified work is attributed toJa6far al-4:diq (MF, trans. Michot, Astrology, 176; the suggestion I make in n. 90is incorrect). In Minh:j, viii. 28, Ibn Taymiyya refers to ‘the pronouncements(kal:m) of the adepts of The Card (aBA:b al-bi3:qa)’ about a wrong doctrineof absolute existence. Al-bi3:qa could in fact be a copyist (or editor) mistakefor al-bal:gh, as the two words are graphically similar. It would then refer toal-Bal:gh al-akbar wa-l-n:m<s al-a6Cam, an important pseudo-Ism:6;l; treatisealready known in the 4th/10th century (see W. Madelung, ‘The F:3imids and theQarma3;s of BaArayn’, in F. Daftary (ed.), Mediaeval Isma6ili History andThought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 21–73; 43–5, 66–8),which Ibn Taymiyya mentions in various works (see Y. Michot, ‘Vizir ‘‘heretique’’mais philosophe d’entre les plus eminents: al-F<s; vu par Ibn Taymiyya’, inFarhang (Tehran: Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies, 2003), textB1 (forthcoming); Ibn Taymiyya, Futy: f; l-NuBayriyya, trans. S. Guyard,‘Le Fetwa d’Ibn Taymiyyah sur les Nosairis’, in Journal Asiatique, 6/18(Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1871), 158–98; 191–2).

137 Extremist Sh;6; sect named after MuAammad b. NuBayr al-Fihr; l-Numayr;, a disciple of the tenth or eleventh Twelver Sh;6; im:m, still existingtoday (6Alaw;s of Syria); see H. Halm, EI2, s.v. ‘NuBayriyya’. Ibn Taymiyyarefutes them in a famous fatwa (NuBayriyya, trans. Guyard, Fetwa, 189).

188 yahya j. michot

words on the stars and on the quivering of the limbs,138 falsifiedcommentaries [on the Qur8:n], and various vain things from which Godexculpates him. One of their leaders has even maintained that theEpistles of the Ikhw:n al-4af:’139 were his words, although they wereonly composed after the third century, when Cairo was built. [27] Agroup of philosophers composed them and mentioned in them events[relating] to Islam which happened after the second century—forexample the entry of the Nazarenes into the countries of Islam,140

etc.—and which make clear that they were composed about twohundred years after Ja6far. Of this sort is also that which others reportabout 6Umar141, may God be pleased with him, that is, that he said: ‘TheProphet, God bless him and grant him peace, and Ab< Bakr142 werespeaking and I was like a negro between them.’143 This [report] andsimilar ones are fabricated lies, according to the unanimous agreement ofthe knowledgeable people. The heretical ascetics and devotees, and thoseignorant ones among them, narrate a variety of such things. For

138 See Ibn Taymiyya, MF, trans. Michot, Astrology, 175. 6Ilm al-ikhtil:jis palmomancy, the ‘science of pulsations’, whose purpose is ‘to drawprognostications from the pulsations that spontaneously occur on all the partsof the human body’. The most famous Arabic treatise on palmomancy isattributed to Ja6far al-4:diq, who is said to have introduced this foreignscience into Islam; see T. Fahd, La Divination arabe (Paris: Sindbad, 1987),397–402.

139 Gnostic philosophical society of the 4th/10th c., possibly ‘involved ina secret underground movement subversive to the 6Abb:sid Caliphate’(A. Hamdani, ‘Brethren of Purity, a Secret Society for the Establishment ofthe F:3imid Caliphate: New Evidence for the Early Dating of theirEncyclopædia’, in M. Barrucand (ed.), L’Egypte fatimide, son art et son histoire(Paris: Presses de l’Universite de Paris-Sorbonne, 1999), 79); see Y. Marquet, EI2,s.v. ‘Ikhw:n al-4af:8’; Ibn Taymiyya, MF, trans. Michot, Musique, 78. IbnTaymiyya expresses a similar opinion on the dating of the Ras:8il in MF,trans. Michot, Astrology, 176–7. On the unsolved question of the date ofthe composition of the Ras:8il, see A. Hamdani, Brethren, who argues for adating as early as the period between 260/873 and 297/909. Ibn Taymiyya’sopinion in favour of a date some 60 years later does not seem to have beentaken into consideration in this debate.

140 This is not an allusion to the Crusades but to the military successes of theByzantine Nicephorus Phocas and John Tzimisces over the Eamd:nids of Aleppoafter 350/961. Cairo was built by the F:3imids in 358/969.

141 6Umar Ibn al-Kha33:b, the second caliph (d. 23/644); see G. Levi DellaVida, EI2, s.v. ‘6Omar ibn al-Kha33:b’.

142 The first caliph (d. 13/634); see W. Montgomery Watt, EI2, s.v. ‘Ab<Bakr’.

143 On this story, see J. Berkey, Popular Preaching and Religious Authorityin the Medieval Islamic Near East (Seattle: University of Washington Press,2001), 44.


example, they relate that the people of the bench (ahl al-Buffa)144 foughtthe Prophet, God bless him and grant him peace, on the side of theinfidels, when victory was not with him, in order to demonstrate therebythat the gnostic (6:rif) will be with the one who triumphs even if he is aninfidel. They also relate that God, exalted is He, made known to thepeople of the bench the secret which He revealed to His Prophet, Godbless him and grant him peace, on the morning of [his] ascension(mi6r:j), without informing the Messenger, and that God has a cream [ofpeople] who arrive to him from another [road] than the way of theMessenger.

Those who invented these vain lies were not experts in lying. Therewas no bench but in Mad;na, whereas the ascension took place inMakka, according to the Text and the consensus. Every scholar whoknows the biography of the Prophet, [28] God bless him and grant himpeace, necessarily knows that the people of the bench were like the restof the believers with the Prophet, God bless him and grant him peace,that none of the Companions had any other way towards God butfollowing His Messenger and that the most eminent of the Companionswere the steadiest in following [him], like Ab< Bakr and 6Umar.

Ab< Bakr was more eminent than 6Umar, may God be pleased withthem both, and he was the most eminent of the truthful ones. It isestablished in the two 4aA;As that [the Prophet] said: ‘There were, in thecommunities before you, people who were spoken to. If there is one in mycommunity, it is 6Umar’.145 Even if 6Umar was spoken to, the truthful onewho was learning from the Niche of Prophethood was more eminent thanhim and more perfect than him. That through which the coming of theMessenger gets confirmed is indeed protected [from fault] (ma6B<m), noerror penetrating into it, whereas, in that which is thrown to one spokento, errors occur that need to be rectified by the light of prophethood. Thisis why Ab< Bakr was rectifying 6Umar. He rectified him, for example, onthe day of al-Eudaybiyya, on the day of the Prophet’s death, God blesshim and grant him peace, during the struggle against the adepts ofapostasy,146 and on other [occasions]. 6Umar had views on things;

144 Companions of the Prophet who, according to tradition, slept on a benchin Mad;na’s mosque and became models for some Sufis; see W. MontgomeryWatt, EI2, s.v. ‘Ahl al-Buffa’. Ibn Taymiyya devotes an epistle to the storiescirculating about them (see MRM, i. 32–74). On the stories mentioned here,see the text translated and annotated in Y. Michot, Musique, 58–60.

145 See al-Bukh:r;, 4aA;A, Man:qib, v. 12 (62lam. 3413); Muslim, 4aA;A,Fa@:8il al-4aA:ba, vii. 115 (62lam. 4411).

146 On these three occasions when Ab< Bakr corrected 6Umar, see successivelyal-Fabar;, Ta8r;kh al-rusul wa8l-mul<k, trans. M. Fishbein, The History of al-Fabar;, viii: The Victory of Islam (Albany: State University of New York Press,

190 yahya j. michot

afterwards, the truth would manifest itself to him contrary to these[views], as happened to him in a number of places. [29]

This and similar [facts] are among the things that make clear that themost eminent of the creatures after the Messenger and the most perfectof them were in need of being guided by the Messenger, of learning fromhim, and of knowing the truth from that which he had come up with.How then, [a fortiori, will things be] for somebody147 saying that,concerning the knowledge of God and of the Last Day, there are in the[Messenger’s] words no science, no guidance, and no knowledge fromwhich the possessors of wits, who are inferior to 6Umar and the like of6Umar, would benefit?

God, exalted is He, has said: ‘Mankind were one single community.God made the prophets rise as announcers and warners and with themHe sent down the Book, with the truth, that it might judge betweenpeople concerning that wherein they differed’ (Q. 2. 213). He also said,exalted is He: ‘If you dispute about something, refer it to God and theMessenger’ (Q. 4. 59). [However,] to judge between people about topicsof divergence and controversy, how would it be done by a word and adiscourse in which there is neither science nor guidance from which thepossessors of wits would benefit, as maintained by those heretics—thelater Peripatetic philosophers and their followers [who say] that the Lawsare not to be used as arguments in matters like these?148 That which willnot be used as an argument, how would people use it as an argumentconcerning that wherein they differ? And which divergence is moreimportant than their divergence about the most important matters, thatis, knowledge of the exalted God and of the Last Day?149 Especially as itis known that real divergence occurs only about scientific matters andinformation-related propositions, that are not susceptible of abrogationand change. As for practical [matters], that are susceptible of abrogation,these are of various species in one single Law; how[, a fortiori, will theybe] in the case of the variety of Laws? [30] A divergence concerning thatwhich is permitted to vary has [however] no reality. If two things areprescribed by Law at two [different] times, or by two Messengers,both are true. If the divergence consists in [identifying] which of the two isthe one prescribed by Law, this will be known by the information drawn

1997), 85; trans. I. K. Poonawala, The History of al-Fabar;, ix: The Last Yearsof the Prophet (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1990), 184–5,187–8; and Y. Michot, Textes XIII, 29–30.

147 Somebody like Avicenna, for example.148 Paraphrase of p. 18, ll. 6–7.149 On the divergences of the theologians and the philosophers according to

Ibn Taymiyya, see the pages of Dar8 translated in Y. Michot, Vanites.


from the revealed Book. The revealed Book per se indeed consists incommand, prohibition, and information, and in it [can be found] theLegal prescriptions whose opposite are not Legal prescriptions.

At this point, that which Avicenna and his like mention, that is,that in the Qur8:n nothing is stated that would be pointing to thetawA;d [as understood by] these [negationist theologians],150 this iscorrectly said and this is the proof that [such a theology] is vain, devoidof truth, and that whoever151 agrees with them on it is an ignorantone and astray.

Avicenna also mentioned that there are passages [of the Qur8:n]wherein the formulation does not bear but one meaning [and,consequently], does not bear the figurativeness and metaphor thatthese [theologians] claim [are there]. The Exalted said: ‘Are they waitingfor nothing less than that God should come to them in the shadows ofthe clouds?’ (Q. 2. 210). He also said, exalted is He: ‘Are they waitingfor nothing less than that the angels come to them, or your Lord come,or some of the signs of your Lord come?’ (Q. 6. 158). These sayings ofGod, [Avicenna] noted,

. are of the type [just] mentioned. Now, estimative [faculties] (wahm) do not atall believe, about these [passages], that [the] way they are expressed (6ib:ra) isfigurative or metaphorical. Therefore, if [making the crowd understand] that[figurative or metaphorical character] about these [passages] was wantedimplicitly (i@m:ran), [God] will have agreed to the occurrence of error anduncertainty . . .

This is an argument against those who, among the deniers of the[divine] attributes, deny the [literal] content of these [passages].152 It is[however,] both together, an argument against him and against them,153

and their [possible] agreement with him would not [31] be useful to him.This is indeed a dialectical argument, not a scientific one, as theirconceding that to him would not oblige others than them to concede that

150 Paraphrase of pp. 11, l. 11–12, l. 1.151 Notably Avicenna.152 As they could not accept the idea of God agreeing to the occurrence of

error and uncertainty.153 The reason why it is an argument against them has been explained in the

previous note. The reason why it becomes, on the other hand, an argumentagainst Avicenna himself is explained by Ibn Taymiyya in the last sentence of theparagraph. It basically refers to the fact that the literal understanding of thequoted Qur8:nic verses which Avicenna relates to estimative faculties, andtherefore considers as doctrinally useless, is regarded by Ibn Taymiyya as theproduct of sound intellect, in agreement with authentic religious texts.

192 yahya j. michot

to him.154 As [nevertheless] by the limpid reason something is madeexplicit which agrees with the authentic religious tradition, that provesthe corrupt nature of what he says and of what they say both together.

. Moreover, let us admit that all these [Qur8:nic passages] are to be taken155

figuratively. Where [then, however], are the tawA;d and the manifest exposition(dal:la) of the pure tawA;d to which calls, [in its] true essence (Aaq;qa), thisvaluable religion whose sublimity is acknowledged through the tongues of all thesages?156

To say so would be to speak correctly if what the deniers [of theattributes] say were true. Indeed, at that moment, according to what theysay, the true tawA;d would fundamentally not have been made clear,which is impossible. [Avicenna] is [however] more erring than them ashe maintains that the Messengers also did not make tawA;d clear butmentioned things contradicting tawA;d so that the crowd would yieldto them in mending their earthly life. We have made clear elsewherethe doctrine of divine oneness (tawA;d) of Avicenna and his like.We have made clear that it is among the most corrupt things said [onthe topic], whose corrupt nature is known by [any] limpid reason. Wehave spoken on that [subject] in particular. It is written elsewhere. [32]

. And where is there a text pointing (ish:ra) to the subtle ideas pointing to157 thescience of tawA;d? For example the [idea] that [God] is knowing by essence orknowing by a knowledge, powerful by essence or powerful by a power, etc.158

154 i.e. conceding that making people stick to the literal meaning of theseverses was the aim of God and that such revealed texts cannot, therefore, betaken into account for theological purposes. Other people, e.g. Ibn Taymiyya,would indeed accept the first proposition but refuse the second.

155 ma8kh<dha L: mawj<da SQ156 Loose quotation of p. 14, ll. 5–9. This apologetical statement of the

Shaykh al-Ra8;s is much appreciated by Ibn Taymiyya. A good sign of this is,earlier on, the way he interrupted his long quotation of the A@Aawiyya just afterit (see earlier, pp. 14–5), in order to insert a few lines of another passage of theAvicennan epistle relating to the perfection and finality of Islam. It is notablybecause of this kind of defence of the religion that the theologian considersAvicenna far superior to Aristotle. He implicitly refers to him when, in his letterto the Crusader ex-king Johan of Giblet, he speaks of an unanimous justificationof Islam by the philosophers; see Ibn Taymiyya, al-Ris:lat al-QubruBiyya, trans.Y. Michot, Ibn Taymiyya: Lettre a un roi croise (Louvain-la-Neuve: Academia;Lyon: Tawhid, 1995), 189–90; see also MF, trans. Michot, Astrology, 182.Certainly, Avicenna is one of ‘the followers of the heretics denying [theattributes]’; however, he is ‘the most eminent (af@al) of the latest of them’ (IbnTaymiyya, Dar8, x. 44, 59).

157 al-mush;ra SQ: al-mustanida L ideas founded on the158 See p. 15, ll. 3–5.


What he says here is addressed to one who agrees with him in hiserring and heresy, when he holds the opinion that reducing [God tonothing] (ta63;l) is the way to proclaim His oneness (tawA;d), that theCreator (b:ri’), exalted is He, has neither knowledge, nor power, norattributes. As for one who does not agree with him in his error, he knowsthat the Book has made clear, in the best manner, the subtle [aspects] ofthe true tawA;d wherewith the Messengers came up and wherewith theBooks were sent down. The exalted God indeed informs [us] byinnumerable verses about His attributes and His names, and Hementions His knowledge in various places. For example He says:‘They encompass nothing of His knowledge save what He wills’ (Q. 2.255). He also says, exalted is He: ‘He sent it down with His knowledge’(Q. 4. 166). He also says, exalted is He: ‘And no fruits burst forth fromtheir sheaths, and no female carries or brings forth but with Hisknowledge’ (Q. 41. 47). And other [similar verses]. [33] [Concerning Hispower,] He has said, exalted is He: ‘God is the provider, Who has thepower, the strong’ (Q. 51. 58). He also said, exalted is He: ‘The heaven,We built it with might’ (Q. 51. 47), that is, with power. He also said,exalted is He: ‘Do they not see that the God Who created them has morepower than them?’ (Q. 41. 15) [One finds] in an authentic tradition—thetradition concerning the petition for what is best (istikh:ra): ‘My God, Iask You what is best, by virtue of Your knowledge, and I ask You whatYour decree is, by virtue of Your power . . .’159 What exposition of theknowledge of God and of His power would be clearer than this?

(This article will conclude in the next issue of the Journal, 14/3.)

159 Al-Bukh:r;, 4aA;A, Jum6a, ii. 56 (62lam. 1096); see also Ab< D:8<d, al-Sunan, ed. M. M. D. 6Abd al-Eam;d, 4 vols. (Beirut: D:r al-fikr, n. d.), 4al:t, ii.89–90, no. 1538 (62lam. 1315); Ibn Eanbal, Musnad, iii. 344 (62lam. 14180).See also Ibn Taymiyya, MF, trans. Y. Michot, ‘Contre l’astrologie (Pagesspirituelles d’Ibn Taymiyya, xiii)’, in Action, 41 (Port-Louis, Mauritius: SIM,Jan. 2001), 10–1, 26; 11. On Ibn Taymiyya’s ‘middle way’ doctrine of the divineattributes, see his MF, trans. Y. Michot, ‘La Religion du milieu (Pages spirituellesd’Ibn Taymiyya, ii)’, in Action, 28 (Port-Louis: SIM, Dec. 1999), 22–3, 30; 30.

194 yahya j. michot

APPENDIX I: RAYS EBENMECHI,PRAECEPTOR MEUS

Andrea Alpago’s mentor in Damascus, ‘Rays Ebenmechi’, aliasMuAammad Ibn Makk;, is mentioned in various Arabic sources:

MuAammad Ibn Makk;, the most learned shaykh, Shams al-D;n, the Damascene,the Sh:fi6;, shaykh of the physicians in Damascus and, even, elsewhere. ‘I studiedone year under him, Ibn F<l<n said. Eminent people were his disciples. My eyeshave not seen anyone more excellent than him in expounding this science [that is,medicine]. However, he had poor luck in treating [people].’ He also said: ‘He wasaccused of being a Sh;6; (k:na yunsabu il: l-raf@) but I have not found that to betrue in his case. He knew cosmography, geometry, astronomy but had littlecommand of other [disciplines]. He passed away during the night of Wednesday9 Jum:d: II 938 [17 January 1532], at more than eighty. God have mercy uponhim!’160

This notice by Najm al-D;n al-Ghazz; (d. 1061/1651) is taken fromwhat the Syrian historian Shams al-D;n MuAammad b. 6Al; Ibn F<l<n (d.953/1546) writes in The Enjoyment of Minds:

MuAammad b. 6Abd All:h, called Easan b. Makk;, the Damascene, theshaykh Shams al-D;n, shaykh of the physicians in Damascus. Eminent peoplewere his disciples. No eye had seen anyone similar to him in his time inexpounding this science [that is, medicine]. However he had such poor luck intreating [people] that it has been said that he had killed a group of scholars,among whom was al-Burh:n b. 6Awn [d. 916/1510]. He was accused of beinga Sh;6; (k:na yunsabu il: l-raf@). He was teaching in cosmography, geometry,

160 N. D. al-Ghazz;, al-Kaw:kib al-s:8ira f; a6y:n al-mi8at al-6:shira, quotedby A. 6>s:, Mu6jam al-a3ibb:8 min sana 650 h. il: yawmi-n: h:dh: (Dhayl6Uy<n al-anb:8 f; 3abaq:t al-a3ibb:8 li Ibn Ab; UBaybi6a) (Cairo: Ma3ba6aFatA All:h Ily:s N<r; & Sons, 1361/1942), 446. M.-T. d’Alverny (‘Avicenne, sontraducteur Andrea Alpago, et l’histoire des religions’, in Congres desOrientalistes, xxiii (1954), 362–3; reprinted in her Avicenne, §xii, 362;‘Avicenne et les medecins de Venise’, in Medioevo e Rinascimento (Florence,1955), 177–98; reprinted in her Avicenne, §xiii, 185, n. 22) and, after her,F. Lucchetta (Medico, 23; Teoria, 110) write that Ibn al-Makk; was a crypto-Sh;6;. This is a mistake resulting from an erroneous translation of Ibn F<l<n’swords transliterated above and ignores the second part of his testimony. Ibn al-Makk; was perhaps accused of being a Sh;6; because of his interest in intellectualsciences, as would later be the case with the physician, and ferventdisciple of Avicenna, D:w<d b. 6Umar al-An3:k; (d. 1008/1599–1600); seeD. Behrens-Abouseif, Image, 338–9. M.-T. d’Alverny is also mistaken in datingIbn al-Makk;’s death to 1531.


and astronomy. He passed away during the night of the 9 Jum:d: II 938 [17January 1532].161

In his curriculum vitae entitled The Freighted Ship, concerning theBiography of MuAammad b. F<l<n,162 Ibn F<l<n does not mentionAvicenna’s A@Aawiyya among the books he studied but gives aninteresting account of the medical, scientific, and philosophicaldisciplines Ibn al-Makk; was teaching and specifies the titles of theworks he learned under him:

[I also studied] the science of medicine with a group [of professors], including theHead (ra8;s) of the physicians in the protected [city of] Damascus, al-Shams b.Makk;. With him, I had the privilege of reading the text of the Generalia (al-Kulliyy:t) by [Ab< 6Abd All:h MuAammad b. Y<suf] al->l:q;163 [d. 485/1092? orlater], then the Commentary on the Generalia of [Avicenna’s] Canon by [Fakhral-D;n] al-R:z; [d. 606/1209], then the Epitome [of Avicenna’s Canon] (al-M<jiz)by Ibn al-Naf;s [d. Cairo, 687/1288]. I also heard with him passages of theCommentary on Hippocrates’ Aphorisms by Ibn al-Quff [d. Damascus, 685/1286], the Commentary of Mull: [Burh:n al-D;n] Naf;s [b. 6Aw@ al-Kirm:n;;d. 841/1437] on the Causes and Symptoms by [Naj;b al-D;n MuAammad b. 6Al;]al-Samarqand; [d. 619/1222], and [Rhazes’] Book for ManB<r (al-Kit:b al-ManB<r;) . . .

[I also studied] the science of cosmography (6ilm al-hay8a) with a group [ofprofessors], including al-Shams b. Makk;. With him, I had the privilege ofstudying the Summary (al-MulakhkhaB) of [MaAm<d b. MuAammad] al-Jagh-m;n; [d. 745/1344], then its Commentary by al-Sayyid al-Shar;f [6Al; al-Jurj:n;;d. Sh;r:z, 816/1413].

[I also studied] the science of geometry with a group [of professors], includingal-Shams b. Makk;. With him, I had the privilege to study the FundamentalFigures (Ashk:l al-ta8s;s) by Shams [al-D;n MuAammad b. Ashraf] al-Samar-qand; [d. 702/1303], then its Commentary by al-Sayyid al-Shar;f [6Al; al-Jurj:n;]. . .

[I also studied] the science of physics (6ilm al-3ab;6;) with a group[of professors], including al-Shams b. Makk;. With him, I had the privilege ofstudying what he had written on the Abridgement (al-MukhtaBar) called TheGuidance (al-Hid:ya) by Ath;r al-D;n al-Abhar; [d. 663/1265], then itsCommentary by Mull: Z:deh [AAmad b. MaAm<d al-Haraw; l-Khizrab:n;].164

[I also studied] the science of divinity (6ilm al-il:h;) with a group[of professors], including al-Shams b. Makk;. With him, I had the privilege of

161 Ibn F<l<n, Mut6at al-adhh:n min al-tamattu6 bi-l-iqr:n bayna tar:jim al-shuy<kh wa-l-aqr:n, ed. 4. D. K. al-Shayb:n; l-MawBil;, 2 vols. (Beirut: D:r4:dir, 1999), ii. 661, no. 763.

162 Ibn F<l<n, al-Fulk al-mashA<n f; aAw:l MuAammad bin F<l<n(Damascus: Ma3ba6at al-taraqq;, 1348/1929–30), 15–17; hereafter F.

163 al-;l:q;: al-;l:t; F164 Or al-Kharziy:n;; see C. Brockelmann, GAL, Supp., i, 840.

196 yahya j. michot

studying what he had written on the Abridgement (al-MukhtaBar) called TheGuidance (al-Hid:ya), then its Commentary mentioned above.

In his The Amusement of Friends,165 Ibn F<l<n confirms Ibn al-Makk;’s fame in the whole of Syria by reporting how, in Rab;6 I 926(February 1520), the ‘Head of the medical profession (rayyis al-3ibb)Shams al-D;n b. Makk;’ was asked to go to Aleppo, and given money todo so, in order to give medical treatment to its q:@; Zayn al-62bid;n.

Ibn al-6Im:d (d. 1089/1679)166 does not devote any notice to Ibnal-Makk; but indicates that it is with him that the Aleppine Ghars al-D;nTcheleb; b. Ibr:h;m b. AAmad, also known as Ibn al-Naq;b167 (d. 971/1563), who would later on become an influential scholar in Istanbul, hadstudied medicine in Damascus.

Alpago’s Damascene mentor was thus an important and multi-disciplinary scholar. At the end of the fifteenth century, ‘Head ofthe physicians’ was in Syria the official title awarded to one, two, orthree physicians chosen for the service of the vice-sultan and responsibleto him.168 As for the four sciences which Ibn al-Makk; taught Ibn F<l<nin addition to medicine, none of the precisions which the latter, in his al-Lu8lu8 al-manC<m (The Strung Pearl),169 gives about their definitionsand subjects, their objectives and profits, links them to Hippocrates’ art.

165 Ibn F<l<n, Muf:kahat al-khill:n f; Aaw:dith al-zam:n (Ta8r;kh MiBrwa-l-Sh:m), ed. M. MuB3af:, 2 vols. (Cairo: al-Mu8assasat al-MiBriyyat al-6:mma li-l-ta8l;f wa-l-anb:8 wa-l-nashr, 1384/1964), ii. 99–100.

166 Ibn al-6Im:d, Shadhar:t al-dhahab f; akhb:r man dhahaba, 8 vols.(Beirut: D:r al-fikr, n. d.), viii. 364.

167 See E. 5hsanoglu (ed.), Osmanlı Astronomi Literaturu Tarihi (History ofAstronomy Literature during the Ottoman Period), 2 vols. (Istanbul: Ircica,1997), i. 145–9.

168 On the nature and evolution of the position, see D. Behrens-Abouseif,FatA All:h, 5–7.

169 Ibn F<l<n’s al-Lu8lu8 al-manC<m (The Strung Pearl) is a catalogue of38 sciences with which he says he busied himself at some point of his career.In this work, he does not add anything about his professors or the bookshe studied. Concerning the four disciplines he learned under Ibn al-Makk;’ssupervision besides medicine, he is content with repeating what the famousEgyptian physician MuAammad b. Ibr:h;m Ibn al-Akf:n; (d. Cairo, 749/1348;see J. J. Witkam, De Egyptische arts Ibn al-Akf:n; (gest. 749/1348) en zijnindeling van de wetenschappen (Leyde: Ter Lugt Pers, 1989)) wrote in hisIrsh:d al-q:Bid (The Guidance of the Seeker). See Ibn F<l<n, Lu8lu8,XIV. Cosmography, fo. 71r–v // Ibn al-Akf:n;, Irsh:d, ed. Witkam, XLV,57 [408]; XV. Geometry, fos. 72v–73r // Ibn al-Akf:n;, Irsh:d, ed. Witkam,XXXIV, 54 [411]; XXIV. Physics, fo. 90r–v // Ibn al-Akf:n;, Irsh:d, ed. Witkam,XXIII, 45 [420]–46 [419]; XXV. Divinity, fo. 91r–v // Ibn al-Akf:n;, Irsh:d, ed.Witkam, XIII, 29 [436]–30 [435]. J. J. Witkam does not mention this influence ofIbn al-Akf:n; on Ibn F<l<n.


Belonging to the not strictly religious curriculum of 6ul<m al-ma6q<l,they were in fact—like medicine—part of ‘the repertoire of an eruditeman of the time’.170 They might however also be considered to relate insome way to medical science as it would have been conceived by post-classical Muslim physicians under the influence of Galen’s treatise Quodoptimus medicus sit quoque philosophus. Geometry, for example, wasrelevant to optics and therefore the treatment of visual disorders, whilecosmography helped to understand the planets’ influence onthe development of diseases and their cure.171 The sciences of physicsand divinity were the disciplines through which falsafa, by now a suspectscience in itself (see above, p. 168 n. 41), was studied. D. Behrens-Abouseif172 distinguishes ‘in the Maml<k period two distinct orienta-tions of medicine: theoretical medicine acquired as an aspect oferudition, hence its higher status, and practical professional medicine’.Ibn F<l<n’s report on his studies with Ibn al-Makk; and his poor opinionof the latter’s therapeutic skills suggest that Alpago’s professor was moreversed in theoretical medicine than in medical practice. It is worthnoticing that four of the seven authors Ibn F<l<n says he studied inmedicine under Ibn al-Makk; are also mentioned by Alpago: Ibn al-Naf;s—Ebenefis, Ibn al-Quff—Ebencof, al-Samarqand;—Samarcandi,Rhazes—Rasis.173

170 D. Behrens-Abouseif, Image, 334; FatA All:h, 15. The titles of many ofthe books studied by Ibn F<l<n, in these five sciences, under the supervisionof Ibn al-Makk;, can also be found in the curriculum of the Persian madrasasdescribed by S. H. Nasr in Traditional Islam in the Modern World (London:Kegan Paul, 1987), 165–82.

171 See F. Micheau, ‘Enseignement et controle de la pratique medicale’, inE. Delpont (ed.), A l’ombre d’Avicenne: La Medecine au temps des califes(Paris: Institut du Monde Arabe, 1996), 239–41; 241; D. Behrens-Abouseif, FatAAll:h, 10; G. Leiser, Education, 64.

172 D. Behrens-Abouseif, Image, 336; see also 334.173 See F. Lucchetta, Medico, 39–41; G. Vercellin, Canone, passim. On the

evolution of medical textbooks in medieval Islam, see G. Leiser, Education,62–4. On Ibn al-Makk;’s works, the minimal information given byC. Brockelmann (GAL, Supp., ii. 1030, no. 36) should be supplementedwith the references given by M.-T. d’Alverny in Medecins, 185, n. 22. Thisphysician, his medical milieu, and—more generally—intellectual life inDamascus around 905/1500 still remain to be studied thoroughly.Useful but limited insights are provided about political events and realities,socio-economic conditions, religious life, and culture by A. al-6Ulab;,Dimashq. E. Geoffroy discusses spiritual life in his Le soufisme en Egypte eten Syrie sous les derniers Mamelouks et les premiers Ottomans. Orientationsspirituelles et enjeux culturels (Damascus: Institut Francais de Damas, 1995).D. Behrens-Abouseif’s Image and FatA All:h present very interesting materialon the evolution of the medical profession and of the physicians’ image underthe Maml<ks.

198 yahya j. michot

APPENDIX II: THE AUTHOR OFTHE KEYS OF SOVEREIGNTY

Ab< Ya6q<b IsA:q b. AAmad al-Sijist:n; (or al-Sijz;; d. c.390/1000),whom Ibn Taymiyya, in his commentary on Avicenna’s A@Aawiyya,174

calls ‘the author of The Keys of Sovereignty (al-Aq:l;d al-malak<tiyya)’,is one of the major Ism:6;l; thinkers of the fourth/tenth century, deeplyinfluenced by Neoplatonic philosophy.175 The Kit:b al-Maq:l;d (Bookof Keys) is the largest and probably the most important among his extantworks but is still unpublished.176 The term aq:l;d used by Ibn Taymiyyato designate al-Sijist:n;’s Maq:l;d probably refers to the name iql;d, pl.aq:l;d, given to the seventy chapters of the book.

I have seen a book [written] by one of the im:ms of the esotericists which hecalled The Keys of Sovereignty and in which he trod on such a path. He starteddebating with each faction by means of something analogous to this proof. Theywere agreed with him on interpreting the ex auditu data.177 They were alsoagreed with him on denying what would be called ‘assimilationism’ in whateverway [might be]. To someone affirming any of the names and of the attributes—like the name ‘the existing’, ‘the living’, ‘the knowing’, ‘the powerful’, etc. he thusstarted saying: ‘There is assimilationism there as the living is divisible into pre-eternal and originated and as the existing is divisible into pre-eternal andoriginated; now, that wherein the division occurs is something shared(mushtarak) between the parts; composition thus necessarily follows, which iscorporealization (tajs;m) and necessarily entails assimilationism. Indeed, whenthis is existing and this is existing, they are similar to one another and areassociates (ishtaraka) in that which is named ‘the existence’; which is anassimilation [of one to the other]. When one of two existents is necessary per se,it becomes associated to the other in that which is named ‘the existence’ anddistinguished from it by the necessity. Now, that whereby there is being-distinguished is other than that whereby there is being-associated. The necessaryper se is thus composed of that whereby [its] being-distinguished is and of that

174 See p. 18.175 See P. E. Walker, The Wellsprings of Wisdom: A Study of Ab< Ya6q<b al-

Sijist:n;’s Kit:b al-Yan:b;6 (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1994);Shiism; Ab< Ya6q<b.

176 For a description of the content of the Book of Keys, see I. K. Poonawala,‘Al-Sijist:n; and his Kit:b al-Maq:l;d’, in D. P. Little (ed.), Essays on IslamicCivilization (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1976), 274–83; P. E. Walker, Ab< Ya6q<b, 23–4,112–5.

177 i.e. the data heard in the religious tradition. On the importance of directand personal transmission of knowledge, ‘by audition’, in Islam, see G. Schoeler,Ecrire et transmettre dans les debuts de l’islam (Paris: Presses Universitaires deFrance, 2002), 40–1.


whereby [its] being-associated is. Now, what is composed is originated orpossible because it is in need of its part, its part being other than it[self], and thatwhich is in need of other than it[self] will not be necessary per se! He thus ledwhoever had conceded him [his] corrupt principles to denying the necessaryexistence whose affirmedness (thub<t) is known in virtue of the necessity of thereason of all intelligent [being]. He then raised against himself [the followingobjection]: ‘You, when you say ‘‘He is neither existent, nor living, nor dead’’, thisis also an assimilation, [in this case] to the nonexistent!’ [To which] he answered:‘I say neither this nor that’. He then raised against himself [this other objection]:‘You, you have stipulated, in logic, that when two propositions differ by beingnegative and positive, from the veracity of one of them necessarily follows thelying nature of the other. So, if it is true that He is existing, that He is not existingis a lie. And if it is true that He is not existing, that He is existing is a lie. Youmust inevitably conclude so from one of the two!’ [To which] he answered: ‘Me, Isay neither this nor that. I say neither ‘‘existing’’ nor ‘‘non-existing’’, and neither‘‘nonexistent’’ nor ‘‘non-nonexistent’’. This is the most extreme point reached bythe pronouncements (kal:m) of the heretics. People have related similar thingsabout al-Eall:j and his kin among the partisans of the [divine] inhering [increatures] (Aul<l) and of the unification [of the Creator and the created] (ittiA:d):they neither affirm nor deny, and they neither love nor detest. This will be said tothis straying [person]: joining together two contraries is impossible; likewise,removing two contraries is also impossible. As it is impossible for Him to beexisting [and] nonexisting, it is [also] impossible for him not to be existing nornonexisting. You have thus fallen in something worse than what you wererunning away from! As for assimilationism, you were running away froman assimilation to [something] existing or nonexistent and then assimilated Himto [something] impossible which has no reality. That which is neither existing nornonexistent has indeed fundamentally no reality, and it is worse than that aboutwhich it is said that it is existing or nonexistent.178

In Minh:j, viii. 27, Ibn Taymiyya speaks of ‘Ab< Ya6q<b al-Sijist:n;,the author of The Keys of Sovereignty’ as one of ‘the im:ms of theesotericists’. He also knows of (and quotes) The Boast (al-Iftikh:r).179

He would surely agree with P. E. Walker’s opinion180 that al-Sijist:n;’s‘writing is of considerable interest for the history of Islamic philosophy’as he himself compares Avicenna to the Ism:6;l; thinker:

178 Ibn Taymiyya, Dar8, v. 323–4. On al-Sijist:n;’s pursuit of maximal tawA;dby a method of two-fold negation, see P. E. Walker, Ab< Ya6q<b, 84–103; Shiism,78. See also al-Sijist:n;, Yan:b;6, trans. Walker, Wellsprings, 49–50; Kashfal-maAj<b, trans. H. Corbin, Ab< Ya6q<b Sejest:n;: Le Devoilement des chosescachees—Kashf al-maAj<b (Lagrasse: Verdier, 1988), 33–45.

179 See Ibn Taymiyya, Kit:b al-4afadiyya, ed. M. R. S:lim, 2 vols.(Mansoura: D:r al-hady al-nabaw; and Riy:@: D:r al-fa@;la, 1421/2000), i.276, 301; ii. 3.

180 P. E. Walker, Wellsprings, 17.

200 yahya j. michot

Among those [thinkers], there are some who followed the way of interpretation(ta8w;l). Some of the Qarma3;s did so, like al-Nu6m:n,181 their q:@;, the authorof the book The Foundation of Interpretation (As:s al-ta8w;l), Ab< Ya6q<b al-Sijist:n;, the author of The Keys of Sovereignty and of the book The Boast, andtheir like. These threw off the garment of diffidence, treated people haughtily,and staggered them to the point of claiming that the prayer consists in knowingtheir secrets or supporting their im:ms, the fast in concealing their secrets, andthe pilgrimage in visiting their shaykhs. This, they were divulging it when theywere alone with their brothers. As for those who were residing among theMuslims, like al-F:r:b;, Avicenna, and their like, it was not possible for them tosay such things and they knew that they would be things whose vain naturewould be obvious. They thus said that the Messengers address people only withwhat makes them imagine things from which they profit, when they believe them,as far as faith in God and the Last Day are concerned; even if what they believe ofthese things is vain and does not correspond to the reality in itself! The talkssuggesting these things are in reality lies for them; a lie from which people benefitis however allowed! Those of them who abstain from judging that a lie considerit as being part of the arcana (tawriya) of intelligent people, who use arcana forthe benefit of their followers.182

Ibn Taymiyya likens al-Sijist:n;’s and Avicenna’s methodologies ofdebate in another important passage:

Avicenna only took on these ways on which he trod from the books of theMu6tazil;s and their like among the Kal:m theologians of Isl:m. He wanted tobring them closer to the path of his predecessors, the eternalist (dahr;)philosophers, so that what he was saying about divinalia would be close to thekind of things said by the Muslim Kal:m theologians. Furthermore, he took thesubjects in which the Kal:m theologians opposed the Law and Reason and drewfrom them conclusions with regard to those matters about which they weredisputing with him [but] which were agreed with the religion of the Muslims. [Hedid] this just as his esotericist brothers were doing it, e.g. the author of the bookThe Keys of Sovereignty and his like. These were indeed turning to each one ofthe groups adhering to the Qibla, taking from them things on which they wereagreed with them, like conceded premisses in which those were mistaken, andbuilding upon them their necessary consequences that would make those comeout of the religion of the Muslims. They had such debates with the Mu6tazil;s andtheir like. So did they say to the Mu6tazil;s: ‘You, you have conceded to us [thevalidity of] denying assimilationism (tashb;h) and corporealization (tajs;m) and,on the basis of this, you have denied the attributes. Of the exalted God, you[however] have, then, affirmed the most beautiful names. Now, assimilationism

181 Al-Nu6m:n b. Ab< 6Abd All:h MuAammad b. ManB<r (d. 363/974),famous author of Qayraw:n; origin, who became the highest judicial authorityunder the F:3imid caliph al-Mu6izz li-D;n All:h; see F. Dachraoui, EI2, s.v.‘al-Nu6m:n’.

182 Ibn Taymiyya, 4afadiyya, i. 276.


necessarily follows about the names just as it necessarily follows about theattributes. When you say that He is living, knowing, powerful, in this[affirmation] are necessarily entailed an assimilationism and a corporealizationthat are similar to the ones necessarily entailed in the affirmation of the life, theknowledge, and the power. You wanted to affirm names without attributes butthis is impossible. As you have agreed on denying the attributes and as thesenecessarily follow the names, denying what necessarily follows (l:zim)necessarily implies denying [also] that which is neccessarily followed (malz<m).m). You are therefore obliged to deny the names.183

Real convergences exist between al-Sijist:n;’s ideas and theA@Aawiyya’s prophetology and hermeneutic. For the latter, the purposeof the Prophet is ‘to address all the crowd’. Now, if the Prophet was‘communicating the true meanings (Aaq:8iq)’ of things to the crowd, hewould be asking too much, people ‘would rush to oppose him’ and therevealed Laws guaranteeing social order would not be obeyed. As for thetheologians, they are wrong to base some of their doctrines on theliterality of the Scripture as ‘the outer meaning of the Laws’ cannot be ‘anargument’ in such matters. For the Ism:6;l; thinker, ‘the message of theProphet must reach all persons’. Now, ‘if the apostle hadopenly proclaimed the ta8w;l, his followers would have abandonedthe tanz;l. The lawgiver was deliberately silent about this ta8w;l as a wayof insuring that his people would truly and fully implement his law’.184

As for ‘theologians with dialectical inclinations’ who probe the Law ‘toconfirm their own theories and interpretations’, they ‘prove nothing’.185

Al-Sijist:n; and Avicenna would also have agreed with each other on theProphet himself knowing the true meanings (Aaq:8iq) or ta8w;l that hewas not teaching to the masses—which, according to Ibn Taymiyya, wasnot the case of all thinkers—,186 on the invalidity and harmfulness ofKal:m theology and on the possibility for some wise men of havingvarious levels of access to the inner truth of revelations: for the Ism:6;l;,the im:ms, and—in lesser degrees—subordinate People of Truth (ahl al-Aaq:8iq) belonging to the da6wa; for the Shaykh al-Ra8;s, philosopherslike himself. Finally, both thinkers acknowledged the exclusive super-iority of the Prophet—in one case compared to the im:ms, even 6Al;; inthe other, compared to the philosophers—and the prohibition, for thePeople of Truth or the gnostics (6:rif), to dispense with the Shar;6aobservances.187 Apart from their disagreement on the identity of the

183 Ibn Taymiyya, Dar8, viii. 131–2.184 P. E. Walker, Shiism, 122, 129; Ab< Ya6q<b, 49, 55.185 Id., Ab< Ya6q<b, 50.186 See above, p. 187, n. 129.187 See P. E. Walker, Shiism, 130–1; Ab< Ya6q<b, 55, 76.

202 yahya j. michot

non-prophetic humans able to know the inner truth, an essentialdifference between the two thinkers is that Avicenna neither believes thatthe revelation encourages a popular search for the b:3in nor shares whatP. E. Walker calls ‘al-Sijist:n;’s greatest fear’:188 ‘that the majority ofMuslims, whose understanding of Scripture is exclusively traditional(taql;d;), will never comprehend even a portion of its spiritual and henceintellectual reality’. Avicenna is all the more accepting of such a situationin that, for him, it better ensures social order and, as he explains in hisdoctrine of an imaginal hereafter, it does not automatically lead to thedamnation of ordinary believers in the other world—nor, accordingly, tohaving to accuse the eschatological promises and threats of the Qur8:n ofbeing lies.189 On the one hand, these few remarks suffice to show that asystematic comparison of al-Sijist:n;’s and Avicenna’s thoughts wouldundoubtedly be of the greatest interest.190 It could therefore be worthadding the Ism:6;l; on the list of thinkers having influenced the Shaykhal-Ra8;s, as e.g. drawn by D. Gutas.191 On the other hand, these remarksindicate how far away Avicenna can also be from Ism:6;lism, as is thecase concerning e.g. the independence of the philosophers and theminimal responsibility of the gnostics towards the masses. From this lastpoint of view, he is a Plotinian pragmatist as much as al-Sijist:n; is aPlatonician idealist.

188 Ibid. 132.189 See Y. Michot, Destinee.190 See also P. E. Walker, Wellsprings, 13, 15; Eam;d al-D;n al-Kirm:n;

(London: I. B. Tauris and the Institute of Ismaili Studies, 1999), 123; D. De Smet,‘La Doctrine avicennienne des deux faces de l’ame et ses racines ismaeliennes’,in Studia Islamica, 93 (Paris, 2001), 77–89; 86. According to these authors, it isal-Sijist:n;’s works about which Avicenna probably heard his father and brotherspeak with Ism:6;l; propagandists, during his youth in Bukh:r:.

191 See D. Gutas, Study, 7; Heritage, 96–7.


ibntaymiyyahs-jarh-of-ibnsina

Documents