Kindī, d. ca. 873; terminology; philosophy, Islamic; dictionaries.

The issue of existence - quiddity difference is one of the important issues that were put forward for the first time in Islamic philosophy without having any background in Greek philosophy. Aristotle's metaphysics which is the main source of the first philosophy contains only synonymous and verbal meaning ofexistence. The issue of existence - quiddity difference has no room in Aristotle's works. This issue was proposed first by Farabi and then was completed by Ibn sina. In Islamic philosophy when it (...) is proved that existence in the mind is neither identical with quiddity nor a part of it but differs with it and is excess of it, that is, when it is proved that existence occurs on quiddity, this question arises that how is their relation in the outside? Whether existence occurs on quiddity or existence and quiddity are identical in the external world? To this question the Islamic philosophers answer that existence and quiddity are identical in the outside and it isimpossible that they differ from each other in the external world. The importance of this issue is that it finally led to the origination of the doctrine of the principality of existence which is known as the culmination of Islamic philosophy. The main goal of this article is study this issue and its impact upon the origination of the doctrine of the principiality of existence. (shrink)

On Islamic ethics and Muslims conduct of life.

Quotations of different world philosophers.

Nowadays, higher education worldwide is affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. It has affected students’ attendance in the universities and causes universities to close down in more than 190 countries. On the other hand, novice engineers studied only a few lectures related to highway engineering. Their lectures have included very little knowledge about asphalt pavement construction as highway engineering consists of many areas that are not studied in detail during their studying years subject to their traditional education. Due to all mentioned, (...) a new drive to promote online learning paves the way to evaluate our future approach to curriculum development and delivery of educational materials for engineering courses. However, experts can offer solutions to these problems using their past experience. Hence, a system that allows experts to share their experience with other engineers after completing a project is needed. Nevertheless, the web-based expert system for maintaining flexible pavement problems in tropical regions designed in this study is a novel concept. Prior to developing this system, the need for such a system was determined through literature review and validated through a questionnaire survey. Experts were interviewed, and a questionnaire survey was conducted to construct the knowledge base of the system. Knowledge was presented as rules and coded in software through PHP programming. Web pages that support the user interface were designed using a framework that consists of CSS, HTML, and J-Query. Furthermore, the system was tested by an array of users engaged in highway engineering, namely, experts, teaching experts, novice engineers, and students. The mean values of the overall system evaluation performed by 20 users using a five-point Likert scale were 4, 4.5, 3.75, 4.25, 5, 4, and 3.5. Expert and user satisfaction prove the effectiveness of the proposed system. (shrink)

This paper examines the thought of Sayf al-Dīn al-Āmidī (d. 631/1233) regarding takfīr (declaring another a non-believer), a practice which would become popularized in the generation after the death of the Prophet Muhammad by a sect known as the Kharajites. The Kharajites were a religio-political sect that would use takfīr as a kalāmic tool of excommunication, as well as a justification for violence against other Muslims. The group originates in the first century of hijrah following their excommunication of the (...) Caliph ‘Alī for mediating with his political challenger Mu‘āwiya. In the centuries following the emergence of this sect, scholars of kalām such as al-Āmidī would begin to discuss and debate takfīr in the context of the greater Muslim community. In contrast to the Kharajites, a number of other sects al-Āmidī would recognize as deviant would hold contrasting beliefs, including the Murji’ites who vehemently opposed the excommunication of anyone so long as they outwardly maintained belief in God and His prophet. While some of these scholarly debates over takfīr would become so heated as to result in excommunication between kalāmic schools, it would later be accepted that excessive takfīr was not necessarily a characteristic of any single Sunni sect, but rather a mentality that could manifest in any given kalāmic school. Many of these scholars would adopt a kalāmic formula designed to prevent excessive takfīr, the principle that the “those belonging to the qibla” (ahl al-qibla) ought not be excommunicated. In his formulation, Al-Āmidī addresses a number of issues debated as potential reasons for takfīr, including the committing of major sins (murder, adultery, theft, etc.), abandonment of central Islamic obligations, opposing scholarly consensus, belief in the createdness of the Qur’ān, denying the beatific vision (ru’yā), misinterpreting the divine attributes (ṣifāt), and the excommunication of prophetic companions or other Muslims. This principle, as shown in this study, would be considered flexible by many of these scholars, who were willing to excommunicate followers of heretical movements. Al-Āmidī, a prominent scholar living in the context of these debates surrounding excommunication, spent considerable energy on the question of takfīr and proposed a number of original insights. In attempting to minimize the application of takfīr, al-Āmidī analyzed many of the specific issues discussed by previous scholars on the issue, arguing that many acts previously considered excommunicable in fact did not constitute disbelief. These groups include such sects as the Kharajites, Murji’ites, Mu’tazilites, Shi’ites and anthropomorphists, whom al-Āmidī argues must not be excommunicated from the fold of Islam, drawing from both logical (‘aqlī) and scriptural (naqlī) arguments. One of the central scriptural sources al-Āmidī deploys is an oft-quoted prophetic tradition concerning the prediction of the Muslim nation splitting into 73 sects, only one of which will be saved from the hellfire – implying that these groups should still be recognized as Muslims. Conversely, questions regarding which al-Āmidī would affirm the obligation for takfīr include denying prophecy, any aspect of divine revelation, belief in the divinity of objects or beings, denial of God and divine miracles, and insulting God, the prophets, or any aspect of the religion. This study further analyzes Al-Āmidī’s definitions of īmān (belief) and kufr (disbelief), the relationship between them, and his views on specific heretical sects as debated in the Sunni tradition. (shrink)

This study of Sayf al-Dīn al-Āmidī's (d. 631/1233) teachings on creation offers close analysis of all of his extant works of falsafa and kalām. Some of these were not known to previous scholars, yet they bear witness to key facets of the interaction between the historically inimical traditions of Hellenic philosophy and rational theology at this important intellectual moment. Al-Āmidīis seen to grapple with the encounter of two paradigms for the discussion of creation. On the one hand, Ibn Sīnā's (...) metaphysical concept of necessity of existence is the basis of his doctrine of the world's pre-eternal emanation. On the other, for the mutakallimūn, the physical theory of atomism bolsters the view that God created the world from nothing. This study is of interest to scholars of Ibn Sīnā and Ash'arism alike, as it advances our understanding of the ongoing tradition of rational theology in the Islamic world, long past Abū Ḥāmid al-Ghazālī's (d. 505/1111) famous attack on the philosophers. (shrink)

Given the proliferation of commentarial works in the post-Ghazālian era of Islamic intellectual history, the close study of individual commentaries has recently become a key schol­arly concern. To take us beyond the necessarily generalizing categories presented by Dimitri Gutas when he first charted the territory of this genre, an approach is needed that involves narrow textual analysis without neglecting the broader context in which a work is authored. Among the works that were initially taken by Gutas as evidence of the (...) “mainstream Avicennism” of their authors is Sayf al-Dīn al-Āmidī’s (d. 631/1233) Kashf al-tamwīhāt fī sharḥ al-Ishārāt wa-l-tanbīhāt, in which he sets out to critique Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī’s (d. 610/1210) commentary on Ibn Sīnā’s Pointers and Reminders. In this article, I study the work from three perspectives. Firstly, I consider the con­tents of the Kashf, in terms of both the scope and the nature of its interaction with al-Rāzī’s first-order commentary on the Ishārāt. Secondly, I calibrate the findings of my textual analysis with materials taken from the accounts of al-Āmidī’s biographers, showing that these sources are mutually interpre­tive. Thirdly, I analyze the Kashf from within the context of his broader corpus. Together, I argue, these three perspec­tives contribute to a more nuanced understanding of what it means to describe al-Āmidī’s Kashf as a work of Avicennism. (shrink)

Laura Hassan. Ash‘arism Encounters Avicennism: Sayf al-Dīn al-Āmidī on Creation.

The matter of ḥusn (goodness) and qubḥ (evil), which is the result of the disagreements on the source of moral value in human actions, is one of the main disputes between the Sunnī schools and the Muʿtazilī school of theology. This study examines the reasons why Sayf al-Dīn al-Āmidī, the Ash‘arī scholar, argues that the values of the ḥusn- qubḥ in actions are relative (i‘tibārī) against to the Mu‘tazilī school that considers these values to be inherent in actions. According (...) to the Ash‘arīs, and specifically al-Āmidī, if the actions make people worth of either praise in this world and reward (thawāb) in afterlife or blame in this world and punishment in afterlife, those actions are named as ḥasan (good) or qabīḥ (bad). Therefore, if the action of a person provides him/her praise in this world and reward in afterlife, the action is called ḥasan. If an action necessitates condemnation in this world and punishment in the afterlife, the action is called qabīḥ. The moral values in actions can only be determined by the Sharī‘a. In other words, human reason cannot know which actions are included in the category of ḥasan and qabīḥ. In addition to their contentious meanings in the doctrine, ḥasan and qabīḥ have two more meanings. The first one is the suitability and contrariety to the purpose or disposition while the second one is the agent’s right of doing any given action. However, there is no debate about these two meanings. (shrink)

This volume focuses on philosophical problems concerning sense perception in the history of philosophy. It consists of thirteen essays that analyse the philosophical tradition originating in Aristotle’s writings. Each essay tackles a particular problem that tests the limits of Aristotle’s theory of perception and develops it in new directions. The problems discussed range from simultaneous perception to causality in perception, from the representational nature of sense-objects to the role of conscious attention, and from the physical/mental divide to perception as quasi-rational (...) judgement. -/- The volume gives an equal footing to Greek, Arabic, and Latin philosophical traditions. It makes a substantial contribution not just to the study of the Aristotelian analysis of sense perception, but to its reception in the commentary tradition and beyond. Thus, the papers address developments in Alexander of Aphrodisias, Themistius, Avicenna, John of Jandun, Nicole Oresme, and Sayf al-Din al-Amidi, among others. The result of this is a coherent collection that attacks a well-defined topic from a wide range of perspectives and across philosophical traditions. (shrink)

In a brief article under the present title, Adam Parry raised a simple but profound question: were there certain things that the inherited vocabulary of oral poets did not allow them to sayF; The mere raising of this question, whatever his answer, is enough to make the article one of the more important contributions to Homeric studies in the last fifty years. As it happens, his answer was affirmative, and it has not been contested. Contested it will now be.

The “lost” Yaḥyā ibn ʿAdī treatises recently discovered in the Tehran codex Marwī 19 include a record of a philosophical debate instigated by the Ḥamdānid prince Sayf-al-Dawla. More precisely, Marwī 19 contains Yaḥyā’s adjudication of a dispute between an unnamed Opponent and Yaḥyā’s younger relative Ibrāhīm ibn ʿAdī (who also served as al-Fārābī’s assistant), along with Ibrāhīm's response to Yaḥyā’s adjudication, and Yaḥyā’s final word. At issue was a problem of Aristotelian exegesis: should “body” be understood as falling under (...) the category of substance or under the category of quantity? The unnamed Opponent argues that body is a species of substance; Ibrāhīm argues that technically speaking, body is a species of quantity, and hence an accident; and Yaḥyā judges that body is a species of substance, though for very different reasons than the Opponent gives. For the first time, the Arabic text of this exchange is edited and translated into English. Also provided is an Introduction that sets the debate in historical context, and discusses in particular the possible influence of John Philoponus. The debate is interesting and important not only because of the philosophical ramifications of the issues under discussion, but because it constitutes evidence of dialectical practice among Arabic-speaking philosophers from the middle of the 10th century. (shrink)

The narration of tashahhud being a conversation between Allah, the Prophet and the angels is quite common among people. This article examines the authenticity of this narration and questions whether it has an informative value. In this context, the research undertaken in Hadith, Siyar, Tafsīr and Fiqh sources resulted that the narration was not stated in the hadith books -with sanad (the chain of narrators) or without sanad. The first and only summary version of the script was included in the (...) commentary of Thaʿlebī (d. 427/1035), which has very problematic sanads. The first narration without sanad but having a full text (matn) was narrated by Qurṭubī (d. 671/1273). It appears that various commentators of hadith, fuqahāʾ (expert in Islamic jurisprudence), mufassirs (commentators on the Qur’ān) and historians followed Thaʿlabî and Qurṭubī by narrating from them. In fact, these group of scholars did not specify a sanad for the narration but they usually used tamrīd forms (a form which shows that the hadith is weak or deficient), which suggests that they also did not convinced that the narrarion was makbūl (accepted). On the other hand, the fact that this narration did not accompany authentic (ṣaḥīḥ) hadiths on the emergence of tashahhud narrated by hadith scholars, such as Bukhārī, Muslim, Abū Dāwūd, Nasāʾī and Ibn Mājah, which also indicates another problem with this narration. Summary: The narration on the emergence of the prophetic prayer that is called tashahhud in the fiqh literature as it includes the word shahadah (testimony) and known as “al-tahiyyat” and “tahiyyat” is constantly transmitted among people. According to this narration, the Prophet (pbuh) praised Allāh by saying “al-taḥiyyātu lillāhi wa-al-salawātu wa-al-ṭayyibāt” on the night of Miʿrāj when he met Allāh. Our Lord responded to him by saying “al-salāmu ʿalayka ayyuhan-Nabiyyu wa-raḥmatullāhi wa-barakātuhu”. The honorable Prophet also included his ummah in this prayer by saying “al-salāmu ʿalayna wa-ʿalā ʿibād Allāh al-ṣāliḥīn” and the Gabriel (and/or angel community) who witnessed this greeting said “ashhadu an lā illāha illallāh wa-ashhadu anna Muḥammadan ʿabduhu wa-rasūluhu.”This article examines the authenticty of the narration and whether it has an informative value. The findings of the research undertaken in hadith, siyar, tafsir and fiqh sources suggests that the narration was not included in any hadith books with sanad or without sanad. The first and only narration with sanad is found in Thaʿlabī’s tafsīr titled al-Kasfh wa-al-bayān. However, it is a summary version of the narration and its sanads are very problematic. In this tafsīr, Thaʿlabī combines two different chains of narrators in one text. The sanads of these two narrations combined by Thaʿlabī as follows:1. Sanad: Zuhrī → Ibn Salimah b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān → Jābir b. ʿAbdullāh → Prophet (pbuh).2. Sanad: Suddī → Muḥammad b. al-Sāib → Bāzān → Ibn ʿAbbās → Prophet (pbuh).The identity of Ibn Salimah mentioned in the first sanad is disputed. The rijāl (literally; men, refers to knowledge of men/narrators) scholars, such as Ibn Abī Ḥātim stated that he is a man whose memory is corrupted in his old age. In the second sanad there are three dhaʽīf (weak) narrators, namely Suddī, Muḥammad b. al-Sāib and Bāzān. Ibn Abī Ḥātim stated that some parts of Kalbī’s (Muḥammad b. al-Sāib) narration with ṭarīkh (synonym of sanad) of Bāzān from Ibn ʿAbbās was fabricated. Moreover, Thaʿlabī who narrated these two sanads in his tafsīr was accused of being conveying fabricated narrations in his books.As far as we can ascertain, Qurṭubī narrated the first narration of this story without sanad and without referring to a source. However, he narrated the full version of the text. Similarly this narration was also transmitted by Suhaylī and ʿAlī al-Qārī without sanad and a reference but they transmitted it by seperating into two slightly different texts. According to Suhaylī’s text in al-Ravḍ al-Unuf, angels stated “al-salāmu ʿalayka ayyuhan-Nabiyyu wa-raḥmatallāhi wa-barakātuhu” not Allāh. According to ʿAlī al-Qārī’s text in Sharḥ al-Shifa, when Allāh Said “al-salāmu ʿalayka ayyuhan-Nabiyyu wa-raḥmatallāhi wa-barakātuhu”, the Prophet (pbuh) responded by saying: “Allāhumma anta al-Salām wa-minka al-Salām wa-ilayka yarjiuʿ al-Salām, al-Salām alaynā wa-alā ibād Allāh al-sālihīn.” It is clear that there are disputes about the contents of some sentences as well as their subjects in the text of Tashahhud’s narration.The full text and summary versions of this narrarion can be found in tafsīr books, such as Rāzī's Mafātiḥ al-ghayb, Samarqandī's Baḥr al-ʿulūm and Bursavī's Rūḥ al-bayān; in fiqh books, such as Bābartī's al-ʿInâyah, Ḥaddād's al-Javharah al-nayyirah, ʿAynī’s al-Bināyah, Molla Khusraw’s Durar al-ḥukkām, Jamal’s Futūḥāt al-Wahhāb and Bujayramī’s al-Tajrīd; and in various hadith commentaries and in some siyar books. The authors of these books did not mention sanads of their narrations and they usually used tamrīd forms. This suggests that they also did not consider this narration as authentic. On the other hand, the fact that all narrations transmitted in these books are not compatible with those authentic (ṣaḥīḥ) hadiths about the emergence of tashahhud, which were reported by muhaddiths, such as Bukhārī, Muslim, Abū Dāwūd, Nasāī and Ibn Mājah. This also indicates another problem with this narration. The authentic hadiths on the issue as follows: 1. Bukhārī→Musaddad→Yaḥyā→Aʿmash→Shaqīq→Ibn Masʿūd: He said:When we prayed with the Messenger of Allāh (pbuh), we used to say: “Peace (al-Salām) be upon Allāh, peace be upon Jibrīl, peace be upon Mikāʿīl.” The Messenger of Allāh (pbuh) said: “Do not say: Peace (al-Salām) be upon Allāh, for Allāh is al-Salām.” Rather say: “al-taḥiyyātu lillāhi wa-al-salawātu wa-al-ṭayyibāt, al-salāmu ʿalayka ayyuhan-Nabiyyu wa-raḥmatallāhi wa-barakātuhu. Al-salāmu ʿalayna wa-ʿalā ʿibād Allāh al-ṣāliḥīn, ashhadu an lā ilāha illallāh wa-ashhadu anna Muḥammadan ʿabduhu wa-rasūluhu (Allāh compliments, prayers and pure words are due to Allāh. Peace be upon you, O Prophet, and the mercy of Allāh and his blessings. Peace be upon us and upon the righteous slaves of Allāh. I bear witness that none has the right to be worshipped except Allāh and I bear witness that Muḥammad is His slave and Messenger.”2. Bukhārī→Abū Nuaym→Sayf→Mucāhid→Abū Maʿmar ʿAbdullāh b. Saḥbarah→Ibn Masʿūd: He said:Allāh’s Messenger (pbuh) taught me Tashahhud as he taught me a sūrah (chapter) from the Qur’ān, while my hand was between his hands. (Tashahhud was): “All the best compliments and the prayers and the good things are for Allāh. Peace and Allāh’s Mercy and Blessings be on you, O Prophet! Peace be on us and on the pious slaves of Allāh, I testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allāh, and I also testify that Muhammad is Allāh’s slave and His Apostle.” (We used to recite this in the prayer) during the lifetime of the Prophet (pbuh), but when he had died, we used to say: “Peace be on the Prophet.”As a result, it is unlikely that the Prophet (pbuh) did not touch upon the relationship between the Miʿrāj and the Tashahhud while teaching it. It is also unlikely that his companions who narrated this occasion did not mention about this important detail although they had such knowledge. Indeed, hadith scholars did not include the narrations that associated tashahhud with the Miʿrāj but they reported two other aforementioned narrations on the emergence of the Tashahhud in their books, which raises doubts over the authenticity of the relevant narration in question. (shrink)

In a brief article under the present title, Adam Parry raised a simple but profound question: were there certain things that the inherited vocabulary of oral poets did not allow them to sayF; The mere raising of this question, whatever his answer, is enough to make the article one of the more important contributions to Homeric studies in the last fifty years. As it happens, his answer was affirmative, and it has not been contested. Contested it will now be.

Contrary to the widespread assumption, philosophy in the Islamic world did not begin with al-Kindi nor ended with Ibn Rushd (Averroes). This article looks into the metaphysics part of Sayf al-Din al-Amidi's kitab al-Nur al-Bahir fi al-Hikam al-Zawahir ('The Splendid Light on the Bright Wisdom') in order to show the continuity of philosophy in post-classical period.

In the present paper it is shown that al-Ämidî has tried to integrate somehow pilosophy into theology in way that reveals closer to al-Ghazâlî's than to F.D. al-Râzî's way of combining both currents of thought. Based on an analysis of several ideas taken from different works it is shown that al-Ämidî not only accepts the logic of the philosophers, but also their views that may be considered as scientifically established beyond any reasonable doubt.