Rāzī, Abū Bakr Muḥammad ibn Zakarīyā,865?-925?; criticism and interpretation.

One of the most important issues that distinguishes the Baghdādī branch of the Muʿtazila from the Baṣran branch is their view on ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib (d. 40/661). Basra branch accepts the order of virtue of the first four caliphs as their order of coming to office, while the Baghdad branch considers the first three caliphs legitimate, but considers Ali more virtuous than them. The Baghdādī Muʿtazilīs who outspokenly defended this idea were Abū Jaʿfar al-Iskāfī (d. 240/854), Abū al-Qāsim al-Kaʿbī (...) (d. 319/931) and Ibn Abī al-Ḥadīd (d. 656/1258). Among them, Ibn Abī al-Ḥadīd was renowned as “the greatest scholar of the Muʿtazila” and was considered one of the last representatives of this school. He ardently defended ʿAlī's superiority in his commentary on Nahj al-Balāgha, the famous collection of Ali’s sermons, letters and wisdom sayings. In his defense, he rebutted some criticisms about ʿAlī’s political decisions from his school’s point of view. Many items of Ibn Abī al-Ḥadīd’s rebuttal are worthy of analysis in terms of their content, style and approach. This article aims to present a detailed account of Ibn Abī al-Ḥadīd’s aforementioned refutations. In addition to the descriptive method, the interpretative method was also employed in the article. Although Ibn Abī al-Ḥadīd did not consider Ali's infallibility necessary (wājib), unlike Imamiyya, he accepted it. Therefore, he responded to the criticisms directed at Ali, starting from the point of Ali's innocence. According to Ibn Abī al-Ḥadīd: (a) After the death of the Prophet, ʿAlī insisted on becoming the new leader of the Muslim community. He did not act hastily to assume the caliphate because he was not expecting any opposition to that. However, when the events took a different turn, he did not escalate the situation, rather accepted the status quo. (b) ʿAlī also did the right thing by participating in ʿUmar b. Al-Khaṭṭāb’s (d. 23/644) electoral shūrā. This was an opportunity for him to become the next caliph, and reinstitute a system in accordance with the Qurʿānic principles and sunna of the Prophet. (c) It was also not an error when ʿAlī decided to stay in Medina during the events of ʿUthmān’s murder (d. 35/656). He played an active role in dissuading the rebels from their attempt to kill ʿUthmān, but he was in no position to know that his activity would be used against him later by the Umayyads who accused ʿAlī of being complicit in ʿUthmāns’s murder. (d) ʿAlī took the caliphate after ʿUthmān because of his popularity among the people. In this way, he managed to prevent an unqualified person to occupy the seat of the caliphate. (e) When the Battle of Camel broke out, those who demanded justice and opposed ʿAlī were in error. (f) When ʿAlī became the new caliph, his decision to remove Muʿāwīya (d. 60/680) from the governorship of Syria was correct. This is because Muʿāwīya would have refused to accept ʿAlī’s leadership even had he stayed in office as a governor. ʿAlī understood that the conflict would end only through fighting, so he did not lose time in marching against Muʿāwīya. (g) During the battle he abided by the sharīʿa and allowed the Syrian army to access water. (h) It was not ʿAlī, but those defectors in his army who obliged him to end the fighting through arbitration. (i) When ʿAlī agreed to sign the Ṣiffīn ceasefire agreement and did not use his title amīr al-muʾminīn, he followed the Prophet's example since the latter also refrained from using his title during the Ḥudaybiyya agreement. (j) ʿAlī also cannot be blamed for those among his supporters, such as the poet al-Najāshī, who defected and joined the ranks of Muʿāwīya. The motivations for the defectors were either to attain worldly gains or to escape from punishment for the crimes which they had committed. (k) When Muʿāwīya managed to conquer Egypt, ʿAlī’s governors of the province, Qays b. Saʿd (d. 60/680) or Muḥammad b. Abī Bakr (d. 38/658), did nothing for which they could be blamed. (l) And finally, ʿAlī never had guards to protect him because he was never afraid of being assassinated. Although Ibn Abī al-Ḥadīd took Ali's innocence as a basis while presenting these views, he did not make inconsistent comments in general and did not say things contrary to historical facts. Therefore, it is necessary to acknowledge historical value of his views in question. (shrink)

Este artículo tiene como objetivo presentar un manuscrito conservado en la biblioteca de la Universidad de Bengasi (Libia) que contiene el Kitāb al-Ǧawhara fī nasab al-nabī ṣallā Allāh ʽalayhi wa-sallam wa-aṣḥābihi al-ʽašara por Abū ʽAbd Allāh Muḥammad b. Abī Bakr b. ʽAbd Allāh b. Mūsà al-Anṣārī al-Barrī al-Tilimsānī (596/1200-681/1282). Aunque ha sido mencionado en algunas publicaciones, no llamó la atención de los especialistas de la historia cultural de al-Andalus. Debido a la situación actual de la institución de conservación, no (...) ha sido posible ver ni ofrecer reproducciones. Aun así, como se cedió una fotografía para un catálogo, el último folio resultó muy útil. Se hace constar claramente el origen de la obra, que fue copiada en Menorca por su propio autor en el año 645/1248. Además, se puede observar que fue ofrecido como regalo a Saʽīd b. Ḥakam al-Qurašī, el gobernador de la isla, que fundó una biblioteca cuya riqueza fue celebrada por los autores medievales. En el estado actual del conocimiento, se trata precisamente del quinto manuscrito identificado, encontrándose hoy los otros cuatro en la Real Biblioteca del Monasterio de San Lorenzo de El Escorial. La historia del manuscrito permanece oscura, aunque se puede dar por establecido que reapareció en Libia a mediados del siglo XIX, siendo entonces propiedad de Muḥammad b. ʽAlī al-Sanūsī, fundador de la poderosa ṭarīqa al-Sanūsiyya. (shrink)

This article offers the first edition and translation of two heretofore unpublished pharmacological treatises by Abū Bakr al-Rāzī, namely Fī ittikhādh māʾ al-jubn and Fī manāfiʿ māʾ al-jubn, which seem to have formed part of a lost volume on dairy products. As it demonstrates, al-Rāzī’s examination of whey is connected to his philosophical interest in the complex nature of simple substances such as milk. The article also highlights how these two treatises built on the Greek pharmacological tradition by incorporating (...) ingredients from Persia and India. (shrink)

Tras una rápida revisión de los escasos datos conocidos sobre la vida y la obra de Ibn Abi l-Riyal (fl. Túnez c. 996-1048), se analiza el contenido de su Uryuza fi a?kam al-nuyum comparándola con su célebre al-Kitab al- Bari� fi a?kam al-nuyum concluyéndose que se trata de dos obras independientes y que la Uryuza no es un resumen del Bari�. El trabajo continúa con datos biobibliográficos del historiador, matemático y astrólogo Ibn Qunfu? al-Qusan?ini (1339-1407), autor de un comentario a (...) la Uryuza de Ibn Abi l-Riyal dedicado a Abu Bakr b. Abi Muyahid Gazi Ibn al-Kas, visir de los sultanes meriníes Abu Faris (1366-1372) y Abu Zayyan (1372-1374). La obra parece haber sido redactada durante el breve reinado de este último y antes de la deportación del dedicatario a Mallorca en 1375. Se analiza el contenido del comentario, las fuentes citadas en el mismo, las técnicas astrológicas utilizadas tanto por Ibn Qunfuu? como por Ibn Abi l-Riyal y el uso, por parte del comentarista de un ziy derivado del de Ibn Is?aq. El artículo termina con un comentario detallado de los horóscopos contenidos en la obra de los que uno corresponde al equinoccio vernal del año 571 de JC, en el que se produjo una conjunción de Saturno y Júpiter que anunció el advenimiento del Islam, mientras que los once restantes constituyen una historia astrológica del Marruecos meriní entre 1348 y 1366. Dos de ellos habían sido publicados en un artículo anterior. En lo que respecta a los nueve restantes, en seis de ellos se identifica el sujeto o acontecimiento al que aluden, quedando tres por identificar. (shrink)

Tras una rápida revisión de los escasos datos conocidos sobre la vida y la obra de Ibn Abī l-Riŷāl , se analiza el contenido de su Urŷūza fī aḥkām al-nuŷūm comparándola con su célebre al-Kitāb al- Barī‘ fī aḥkām al-nuŷūm concluyéndose que se trata de dos obras independientes y que la Urŷūza no es un resumen del Barī‘. El trabajo continúa con datos biobibliográficos del historiador, matemático y astrólogo Ibn Qunfuḏ al-Qusanṭīnī , autor de un comentario a la Urŷūza de (...) Ibn Abī l-Riŷāl dedicado a Abū Bakr b. Abī Muŷāhid Gazī Ibn al-Kās, visir de los sultanes meriníes Abū Fāris y Abū Zayyān . La obra parece haber sido redactada durante el breve reinado de este último y antes de la deportación del dedicatario a Mallorca en 1375. Se analiza el contenido del comentario, las fuentes citadas en el mismo, las técnicas astrológicas utilizadas tanto por Ibn Qunfuuḏ como por Ibn Abī l-Riŷāl y el uso, por parte del comentarista de un zīŷ derivado del de Ibn Isḥāq. El artículo termina con un comentario detallado de los horóscopos contenidos en la obra de los que uno corresponde al equinoccio vernal del año 571 de JC, en el que se produjo una conjunción de Saturno y Júpiter que anunció el advenimiento del Islam, mientras que los once restantes constituyen una historia astrológica del Marruecos meriní entre 1348 y 1366. Dos de ellos habían sido publicados en un artículo anterior. En lo que respecta a los nueve restantes, en seis de ellos se identifica el sujeto o acontecimiento al que aluden, quedando tres por identificar. (shrink)

As in every religious issue, the two main resources of Islām which are the Qur’ān and the Sunnah/ḥadīths are the first reference sources for deciding the things that are forbidden by Islam. There is no evidence in the Qur’ān that suggests specific types of animals are forbidden to eat except pork. Other than pork, only the animals which are slaughtered without the name of Allah, their blood and their carcass are forbidden to consume. Except these restricted ill-gotten meats, in the (...) Qur’ānic verses there are no other limitations referring to different animals. However, in Ḥadīth sources there are some narratives referring to the Prophet Muḥammad, implying that He named some other forbidden animals beside the ones specified in the Qur’ān. Collecting the narratives and evaluating them as a whole will contribute for a better understanding of the rules and principles of prohibitions that the Prophet Muḥammad imposed on this issue. Moreover, it will help to identify whether those rulings on some animals are unconditional and world-wide or cause-related and thus changeable according to the conditions. Furthermore, in this matter, although some animals‘ meat are not mentioned as forbidden in the Qur’ān, they are banned by the Prophet Muḥammad. This brings the need to highlight the importance of the capacity of the Prophet Muḥammad on deciding what is permissible (ḥalāl) and forbidden (ḥarām) in the religion.SummaryWhile the authority for determining what is ḥalāl (lawful) and what is ḥarām(forbidden) belongs essentially to Allah, the Prophet Muḥammad is also authorized to appoint what is ḥalāl-ḥarām by Allah.Authority of the Prophet Muḥammadrelated to the issue is not absolute and stems from the Qur’ān. Ḥalāland ḥarāmin the Qur’ān prescribed by Allah can be included in the concepts of maʿrūf (right) - munkar (wrong) andṭayyibāt (clean) - hkabāis (filthy). It is understood that the Prophet Muḥammadgrounded his commands in the concept of hkabāis.Prohibitions related to animal meats in the Qur’ānare limited to four: carcass, blood, pork and animals, which are not slaughtered in the name of Allah. However, in the Ḥadīth resources there are some narratives about the Prophet’s prohibition on consuming some types of animals other than the forbidden animals specified in the verses. These narratives can be classified in three titles:1. Animals, which are prohibited to be eaten 2. Animals, which are prohibited because of the way they are fed and slaughtered3. The matter of prohibition of the animals, which are commanded or forbidden to be slaughtered by the Prophet Muḥammad.At the end of the studies conducted based upon ḥadīth resources, in particular Kutūb al-Sittah (the well-known six ḥadīth books), it has been discovered that the animals, which are mentioned as not being permissible in the narratives, they are limited to domesticated donkey and the species of “predatory animals, predatory birds”, namely wolf, fox and cat. Even though the narratives about hyena imply as eatable, hyena is included in this article as it’s a predatory animal.The narratives regarding the prohibition of meat of domesticated donkey were transferred by approximately twenty Companions in respect to the time of the Battle of Khyber. This prohibition is generally stated in the ḥadīthresources as: “We were having dire hunger at the nights of Khyber. When the day for Khyber came, we encountered domesticated donkeys. We immediately slaughtered them. When we put the meat in the pot and started to boil it, crier of the Prophet Muḥammadcalled “Knock over the pots and don’t eat any of the donkey meat”. Regarding the issue there are such statements of some Companions like “we were banned from eating domesticated donkey”, “The Prophet banned the meat of domesticated donkey” among the narratives about the ban. In addition to a large number of narratives about the prohibition of domesticated donkey meat, there are two narratives related to permission of the Prophet for eating domesticated donkey and a narrative that Ibn ‘Abbās did not accept the ban. One of the said narratives is not among the narratives in the Kutūb al-Sittah while the other one is stated solely in the Sunanof Abū Dāwūd and thought to be acceptable by the traditionists. Even though this narrative’s authenticity is accepted, it is understood that there is an implication for the permission based on a necessity. According to the narrative, Ibn ʿAbbās referred to 145thverse of the surah al-An’am as a proof to his view saying “What ḥalālis what Allah allowed, what ḥaramis what Allah forbidden and the things about which there is no judgement of Allah are mubāḥ (permissible)”. As for us, the fact that Ibn ʿAbbās did not accepted the prohibition implies that he did not recognize the Prophet’s command related to the prohibition as an absolute prohibition. The conveyances of many Companions, which are consistent with each other, about the Prophet’s prohibition on eating domesticated donkey during the Battle of Khyber, proved that the prohibition was applied. Even though there is no dispute about prohibiting domesticated donkey, it is controversial whether the prohibition is absolute, constant or provisional based on certain reasons. It is more reasonable to accept that this prohibition was provisional and it was based on certain reasons. Because there are many narratives bearing information that this prohibition was due to several reasons and this is a situation which needs to be considered. Accordingly, there are three reasons, nearly all of which are attributed to judgement of the Companions. These were the facts that domesticated donkey was used in transportation; it used to eat filth and it was slaughtered/consumed without distributing booty/paying taxes. The seeking of the Companions for any reason for this prohibition indicates that they needed to comprehend this prohibition and that the prohibition is not absolute and constant.There is no explanation neither in the resources where the narratives are included nor in the annotation about when, where, why and in which context the prohibition regarding the predatory animals was realized. It is highly possible to assume that the Prophet prohibited these animal as they eat carcass. Another interesting issue within this regard is the fact that there are narratives and views indicating permissibility of eating hyena, which is a predatory, while predatory animals are forbidden in the narratives. Statements of the Prophet related to permissibility of eating hyena, which are considered authentic by traditionists and information about the Arabs who used to eat hyena and some of the Companions who praised eating hyena indicate that urf (custom) has a primary and decisive role about permissibility of eating meats. Regarding this matter about the hyenas, the narratives pointing out some Companions like ʿĀʾisha bint Abī Bakr and Ibn ‘Abbās who viewed prohibition of animals other than the prohibited animals in the Qur’an as inapplicable and other issues referring to the dispute indicate that prohibition of the Prophet Muḥammadfor predators can not be accepted as an absolute and unquestionable prohibition. Some of the prohibitions mentioned in ḥadīth narratives, except these animals, stem from the way of feeding and slaughtering of some animals. It is understood that consuming meat and milk of the animals that eat filth is prohibited in order to abstain from the things harming human health and mujassam (killing an animal with an arrow, etc. by fastening it as a target) is prohibited as carcass is banned and it is not permissible to torture and harm animals. Some of the prohibitions are related to the some animals, which were allowed and banned to slaughter by the Prophet. As the Prophet commanded some animals to be slaughtered and some animals not, meat of these animals was considered as forbidden. There is a dispute among the scholars, whilst there is not any statement of the Prophet about whether the animals included in this group can be eaten or not. It is seen that the Prophet ordered to slaughter some of the animals and prohibited to slaughter some other animals based on several reasons. (shrink)

The great majority of commentators have evaluated the splitting of the moon. The vast majority of them think that it occurred in the Prophet’s period basing their view on the clear statement of al-Qamar 54/1 verse and on related rumors. However, some commentators claim that the moon will split on the doomsday, by referring to the context of the same verse. The same names criticize the rumors claiming that they cannot constituteevidence for the splitting of the moon. To those who (...) think so, from the fact that the splitting of the moon was related by few companions and that it was not recorded in various geographies it is evident that the incident did not happen. It cannot be said that the commentators, who took that the view that the split of the moon were in the period of the Prophet, have similar views in this regard. They have different interpretations in matters such as the realization and the shape of the event. On the other hand, those who claim that the split of the moon is only an idiomatic statement and that the event is only a lunar eclipse, declare that the split of the moon never actually happened. In this study which deals with various interpretations of tafsirs of the splitting of the moon, it is aimed to criticize different opinions on this issue. Document analysis and comparison methods were applied in the article.Summary: The issue of the splitting of the moon has attracted many names from various disciplines, notably the commentators. In the verse of al-Qamar 54/1 mentioning the splitting of the moon has been an important factor for the commentators to evaluate this issue. The ḥadīth narratives regarding the cleavage of the moon are found in many ḥadīth sources, in particular, Ṣahīh al-Bukhārīand Ṣahīh al-Muslim. The rumors about the splitting of the moon, albeit with different forms, are attributed to Anas b. Mālik (d. 93/712), Jubayr b. Muṭ‘īm (d. 59/678-679), ʿAbdallāh b. ʿAbbās (d. 68/687-688), ʿAbdallāh b. ‘Omar (d. 73/692), and ʿAbdallāh b. Masʿūd (d. 32/652-653) One of the rumors about the splitting of the moon, although it is based on ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib (d. 40/661)is not found in the authentic ḥadīth sources. In some narrations, it is said that the miracle of the moon's splitting took place upon the request of the polytheists while the others are only mentioned how this miracle happened. On the other hand, it cannot be said that the commentators agree on the split of the moon. The main purpose of this study is to identify these opinions with its basis. Apart from those who do not accept the occurrence of the incident, there are differences of opinion among the commentators who see this event as a miracle of the Prophet Muḥammad. It is possible to classify the disagreements of the commentators in this subject in two headings as the time and manner of occurrence of this incident.Most of the classical commentators, on the basis of narrations, think that the splitting of the moon occurred during the period of Mecca. Among these commentators, al-Wāḥidī (d. 468/1076) and al-Qurṭubī (d. 671/1273), as well as the rumors of this evidence, offer as a proof the verse, "if they see a miracle, they turn away and say that this is a great magic." (al-Qamar 54/2). Some commentators, such as al-Qushayrī (d. 465/1072), accept that this phenomenon has taken place in the past by referring to the opinion of the commentators about the split of the moon. The views of many of the modern-day commentators such as Siddiq Ḥasan Khan (d. 1307/1890), Mawdūdī (d. 1399/1979) and Sābūnī, on this issue, apart from the narrations related to the subject have shaped the general opinion of the commentators. There are differences of opinions among some of the commentators, who accept that the splitting of the moon takes place during the time of the Prophet Muḥammad, as to the reasons and arbitrariness of the incident. According to classical period commentators such as al-Ṭabarī (d. 310/923), al-Samarqandī (d. 373/983), Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī (d. 606/1210), al-Qurṭubī (d. 671/1273), and Shīʿī commentators al-Qummī (d. 329/941), this incident took place upon the Prophet Muḥammad asked for a miracle as evidence for his prophethood by Meccan polytheists. Therefore, these commentators establish a relationship between the splitting of the moon and the prophethood of the prophet Muḥammad. On the other hand, commentators like Sayyid Quṭb (d. 1385/1966) argue that the splitting of the moon cannot be regarded as evidence of the prophethood, citing the fact that the miracles of the Prophet Muḥammad except the Qurʾān were not reported. There is a disagreement about the validity of the narrations related to the events among the commentators, who see the splitting of the moon as a miracle of the Prophet Muḥammad. Ibn Kathīr (d. 774/1373) and Shawkanī (d. 1250/1834) commentators, such as the rumors about this issue as a precise; ibn ʿĀshūr (d. 1879/1973) does not accept the news on this issue as a precise. There are also some commentators who suggest that the splitting the moon will take place in the future. The commentators, who shared this view, especially Rashīd Riḍā (d. 1353/1935) argued that the splitting of the moon did not take place in the past, pointing out that the validity criteria of narrations related to the splitting of the moon, and contradictory issues in the content of the rumors, also most of the people narrated by him/her cannot witness the incident and that it is not possible for people in a certain geography to witness this incident.There are few classical period commentators who suggest that the moon will be split in the future during the apocalypse. The prominent names are al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī, (d. 110/728), ʿAṭāʾ b. Abī Rabāḥ (d. 114/732) and Abū Bakr al- Aṣamm (d. 200/816). On the other hand, many names such as Rashīd al-Riḍā (d. 1353/1935), al-Marāghī (d. 1364/1945) and al-Shinqīṭī (d. 1394/1974) from the modern period declare that the moon will split during the apocalypse.According to these, in the verses of the al-Qamar 54/1 that apocalyptic scene is mentioned.In the verse, they try to justify the use of the verb meaning of a split in the past tense by introducing some evidence from other verses.According to them, in many verses that speak of apocalyptic scenes, events are expressed in the past tense. There are also commentators who have different evaluations on the way of the occurring event instead of the time concept. Al-Ghazālī (d. 505/1111), Muḥyiddīn Ibn al-ʿArabī (d. 638/1240) and Shāh Walī Allāh al-Dihlawī (d. 1052/1642) do not see the splitting of the moon as a real split mentioned in the verse of the al-Kamer 54/1. According to them, the event is an optical illusion. Muḥammad Asad (d. 1412/1992) connected this illusion to the lunar eclipse. Trying to explain the splitting of the moon by some commentators is one of the commentary differences in this issue. According to Mawdūdī, who did not see this event scientifically impossible, it is possible to reunite a fragmented star with gravity. Without a doubt, Ṭanṭawī al-Jawharī (d. 1940) is one of the names who make the most striking evaluations in this issue. According to him, the miracle of the moon's splitting has many aspects to shed light on scientific studies. Ṭanṭawī al-Jawharī sees the verse as the sign of the moon instead of any other celestial body, as a sign that the moon had long ago broken off from the world. Therefore, Ṭanṭawī al-Jawharī establishes a relationship between the splitting of the month mentioned in the verse and the theories about the separation of the moon in the modern period.One of the arguments about the splitting of the moon is related to the fineness of the language. Some commentators, who draw attention to the expression of the splitting of the moon, which is the expression in the Qurʾān, argue that the purpose of the separation of the moon is the occurrence of truth. According to the advocates of this view, the Arabs use such a statement to express that a work has come to light. According to this, the term "splitting the moon" as means that the Qurʾān expands the darkness in its period. In summary, the commentators make various comments on different grounds such as the narrative expression of the verse al-Qamar 54/1 regarding the splitting of the moon, the narrations about the event, and the language subtleties. (shrink)

This paper presents a unique manuscript copy of a fifth/eleventh-century Maghribī commentary on al-Bāqillānī’s Kitāb al-Tamhīd. The work, entitled al-Tasdīd fī sharḥ al-Tamhīd, was written by ‘Abd al-Jalīl b. Abī Bakr al-Dībājī —also known as Ibn al-Ṣābūnī— who had studied the Kitāb al-Tamhīd with al-Bāqillānī’s disciples in Qayrawān. The present study first reviews the transmission of al-Bāqillānī’s work to the Islamic west. It then continues to present the author of the commentary, to reconstruct the work’s genesis and to describe (...) its content. The final section focuses on a sample chapter and argues that al-Dībājī follows al-Bāqillānī’s later position on a specific theory —the so-called theory ofaḥwāl— of which the Tamhīd strongly disapproved. The Tasdīd is one of the oldest texts of Maghribī Ash‘arism that has come down to us and provides valuable new insights into the school’s early history in the Islamic west. (shrink)

Islamic philosophy - 16th century; Jurjānī, ʻAlī ibn Muḥammad, al- Sayyid al- Sharīf.

The central issue in this work is self-knowledge. The human soul is created in the Image of God with a purpose.

The Arabic philosophical fable _Hayy Ibn Yaqzan _is a classic of medieval Islamic philosophy. Ibn Tufayl, the Andalusian philosopher, tells of a child raised by a doe on an equatorial island who grows up to discover the truth about the world and his own place in it, unaided—but also unimpeded—by society, language, or tradition. Hayy’s discoveries about God, nature, and man challenge the values of the culture in which the tale was written as well as those of every contemporary society. (...) Goodman’s commentary places _Hayy Ibn Yaqzan _in its historical and philosophical context. The volume features a new preface and index, and an updated bibliography. “One of the most remarkable books of the Middle Ages.”—_Times Literary Supplement_ “An enchanting and puzzling story.... The book transcends all historical and cultural environments to settle upon the questions of human life that perpetually intrigue men.”—_Middle East__ Journal_ “Goodman has done a service to the modern English reader by providing a readable translation of a philosophically significant allegory.”—_Philosophy East and West_ “Add[s] bright new pieces to an Islamic mosaic whose general shape is already known.”—_American Historical Review_. (shrink)

Two Andalusian Philosophers is a short but comprehensive introduction to the central concerns of Islamic philosophy and its relationship with sharia law. The Story of Hayy ibn Yaqzan by Ibn Tufayl and The Definitive Statement by Averroes represent the last, great flourish of Islamic philosophy in twelfth century Andalusia. The influence of Averroes upon Latin scholastic philosophy is well known (although the content of his writings may be rather less familiar to a modern readership). Ibn Tufayls reputation rests primarily upon (...) Hayy ibn Yaqzan, which is among the most accessible of Islamic mystical writings. Widely known in English translation during the early eighteenth century, he was an important influence upon the composition of Robinson Crusoe. (shrink)

Muhammad al-Shahrastani, the famous Muslim theologian of the 12th century and author of the Book of Religious and Philosophical Sects, was greatly influenced by Ismaili teachings. In this work al-Shahrastani refutes the metaphysics of Ibn Sina (Avicenna) from an Ismaili point of view.