Our understanding of
the history of Islamic philosophical traditions becomes richer and more nuanced by
the day as more and more specialists enter the field and make contributions. In
particular, recent developments are beginning to shed greater light on the
crucial 12th century when Avicennan philosophy became established,
fused with different currents of philosophical kalām including Ashʿarism and the modified Muʿtazilī school of
Abū-l-Ḥusayn al-Baṣrī (d. 436/1044) – Robert Wisnovsky has for some time been
studying that Avicennan legacy not least in his article in the Cambridge Companion to Arabic Philosophy, and now in another
collected volume Interpreting Avicenna.
The 12th century is precisely the period that Yahya Michot described
as one of ‘la pandémie avicennienne’, not least because of the lack of success
in refuting and challenging Avicennan ideas. Avicenna and Avicennism survived; ʿAyn
al-Quḍāt Hamadānī (d. 525/1131), Sharaf al-Dīn al-Masʿūdī (d. 582/1186), ʿAbū-l-Barakāt al-Baghdādī (d. c. 560/1165), Abd al-Laṭīf al-Baghdādī (d.
629/1231 – but now on him see this new book by Cecila Martini Bornadeo), Ibn
Kammūna (d. 683/1284 – on him, see the book by Pourjavady and Schmidtke) and
others did not even if now and then some thinkers in the later traditions
referred back to their works.
Ayman Shihadeh at
SOAS has made a number of important contributions here, beginning with his
article in 2005 in Arabic Sciences and
Philosophy on the 12th century, more recently another article in
the Bulletin of SOAS in 2013 on Ibn
Ghaylān al-Balkhī (d. c. 590/1194) as well as his facsimile edition of Nihāyat al-marām fī dirāyat al-makān of Ḍiyāʾ
al-Dīn al-Makkī, father of Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzi (d. 606/1210). Similarly, a
Warburg Institute colloquium on the 12th century convened by Peter
Adamson (now at Munich) has resulted in a volume In the Age of Averroes. The 13th century that
immediately followed in rather significant as well since that is when the
illuminationist tradition associated with Suhrawardī (d. 587/1191) became
established, as did the new Avicennan orthodoxy of Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī (d.
674/1274), and the emergence of Imāmī kalām with him and his student ʿAllāma
al-Ḥillī (d. 725/1325). It would be great to have a conference called In the Age of Ṭūsī.
But in terms of the
12th century, one of the figures whom we have known for some time,
not least because of his supposedly non-Aristotelian logical text al-Baṣāʾir is Zayn al-dīn ʿUmar b. Sahlān al-Sāwī or Sāvajī (d. c. 537/1143). Gholamreza Dadkhah and Mohammad Karimi Zanjani Asl at Bonn
have produced an edition of three works in logic and philosophy as the first
volume in a new series in ‘Iranian philosophy’ published in Germany by Goethe & Hafis. The three texts, all in Arabic, are rather short totally barely 50
pages in all – and they are:
- Risāla fī taḥqīq naqīḍ al-wujūd primarily concerned with the semantics of the term wujūd and its predication (and previously edited and published by Muḥammad Taqī Dānishpazhūh - I wonder why one would need to improve on something he did - I need to look more carefully again),
- al-Tawṭiʾa fī-l-muʿjizāt wa-l-karamāt on the epistemological and psychological background to making sense of miracles responding to the positions of al-Shahrastānī (d. 548/1153),
- and Nahj al-taqdīs on the problem of God’s knowledge of particulars, defending Avicenna against Ghazālī.
In terms of Sāwī’s one context, we have an
individual associated with the Seljuk court – he wrote al-Baṣāʾir for the
vizier of Sanjar, Naṣīr al-Dīn Maḥmūd Marwazī. Sāwī was a student of Muḥammad
b. Yūsuf Īlaqī (d. 534/1141), an Avicennan thinker (who wrote on medicine as well as philosophy), associated with Asʿad
Mayhānī (d. 527/1132), a teacher at the Niẓāmīya in Baghdad and a third
generation student of Avicenna, interacted and debated with Shahrastānī, and
taught Ibn Ghaylān al-Balkhī. Thus in terms of his networks, he was clearly an
important figure engaged in the debates for and against Avicenna at the time
when Avicennism was becoming established. His influence still needs to be
considered – Ziai wrote the famous Encyclopaedia Iranica entry on him but there is little else. In particular, he is
attributed with a refutation of Shahrastānī’s Muṣāraʿat al-falāsifa that may have influenced Ṭūsī’s own
refutation, but until we study the text we cannot say for sure. But
nevertheless, the editors have done a decent job – the history of philosophy
requires both research and careful critical editions of texts as well as the
studies of their ideas, impact and influence. What we now need is for someone to join the dots and link together the emerging Avicennan networks, to analyse the thought of these thinkers in the 12th century and crucially show us how Avicennism emerged and perhaps even more significantly how that might be distinguished from Avicenna's own contributions, not least because the later traditions (Mullā Ṣadrā, for example, often associated Avicennism with the works of Bahmanyār, Lawkarī, Ṭūsī and others alongside citing the actual texts of al-Shifāʾ, al-Taʿlīqāt/al-Lawāḥiq and al-Ishārāt).
And for those of us interested in intellectual history with a focus on philosophy, things just get better by the day.
And for those of us interested in intellectual history with a focus on philosophy, things just get better by the day.