For the Arabs in the early stages of their incursion/domination in
It was through some Iranian Nestorians such as Hunnayn and his son and nephew that they came to know about the Greek philosophers such as Plato, Aristotle, Pythagoras and Porphyrius and many other neo-Platonists. But still these books as presented, did not attract much attention except in the domain of Dialectics. This only because they had to fight the Christians who were attacking the foundations of Islam with the weapon of Greek dialectics.
All the movements that originated from
The majority of the brilliant philosophers of Islam who wrote their books in Arabic were Iranians. Among them one can enumerate the following: Razi, Ibn-Meskawaih, Farabi, Ibn-Sina, Biruni and Ghazali.
If one omits these great names from the philosophers of Islam, there remains only very few such as Al-Kindi and Averroes. So, one can see the importance of Iranian contribution in this respect.
Through the translation made by Dominic Gundisalvus, Archdeacon of Segovia, in the early parts of the 12th century, the Christian West became acquainted with Aristotle by way of Avicenna, Farabi, and Ghazali. (Alfred Guillaum, The Legacy of Islam, p. 246) All three of these are Iranians.
Gundisalvus in his own encyclopedia of knowledge relies mostly on the information he received from the Arabic sources, mainly written by Iranian authors. What is interesting to note is that, the West, although knew some of the works of the Greeks prior to the translations made from the Arabic language, had not as yet any inklings or zeal for studying philosophy and getting interested in such works. It was the above mentioned Iranians who made the European scholars interested in the work of Aristotle and in philosophy in general.
Before entering into the subject we should ask ourselves, in passing, how was it that the Iranians with their own background of philosophy and culture, became the mouthpiece of the Greek philosophers, especially Plato and Aristotle, and why didn’t they mention anything in their works, about their heirloom of pre-Islamic times.
Two or three very obvious reasons come to mind immediately. The first is that the Caliphs were very touchy about Iranian religion and philosophies. In them there was always a discussion of Zoroaster and dualism which was indeed against the Islamic precepts. In fact they used to send to the gallows any person who showed the slightest tendency towards such ideas (after cursory judicial proceedings).
The second reason which has some bearing upon the first was that Iranians who were interested in philosophic discussions, although not allowed to enter into the arena on their own account, could shield themselves behind a Greek mouthpiece. For them, Greek philosophy, as we have already seen in the Pre-Islamic section of this chapter, had indeed borrowed quite a good deal from Iranian philosophers of old and therefore using these tenets and philosophies was not absolutely contrary to their own ideas. In fact according to Farabi:
philosophy at the beginning, was carried from
And according to Sohrawardi:
the leaven of Logos in the Orient and Occident was in the origin of one single school and there was no opposition amongst them. They were two branches of the same dynasty respectively perpetuated by the sages of
Modern Western scholars, who are excessively under the tutelage of Greek culture, claim that Muslim philosophy is only Greek philosophy translated into Arabic language, adorned with a superstructure of monotheistic religious and ethical ideas, which according to individual taste is considered to be misfit or a harmonious complement. (J.L. Teicher, Avicenna scientist and philosopher, p. 29)
Are we accusing Western philosophy in the same manner, simply because it is based to a great extent on Greek philosophy? It is true that the bulk of Islamic philosophy is, indeed, the direct continuation of Greek speculation, but it has in addition original features of its own which do not derive from Greek models.
These features run the risk of being totally submerged under the vast expanse of Greek sources habitually adduced by commentators of Arabic thought. According to Dr. Teicher:
the confidence with which such commentators rely on the illuminating power of bare Greek quotations is unfortunately seldom shared by the reader of their words who is very often disappointed and perplexed when the only help offered to him for the understanding of a very difficult passage of Islamic philosophy is an obscure text of Aristotle or Plotinius. (all the philosophers referred to are Iranians, but Teicher has always used Arabic or Arab, instead of Persian or Muslim).
A recent movement in the study of the origin of Islamic philosophy claims to have discovered an easy solution for the problems. The members of this movement tell us that:
The origin of Arabic (ibid.) philosophy is to be found in resumes, compendia, and all kinds of school textbooks of the later Hellenistic period which were translated into Arabic.
They ascribe magical powers to quite innocuous compilations; such compilations may, with due caution, be considered as indication of the rate of diffusion of interest in philosophy among Mohammadans. (ibid.) But we cannot adduce thereby a complete subservience of Mohammadan philosophy to Greek philosophy. These compilations are certainly not the source of inspiration of original and creative thought. (ibid. p. 29-30)
No comments:
Post a Comment