Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T08:20:44.343Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ibn Ṭufayl's Appraisal of his Predecessors and Their Influence on His Thought

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 January 2009

Sami S. Hawi
Sami S. Hawi
Affiliation:
The University Of Wisconsin – Milwaukee
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Ibn Ṭufayl (d. 1185), the Spanish Muslim philosopher, is at once a scientist, a mystic, and a believer. His science-oriented spirit, his mysticism, and his religious belief fall naturally into their proper places within the framework of his philosophy. This philosophy is imbedded in his distinguished treatise Ḥayy Bin Yaqẓân. In this work, he fuses his comprehensive knowledge of various disciplines in an all-embracing view of things which bears the results of his intellectual labor and culminates in a science-based mysticism. In preparing for the presentation of his views, Ibn Tufayl writes an Introduction to his work which includes a rigorous criticism of the philosophies of his predecessors. This Introduction imbues the treatise with philosophical seriousness and systematic value, and reveals the author's metaphysical presuppositions and basic motives for writing Ḥayy Bin Yaqẓân. He also draws a fundamental distinction between naturalistic knowledge and mystical gnosis, two methods of cognition that are not, in his opinion, mutually exclusive, and the rigorous training in the first necessarily leads to the, attainment of the latter. Such a distinction determines the entire philosophic plan of the treatise which commences with Ḥayy's early scientific and conceptual development and culminates in his inevitable union with the Necessary Being. Had Ibn Ṭufayl not written this Introduction, a great amount of scholarly work and historical investigation would have been required to trace the historical and intellectual threads with which Ḥayy Bin Yaqẓân was uniquely woven.

Type
Articles
Information
International Journal of Middle East Studies , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , January 1976 , pp. 89 - 121
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1976

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 89 note 1 DrHourani's, George F. comments on an earlier draft of this paper were helpful to me. However, it is not suggested that he would necessarily agree with the views I express.Google Scholar

page 89 note 2 Tufayl, Ibn, Hayy Bin Yaqzân, ed. and trans. into French by Gauthier, Léon (Beirut, 1936). Henceforth, all references to the Arabic text will refer to this edition of Gauthier as Hayy.Google Scholar

page 89 note 3 I mean science-oriented knowledge.Google Scholar

page 89 note 4 Hayy, pp. 4–20.Google Scholar

page 89 note 5 Instances of which are: de Boer, T. J., History of Philosophy in Islam (New York, 1967), pp. 181–7;Google ScholarHayy; Palencia, Angel González, El Filosofo Autodidacto (Madrid, 1948).Google ScholarMacdonald, Duncan, Development of Muslim Theology, Jurisprudence and Constitutional Theory (New York, 1965), pp. 252–4,Google ScholarOckley, Simon, The History of Hayy Ibn Yaqzân (New York, 1929).Google ScholarSaliba, J. and Ayyad, K., Hayy Ibn Yaqzân li Ibn Tufayl al-Andalusî (Damascus, 1962).Google Scholar

page 90 note 1 Hayy, pp. 4–11, 12–20.Google Scholar

page 90 note 2 Ibid. p. 20.

page 90 note 3 Ibn Tufayl uses the phrase al-hikmat al-mashriqiyya, which literally means the ‘wisdom of the East’, and not mushriqiyya, ‘illuminative’, as Gauthier held. There is a dispute among such scholars as Gauthier, Corbin, and Nallino concerning this point. Some hold that al-hikmat al-mashriqiyya means oriental wisdom which is different from hikmat al-ishrâq, illuminative philosophy. In my opinion, this dispute is unwarranted because in the final analysis both phrases refer to the same thing, namely, illuminative philosophy. This doctrine was introduced to Islamic thought by al-Fârâbî and later adopted by Avicenna and Suhrawardî. Some scholars confine it to Suhrawardî who elaborated it and came to be known as one of its chief exponents. See Nasr, S. H., Three Muslim Sages (Cambridge, Mass., 1964), pp. 55–74.Google Scholar

page 90 note 4 Hayy, p. 4.Google Scholar

page 90 note 5 Ibid., pp. v–vi. Also Gauthier, Léon, Ibn Thofail sa vie ses œuvres (Paris, 1909), p. 69;Google ScholarKhaldun, Ibn, Prolegomènes, trans. de Slane, M. (1868), vol. 2, p. 385,Google ScholarQumayr, Youhanna, Ibn Tufayl (Beirut, 1956), p. 59.Google Scholar

page 91 note 1 Hayy, pp. 3–20.Google Scholar

page 91 note 2 I mean that Ibn Tufayl's mysticism is science-based.Google Scholar

page 91 note 3 Hayy, pp. 55–88, 89–90, 120, 122, 129.Google Scholar

page 92 note 1 Ibid. pp. 5–8.

page 92 note 2 This is evidenced by Hayy's employment of these methods through the whole treatise with the exception of pages 135–56.Google Scholar

page 92 note 3 See below p. 91.Google Scholar

page 93 note 1 Hayy, pp. 13–14.Google Scholar

page 93 note 2 Ibid. p. 14.

page 93 note 3 M. Mahdi claims that Ibn Tufayl's report of the title of the book is unreliable and for technical reasons Mahdi preferred to name it Book of Religion (Kitâb al-Millat), cf. al-Fârâbî, , Book of Religion, ed. Mahdi, M. (Beirut, 1968), pp. 13–20.Google Scholar

page 93 note 4 ibid.

page 93 note 5 I could not locate a book by al-Fârâbî on this subject. Most probably Ibn Tufayl is referring to al-Fârâbî's commentary on Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics.Google Scholar

page 93 note 6 Hayy, p. 14.Google Scholar

page 93 note 7 Ibid.

page 94 note 1 Ibid.

page 94 note 2 Ibid.

page 94 note 3 The following is the passage translated above:

see al-Fârâbî, , The Book of the Opinions of the People of the Virtuous City (Kitâb arâ' ahl al-Madînat al-Fâdilat), ed. Nader, A. (Beirut, 1959), p. 118.Google Scholar

page 94 note 4 See respectively Hayy, pp. 4, 6,Google Scholar and Avicenna, , al-Ishârât wa-l-tanbîhât (Allusions and Intimations) with a commentary by Tûsî, ed. Dunya, S., vols. 3–4 (Cairo, 1958), pp. 828–30. Ibn Tufayl quotes Avicenna's Ishârât without mentioning the name of the book at all.Google Scholar

page 95 note 1 Virtuous City, pp. 112–13, 118–20.Google Scholar

page 95 note 2 Ibid. pp. 74–81.

page 95 note 3 Ibid. pp. 95–8. See also pp. 132–3. Italics are mine. Some of the English passages from Hayy are occasionally drawn from L. E. Goodman's unpublished translation of this work.

page 95 note 4 This point is related to Ibn Tufayl's method of concealment which permeates the entire scheme of the presentation of his ideas in the treatise. A thorough and careful study of this method is unequivocally necessary for sifting the views which Ibn Tufayl really accepts from those he employs to disguise them. However, it is sufficient for the present purpose to mention that there are two main levels of arguments that run through Hayy Bin Yaqzân from its beginning to its end, with the exception of those parts of the Introduction where the author criticizes the ideas of his predecessors. These two levels accompany the narrator through his interruptions, recapitulations, elucidations, and indirect utterances. The one is superimposed on the other or coextensive with it: this is the ‘thin veil’Google Scholar (Hayy, p. 158) which covers the other line of the argument. These two levels are the external and internal aspects o the treatise. Ibn Tufayl frequently adopts two contradictory views on one and the same problem, one of which is consistent with the apparent meaning of the Divine revelation and the other is in harmony with demonstrative knowledge and the experimental sciences. For instance, he gives two versions of Hayy's birth, two opposing arguments concerning the genesis and/or eternity of the world, but does not decisively and explicitly accept the one or the other. Yet in both these cases he leaves hints and remarks to disclose his real belief.Google Scholar See Hayy, pp. 20–33, 81–8, 122.Google Scholar

page 96 note 1 Virtuous City, pp. 112–15.Google Scholar

page 96 note 2 Such as The Political Regime.Google Scholar

page 96 note 3 Virtuous City, p. 112.Google Scholar

page 96 note 4 Ibid. pp. 70–3.

page 97 note 1 Ibid. pp. 94, 103–4, 106.

page 97 note 2 Ibid.

page 97 note 3 Hayy, pp. 6–7.Google Scholar

page 97 note 4 One can infer from the Introduction that Ibn Tufayl did not consider Avicenna as a mystic, but rather, as one who studied and analyzed the teachings of the mystics. Also Ibn Tufayl mentions that al-Ghazzâlî attained the heights of mystical gnosis, and that Ibn Bâjja achieved intellectual contact but does not express any such ideas about Avicenna. Had Ibn Tufayl found Avicenna a mystic there is no reason for him not to tell us so. Avicenna seems to have commanded Ibn Tufayl's respect for his contributions in the empirical and theoretical sciences including philosophy. See Cardet, Louis, La pensée religieuse d'Avicenne (Paris, 1951).Google Scholar

page 98 note 1 Hayy, pp. 6–9, 90–135.Google Scholar

page 98 note 2 I mentioned earlier that more than once the treatise was attributed to Avicenna. See above p. 87.Google Scholar

page 98 note 3 Hayy, pp. 3–4.Google Scholar

page 98 note 4 Ibid. p. 20.

page 98 note 5 See Hayy, pp. 6–7Google Scholar and Sînâ, Ibn, al-Ishârât wa-l-tanbîhât (Allusions and Intimations), with Tûsî's commentary, ed. Dunya, S., vol. 3–4 (Cairo, 1958), pp. 828–30.Google Scholar

page 98 note 6 Hayy, pp. 90–135.Google Scholar

page 98 note 7 Ibid. pp. 31–32, 51–2, 66–9, 72–90.

page 99 note 1 Ibid. p. 18.

page 99 note 2 My subsequent discussion of Ibn Tufayl's evaluation of a1-Ghazzâlî's works justifies the above statement.Google Scholar

page 99 note 3 Hayy, p. 6.Google Scholar

page 99 note 4 Ibid. pp. 11–12.

page 99 note 5 Ibid. p. 18

page 99 note 6 For Avicenna's story of Salâmân and Absâl see Ishârât, pp. 796–7.Google Scholar See also Avicenna's, ‘Hayy Bin Yaqzân’ in Hayy Bin Yaqzân li îbn Sînâ, Ibn Tufayl, wa-l-Shurawardî, ed. Amin, Ahmad (Cairo, 1952), pp. 43–54.Google Scholar

page 99 note 7 Ibid. p. 14.

page 100 note 1 Avicenna, , Al-Shifâ' (De Anima), ed. Rahman, F. (London, 1959), pp. 194–201, 239–50.Google Scholar See also al-Shifâ' (Metaphysics), vol. 2, ed. Dunya, S., Musa, M. and Zayid, S.. (Cairo, 1960), pp. 435–46.Google Scholar

page 100 note 2 Hayy, p. 15.Google Scholar

page 100 note 3 Ibid. pp. 11–12.

page 100 note 4 Ibid. p. 18.

page 100 note 5 Ibid. pp. 90–135.

page 101 note 1 Ibid. pp. 3–135.

page 101 note 2 Ibid. p. 15.

page 101 note 3 Ibid. p. 16.

page 101 note 4 Ibid. pp. 16–17.

page 101 note 5 Ibid. pp. 15–16.

page 101 note 6 Ibid. p. 16.

page 102 note 1 Ibid. pp. 16–18.

page 102 note 2 Cf. al-Ghazzâlî: Al-Munqidh min-al-dalâl (The Rescuer from Error), ed. Mahmoud, A. (Cairo, 1967), pp. 101–4.Google Scholar See also, al-Ghazzâlî, , Tahâfut al-falâsifa (Incoherence of the Philosophers), ed. Buaij, M. (Beirut, 1962), pp. 46–7, 48–85, 164–74, 235–54,Google Scholar and Mishkât al-anwâr (The Niche of Lights), ed. Afifi, A. (Cairo, 1964), p. 57.Google Scholar

page 103 note 1 Al-Munqidh, pp. 101–4.Google Scholar

page 103 note 2 Al-GhazzâIî, , Mîzân al-lsquo;amal (Scale of Action), ed. Dunya, S. (Cairo, 1964), pp. 184–5.Google Scholar

page 103 note 3 Al-Munqidh, pp. 122–9.Google Scholar

page 103 note 4 Ibid. p. 129.

page 104 note 1 Mîzân al-‘amal, pp. 406–9. In these pages the author holds the triple division of beliefs that the Ibn Tufayl mentions and this seems to be in harmony with his views in the Munqidh.Google Scholar

page 104 note 2 Hayy, p. 156, and Mishkât, p. 93.Google Scholar

page 104 note 3 Hayy, pp. 132–55.Google Scholar

page 105 note 1 The full title of this book is: Jawâhir al-Qur'ân (Gems of the Qur'ân) (Cairo, 1910).Google Scholar

page 105 note 2 Hayy, p. 17.Google Scholar

page 105 note 3 Jawâhir, p. 30. Al-Ghazzâlî says that in his esoteric book he discusses Acts of God, His Attributes, His Essence, and the afterlifeGoogle Scholar (ibid. p. 30). Al-Ghazzâlî is probably referring to his book: al-Madnûn bihi ‘ala Ghairi ahlihi in which he discusses these subjects. This book apparently did not reach Ibn Tufayl.

page 105 note 4 Mishkâr, pp. 44, 56, 58, 91–3. See also al-Iqtisâd fî-l-i‘tiqâd (Economizing in Belief), ed. M. Qabbânî (Cairo, 1908).Google Scholar

page 106 note 1 Mishkât. p. 95. The italicized part was not quoted by Ibn Tufayl.Google Scholar

page 106 note 2 Hayy, pp. 121, 122, 124, 156.Google Scholar

page 106 note 3 These are Abû Yazîd al-Bustâmî's words.Google Scholar

page 106 note 4 Al-Hallâj is known to have made these two statements.Google Scholar

page 106 note 5 Hayy, p. 4 and Mishkât, p. 57. A comparison of these two pages shows that Ibn Tufayl had borrowed these utterances from al-Ghazzâlî.Google Scholar

page 106 note 6 Mishkât, p. 56.Google Scholar

page 106 note 7 Hayy, pp. 120–1.Google Scholar

page 107 note 1 Ibid. p. 18.

page 107 note 2 Bâjja, Ibn, Opera Metaphysica, ed. Fakhry, M. (Beirut, 1968), p. 55. See below pp. 105–7.Google Scholar

page 107 note 3 Hayy, p. 5, 9.Google Scholar

page 107 note 4 Ibid. p. 10.

page 107 note 5 Ibid.

page 107 note 6 Ibid. p. 12.

page 108 note 1 Ibid. pp. 5–6. Italics mine.

page 108 note 2 Ibid. pp. 9–10.

page 108 note 3 Ibid. pp. 10–13.

page 109 note 1 Ibn Bâjja, Opera Metaphysica, pp. 172–3.Google Scholar

page 109 note 2 Ibid. p. 173.

page 109 note 3 Ibid.

page 109 note 4 Hayy, pp. 7–8.Google Scholar

page 109 note 5 Opera Metaphysica, pp. 107–9, 121.Google Scholar

page 110 note 1 For these two treatises see Opera Metaphysica.Google Scholar

page 110 note 2 Ibid. pp. 55–6.

page 110 note 3 Ibid. p. 55.

page 110 note 4 Ibid. p. 55.

page 110 note 5 Ibid. p. 121.

page 111 note 1 Ibid. pp. 121–2.

page 111 note 2 For the above see ibid. pp. 73–96.

page 113 note 1 Hayy, p. v.Google Scholar

page 113 note 2 Ibid. p. vi.

page 113 note 3 Ibid. p. 18. The following is the Arabic original of the translated passage:

page 113 note 4 Ibid.

page 114 note 1 Ibid. pp. 12–20.

page 114 note 2 This point is crucial to the understanding of Ibn Tufayl. See above pp. 96–7.Google Scholar

page 114 note 3 MacDonald, Development of Muslim Theology, p. 252.Google Scholar

page 114 note 4 See respectively: El-Ahwany, Ahmad Foad, Islamic Philosophy (Cairo, 1957), p. 123,Google Scholar and O'Leary, DeLacy, Arabic Thought and Its Place in History (London, 1963), p. 251.Google Scholar

page 114 note 5 Cf. Qumair, , Ibn Tufayl (Beirut, 1956), p. 59.Google Scholar

page 114 note 6 Chapter by Arberry, A. J., in Avicenna Scientist and Philosopher, ed. Wickens, G. M., (London, 1962).Google Scholar

page 115 note 1 De Boer, History of Philosophy in Islam, p. 182.Google Scholar

page 115 note 2 Cf. Fulton's Introduction in Ockley, History of Hayy Ibn Yaqzân, p. 23.Google Scholar

page 115 note 3 Hitti, Philip, The History of the Arabs (London, 1964), p. 581.Google Scholar

page 115 note 4 Hayy, pp. 135–55.Google Scholar

page 115 note 5 Through Arabic translations.Google Scholar

page 116 note 1 Hayy, pp. 55–122.Google Scholar

page 116 note 2 Ibid. p. 101. ‘What has no form at all is hyle, matter. It is not in the least alive, but next to non-existent.’

page 116 note 3 This is evidenced by Hayy's progressive improvement of his knowledge until he comprehended the immaterial nature of God. Hayy's noetic elevation is similar to the theme in Plato's ‘Allegory of the Cave’. See Plato, : The Collected Dialogues, eds. Hamilton, E. and Cairns, H. (New York, 1966), pp. 747–50, The Republic vii, 514be–517e.Google Scholar

page 116 note 4 Hayy, pp. 64–74. Ibn Tutayl's view that form determines the nature of things and that matter is the principle of individuation are equally Aristotelian.Google Scholar

page 116 note 5 For instance, Hayy was convinced that he should not try to teach people or manage their affairs on Asâl's inhabited islandGoogle Scholar (ibid. pp. 147–55).

page 116 note 6 Ibid. pp. 82–4.

page 116 note 7 Ibid. pp. 31–2, 57–9, 64–5, 66–9, 92–100, 104, 125, 132.

page 116 note 8 Ibid. pp. 74, 85.

page 116 note 9 This can be inferred from pages 54–135 of the treatise.Google Scholar

page 116 note 10 Although mysticism as such can be traced to non-Islamic sources, the elements of Ibn Tufayl's pantheistic mysticism were essentially drawn from the Islamic mystics. Also while the attempts of reconciling revelation to philosophy may not be purely Islamic, still these attempts were most acute among Muslim intellectuals who had contributed much to the solution of the problem before Ibn Tufayl.Google Scholar

page 117 note 1 Hayy, pp. 20–135.Google Scholar

page 117 note 2 Ibid. pp. 136–55.

page 117 note 3 Ibid. pp. 90–135.

page 118 note 1 For the above information see Hayy, pp. 105–31.Google Scholar

page 118 note 2 Ibid. pp. 127–33.

page 118 note 3 Ibid. pp. 122, 124–5, 126–7, 132.

page 118 note 4 Ibid. pp. 91–2, especially pages 95–6 where Ibn Tufayl repeats the views of alFârâbî concerning the dissolution of ignorant souls after death and the immortality of the corrupt (fâsiqa) souls in lasting torment. Also, pp. 97–99. Compare the information in all the preceding pages with al-Fârâbî. Cf. al-Fârâbâ, Virtuous City, pp. 70–3, 118–20, 141–8.

page 118 note 5 Hayy, pp. 86–8 and especially p. 99. See al-Fârâbî, Virtuous City, pp. 38–9, 44–5.Google Scholar

page 118 note 6 Hayy, pp. 20–90.Google Scholar

page 119 note 1 Hayy, pp. 55–72.Google Scholar

page 119 note 2 Ibid. pp. 56–61.

page 119 note 3 Ibid. pp. 64–70.

page 119 note 4 Ibid. pp. 66–9, 123–5.

page 119 note 5 Ibid. pp. 90–125.

page 119 note 6 Ibid. pp. 96–125.

page 120 note 1 Mishkât, pp. 59, 67, 68, 69.Google Scholar

page 120 note 2 Ibid. pp. 53, 59, 60, 67, 69.

page 120 note 3 Hayy, pp. 89–90.Google Scholar

page 120 note 4 Mishkât, pp. 55, 56.Google Scholar

page 120 note 5 Cf. Hayy, p. 88, and Mishkât, pp. 51–64.Google Scholar

page 120 note 6 Mishkât, pp. 53, 59, 60, 69.Google Scholar See also al-Ghazzâlî, , Ihyâ' ‘ulûm al-dîn (Revival of the Religious Sciences) (Cairo, 1945), vol. 3, pp. 459–60.Google Scholar

page 120 note 7 Mishkât, esp. pp. 53–69.Google Scholar

page 120 note 8 Ibid. p. 54. See also p. 60. Compare al-Ghazzâlî's statement in these pages with Ibn Tufayl's in Hayy, pp. 122, 124–5, 126–7, 132.

page 120 note 9 Mishkât, pp. 56–8.Google Scholar

page 121 note 1 Hayy, p. 129.Google Scholar

page 121 note 2 Mishkât, p. 52.Google Scholar