An Introduction to Classical Islamic Philosophy by Oliver Leaman

An Introduction to Classical Islamic Philosophy Reviews

• 
  Mostafa

  قرأت القسم الأول منه، وقليل من القسم الثاني.
  
  أعجبني أنّ الكتاب ليس عبارة عن استعراض تاريخي للفلسفة الإسلامية ولا تحليل لمصادرها ودورها في نقل التراث اليوناني للغرب، بل كان غرض الكاتب تقديم بعض المباحثات الفلسفية والكلامية وبراهين الأطراف المتنازعة وردودها، مع تحليل وربط لهذه الحوارات ببعضها. عبّر الكاتب في مقدمته عن أن هدفه جذب الاهتمام إلى المباحثات والحجج لذاتها، بغض النظر عن أثرها ومصادرها أو مقارنتها بالفلسفة الغربية.
  
  اختار الكاتب التركيز على: الفارابي، ابن سينا، الغزالي، ابن رشد، وموسى بن ميمون. والكتاب على قسمين:
  1. هجوم الغزالي على الفلاسفة
  2. العقل والنقل في مجال العقل العملي
  
  القسم الأول تناول الثلاث مسائل الشهيرة من كتاب تهافت الفلاسفة للغزالي:
  أ. قدم العالم
  ب. حشر الأجساد
  ج. معرفة الإله بالجزئيات المتغيرة
  
  هذا القسم يشغل 60% من الكتاب. ومنهجه كان استعراض بعض القواعد الفلسفية عند أرسطو (ويشير أحيان إن لم يكن الرأي لأرسطو وإنما نُسب غلطا من المترجمين إليه)، ثم يبحث في كلام ابن سينا والفارابي، ثم يستعرض رد الغزالي، ثم يستعرض رد ابن رشد على الغزالي. أعجبني طريقة الاستعراض والمقارنة وتحليله وتلخيصه للحجج المقدّمة من الأطراف، وقليل ما يتدخل بابداء رأيه، وحتى عندما يبديه، يكون عرضه لرأيه معقولا ومناسبا.
  
  رغم كونه مقدّمة لهذه المباحث، إلا أنني لم أجده سطحيا ولا أنه مبسّط للدرجة التي يخرج المسألة عن أصلها، وهذا ممتاز. ورأيت في إحدى المراجعات هنا: "أنّ الكتاب صعب إذا اعتبرنا أنه مجرد مقدمة"، وأظن هذا صحيحا؛ من ليس له معرفة سابقة بالمباحث الفلسفية الإسلامية، سيعاني في تتبع الحجج والمناقشات بعض الشيء.
  
  الآن، هدف الكاتب كان إثارة الفضول نحو نفس المسائل الفلسفية المدروسة وحججها والمناقشات حولها في الفلسفة الإسلامية، وأنا أظن أنه نجح في عرض هذه المباحث بطريقة تثير الاهتمام لهذه الفلسفة.
  
• 
  Phil

  I should start by saying I found that rating this book was quite difficult. The reason for that is I think it is a very good introduction (so far as I, a distinctly non-specialist can tell), but I'm not entirely sure I understood more than half to two-thirds of it. Most of that is that this is, after all , philosophy and I am merely a humble historian, who may be conversant with philosophy, but is distinctly not a philosopher. I enjoyed it, but there are whole chapters, like ontology, which I barely understood. That, though, are my shortcomings, not the author's.
  
  What this book does well is to explain the distinctive slant of the Islamic philosophical tradition. One of the things that I found fascinating about this slant is how similar early Islamic philosophy/theology is to patristic and mediaeval philosophy/theology. That makes sense because they do share a common root- the Greek philosophical tradition, especially in the form of Platonism, Neoplatonism and, occasionally, Aristotelian thought as well as the developed monotheism of the Abrahamic faiths. That made this tradition feel more like a distant cousin, than a complete stranger.
  
  Leaman's approach is to give a brief historical overview of the gamut of Islamic philosophy, then to concentrate on the perennial philosophical questions- ontology, politics, ethics, language, theology. etc. Each chapter engages with, at least, one major philosopher and exposes many of the roots and connections of Islamic philosophical tradition. Leaman is very open about the fact that ibn Rushd (Averroes in mediaeval Latin) is the 'hero' of the book, although this new edition has a focus on mysticism which is very important for understanding Islamic philosophy and which ibn Rushd tended to discount. The tendency is to connect with the 'rationalist' tradition of the West, but it isn't as pronounced in some places and Leaman does discuss the critique of the Western Enlightenment project which is prominent among several modern Islamic philosophers.
  
  So, this book is well worth reading, but I'd still recommend reading a general introduction to Islam first, like Dr. Hillenbrand's introduction which I reviewed last month, in order to get a feel the names and the history.
• 
  Hamdanil

  The author is very knowledgeable at the subject, the book covers the interesting history of philosophy in the Islamic world. It discusses interesting topics such as causality, reason v revelation, religion-based ethics, Ghazali's attacks on philosophers. However, as an 'introduction' the book feels very dry and difficult to understand for casual reader. After slogging through the technical discussion, I find myself struggling to summarize who has which position and what their main arguments are.
  
  For a more readable and less dry book on this subject, try
  Philosophy in the Islamic World: A Very Short Introduction by
  Peter Adamson
• 
  Jalaluddin Abdullah

  One of the things that I found fascinating about this book is how similar early Islamic philosophy/theology is to patristic and medieval philosophy/theology. That makes sense because they do share a common root- the Greek philosophical tradition, especially in the form of Platonism, Neoplatonism, and, occasionally, Aristotelian thought as well as the developed monotheism of the Abrahamic faiths. That made this tradition feel more like a distant cousin than a complete stranger.
  
  Leaman's approach is to give a brief historical overview of the gamut of Islamic philosophy, then concentrate on the perennial philosophical questions- ontology, politics, ethics, language, and theology. etc. Each chapter engages with, at least, one major philosopher and exposes many of the roots and connections of Islamic philosophical tradition. Leaman is very open about the fact that ibn Rushd (Averroes in medieval Latin) is the 'hero' of the book, although this new edition has a focus on mysticism which is very important for understanding Islamic philosophy and which ibn Rushd tended to discount. The tendency is to connect with the 'rationalist' tradition of the West, but it isn't as pronounced in some places and Leaman does discuss the critique of the Western Enlightenment project which is prominent among several modern Islamic philosophers.
  
  So, this book is well worth reading, but I'd still recommend reading a general introduction to Islam first, like Dr. Hillenbrand's introduction which I reviewed last month, to get a feel of the names and history.