Ghazālī’s “The incoherence of the philosophers” spurred a counter-commentary by Ibn Rushd, as is well known. Up to ten texts from Ottoman scholars also purport to be commentaries on the Tahāfut, constituting a commentary tradition that has been neglected by scholars. The first two commentators, Khojazāda (d. 1488) and ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn Ṭūsī (d. 1482), are not line-by-line exegetes of Ghazālī, but rather update the discussions that Ghazālī broached to the level of knowledge available to them. Khojazāda was favored by the Ottomans, but ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn’s content, methodology and argumentation style proves to be just as, if not more, interesting for us.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
A. Schmölders, Essai sur les écoles philosophiques chez les Arabes, et notamment sur la doctrine d’ Algazzali (Paris: Firmin Didot Frères, 1842), 213 ff.; R. Gosche, “Über Ghazzâlîs Leben und Werke,” Abhandlungen der philos.-histor. Klasse der Königlich Akademie der Wissenschaften, Berlin (1858): 239–311; S. Munk, Mélanges de philosophie juive et arabe (Paris: A. Franck, 1859), 369.
D.B. MacDonald, “The life of al-Ghazzālī with especial reference to his religious experiences and opinions,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 20 (1899): 124, fn. 1.
Tj. de Boer, Die Widersprüche der Philosophie nach al-Ġazzālī und ihr Ausgleich durch Ibn Rošd (Strassburg: Verlag von Karl J. Trübner, 1894), 62–63. He in fact opens his book by acknowledging this (“Im jahre 1302 d.H. (1884/5 D) erschienen in Cairo zwei schriften zusammengedruckt …”), and closes his book by suggesting more than 60 corrections to the edition.
M. Horten, Die hauptlehren des Averroes: nach seiner schrift: Die Widerlegung des Gazali (Bonn: A. Marcus und E. Webers Verlag, 1913).
M. Steinschneider, Die hebraeischen Uebersetzungen des Mittelalters und die Juden als Dolmetscher (Berlin: Kommissionsverlag des Bibliographischen Bureaus, 1893), 326–27.
Y. Qumayr, Ibn Rushd wa-l-Ghazālī: al-Tahāfutān (Beirut: Dār al-mashriq, 1986).
D. Gutas, Greek Thought, Arabic Culture (London: Routledge, 1998), 174; D. Gutas, “The Heritage of Avicenna: The Golden Age of Arabic Philosophy, 1000–ca. 1350,” in Avicenna and His Heritage. A Golden Age of Science and Philosophy, ed. by J. Janssens and D. De Smet (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2002), 88.
R. Saʿāda, Mushkilat al-ṣirāʿ bayn al-falsafa wa-l-dīn (Beirut: al-Dār al-ʿālamiyya, 1981).
M. Türker, Üç Tehâfüt Bakımından Felsefe ve Din Münasebeti (Ankara: Türk Tarih kurumu Basımevi, 1956).
T. Yücedoğru et al., International Symposium on Khojazada (22–24 October 2010 Bursa): Proceedings (Bursa: Bursa Büyükșehir Belediyesi, 2011).
V. Kaya, “Âlemin Ezelîliği Tartışmalarında Hocazâde’nin Yeri,” in International Symposium on Khojazada, ed. by Yücedoğru et al., 253–67.
A. Shihadeh, “Khojazāda on al-Ghazālī’s Criticism of the Philosophers’ Proof of the Existence of God,” in International Symposium on Khojazada, ed. by Yücedoğru et al., 141–60.
T. Yücedoğru, Arap, Acem ve Rum Diyarında Emsalsiz Biri Hocazâde Muslihuddîn Mustafa (Bursa: Bursa Büyükșehir Belediyesi, 2010).
Hajjī Khalīfa, Kashf al-ẓunūn (Istanbul: Wakālat al-maʿārif, 1943), vol. 1, 513. Cf. Ṭāsh Kubrī Zāda, al-Shaqāʾiq al-nuʿmāniyya fī ʿulamāʾ al-dawla al-ʿuthmānīya, ed. by S.M.T. Behbahani (Tehran: Majlis-i shorā-yi islāmi, 2010), 91.
E.K. Ayverdi, Osmanlı Mi‘Mârîsinde: Fâtih Devri 855–886 (1451–1481) (Istanbul: Baha matbaası, 1973), 347; 428; and 537. The Pantokrator became the Zayrak Mosque, named after Mulla Zayrak who was the first to take the position as professor (mudarris) there. The mosque is still intact and the neighborhood around it is still known as Zeyrek. The Pantepopte became the Eski Imaret Mosque, the St. Saviour became the Kariye Mosque (presently a museum), and the Christ Acataliptos became the Kalenderhane Mosque.
A.Q. Ahmed, “Post-Classical Philosophical Commentaries/Glosses: Innovation in the Margins,” Oriens 41 (2013): 317–48, esp. 320 and 345.
Ibn Sīnā, “Risāla fī aqsām al-ʿulūm al-ʿaqlīya,” Tisʿ rasāʾil fī al-ḥikma wa-al-ṭabīʿiyāt (Beirut: Dār qābis, 1986), 83–94; cf. G.C. Anawati, “Les Divisions des Sciences Intellectuelles d’ Avicenne,” MIDEO 13 (1977): 323–35.
Ibn Kamāl Pāshā, Tehâfüt hâşiya, 26; MS Yazma Bağışlar 5587, fol. 3a.
A. Nifo, Destructiones destructionum Averroys cum Augustini Niphi de Suessa expositione (Venice: Octavianus Scotus, 1497); cf. E. Mahoney, “Nifo, Agostino (c. 1470–1538),” in Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. by E. Craig (London: Routledge, 1998).
All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 664 | 287 | 148 |
Full Text Views | 207 | 2 | 0 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 95 | 5 | 0 |
Ghazālī’s “The incoherence of the philosophers” spurred a counter-commentary by Ibn Rushd, as is well known. Up to ten texts from Ottoman scholars also purport to be commentaries on the Tahāfut, constituting a commentary tradition that has been neglected by scholars. The first two commentators, Khojazāda (d. 1488) and ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn Ṭūsī (d. 1482), are not line-by-line exegetes of Ghazālī, but rather update the discussions that Ghazālī broached to the level of knowledge available to them. Khojazāda was favored by the Ottomans, but ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn’s content, methodology and argumentation style proves to be just as, if not more, interesting for us.
All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 664 | 287 | 148 |
Full Text Views | 207 | 2 | 0 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 95 | 5 | 0 |