The aš‘arite ontology: I primary entities

Arabic Sciences and Philosophy

Volumn 9, Issue 2, 1999, Pages 163-231

  Frank, Richard M ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 61249537994     PISSN: 09574239     EISSN: 14740524     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0957423900001326     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Accordingly, the notions of ontologically distinct “states” (ahwal) as held by al- Baqillani and al-6uwayni will not be treated. Nor will we offer more than a very elementary discussion of the concepts and terminology that have to do with relationships of primary entities, e.g., those that involve matters such as an atom's being black or a cognition's relationship to its object, and the like, for these are topics that embrace a number of complex issues about which there were disagreements on various levels.
2. Al-Baqillani, K. al-Tamhld [hereafter Tarn], ed. R. McCarthy (Beyrouth, 1957), p. 234, 7f. ('description’ is here singular since these terms are taken as synonymous). The reason that some, including al-Baqillani, do not hold these to be the most universal is that ‘known’ and several others may be used of both the existent and the non-existent, while these, according to common AS'arite doctrine, are used only of the actually existent; cf. Abu Bakr ibn Furak, Mugarrad maqalat al-As'ari [hereafter Mug], ed. D. Gimaret (Beyrouth, 1987), pp. 252, 4ff. and 255, 4ff. To predicate ‘say” of a non-existent (i.e., a possible or imagined) being is to use the word in an extended sense (tawassu'; Accordingly, the notions of ontologically distinct “states” (ahwal) as held by al- Baqillani and al-6uwayni will not be treated., p. 253, 12f. and al-Qusayri, Lata'if al-isarat, ed. I. Busyuni, 6 vols. (Cairo, 1968- 1971), 4, p. 200, 13ff. (ad al-Qur'dn, 22.1). Note that, following the usage of the grammarians, ‘ism’ is employed as a term for all nominal forms, including verbal adjectives, both active and passive, which are used as attributives and/or predicates. Our rendering of the word, therefore, varies according to what seems most appropriate in each context. ‘Say” and the other words under discussion here are taken up in a somewhat different perspective in D. Gimaret, Les Noms divins en Islam (Paris, 1988), pp. 133ff.
3. Al-Mubarrad, K. al-Muqtadab, ed. M. A. ‘Udayma, 4 vols. (Cairo, 1964-68), vol. 4, p. 280. [The indefinite noun] “is not particular to one individual of a class apart from all the others, e.g., ‘man’, ‘horse’.” (Mubarrad 4, p. 276); “the most indefinite of nouns is ‘say” for it is non-specific with respect to all things (ankaru al-asmd'i qawlu al-qa'ili say'un li-annahu mubhamun fi al-asya'i kulliha: Accordingly, the notions of ontologically distinct “states” (ahwal) as held by al- Baqillani and al-6uwayni will not be treated. 3, p. 186), Similarly Abu al- Qasim al-Zaggagi says (al-Gumal fi al-nahw, ed. A.T. al-Hamad [Beyrouth, 1984], p. 178) ‘“say” is the most indefinite of indefinites, then ‘gawharun’, then ‘body’, then ‘animal’, then ‘human being’ (insdn), then ‘man’ (ragul);” cp. also Istiqaq asmd Allah, ed. A. H. Mubarak (Cairo, 1974), p. 466, ult. The occurrence of ‘gawhar’ has in this sentence - for us at least - a somewhat peripatetic ring, but that it be meant as an equivalent to Greek ouaio is quite implausible. The word is used in its normal Arabic sense where, for example al-Mubarrad says (3, p. 272) that [the names for] iron and silver and the like, which are material substances (gawahir) cannot be employed as descriptives {la yun'atu bihd). Similarly Ibn Ginni says (al-Hasd'is, ed. M. A. al-Naggar, 3 vols. [Beyrouth, 1983], I, p. 119) that verbs are taken only from events not from substances (innama yastaqqu min al-hadati Id min al-gawhar), i.e., they are derived from verbal nouns, not from nouns that name material substances.
4. Mug, p. 252, lOf. (concerning the meanings of ‘itbdf and the sense of ‘positive’ here, see below). So also ‘mawgud’, is termed a universal and a synonym of ‘say”; cf. also Accordingly, the notions of ontologically distinct “states” (ahwal) as held by al- Baqillani and al-6uwayni will not be treated., p. 255, 6ff.
5. Mug, p. 27, 12ff. {Wagada, yagidu in the sense of to know commonly connotes to know of one's own knowledge and is sometimes so distinguished from ‘alima, ya'lamu and ‘arafa,ya'rifu. It is clear from al-A5'ari's discussion here, however, that this distinction is not in play.) So also in Sirazi {La Profession de foi d'Abu Ishaq al- Shirazi, ed. M. Bernand, Supplement aux Annales islamologiques, no. 11 [Cairo, 1987], p. 67, lOf.) we read, “al-mawgiidu kuwa al-say'u a/-ka ‘in. fa-ma ‘na qaw/ind mawgudun wa-say'un wa-tabitun ma'nan wahid” and in Abu al-Ma'ali alGuwayni, As-Samil ft Usul ad-Din, Some Additional Portions of the Text [hereafter Sam (81)], ed. R. M. Frank (Tehran, 1981), p. 48, 9f, “. anna al-tabita wa-al-say'a wa-almawguda ‘ibardtun ‘an mu'abbarin wahid.” For a different use of the expression ‘almawgudu al-mutlaq’, see Abu al-Qasim al-Ansari, Sarh al-Irsad [hereafter S.Ir], MS Princeton University Library, ELS no. 634, foi. 42r, llff, cited below.
6. Abu al-Qasim al-Ansari, al-Gunya ft usul al-din [hereafter Gn], MS III Ahmet no. 1916, foi. 12r, 14ff. It is thusv that al-Guwayni cites al-Baqillani as denning to be a say’ {al-say'iyya) by existence (Sam (81), p. 56, 20f). On the phrase ‘al-tdbitu al-kd'in’ here see n. 25 below.
7. Abu Sa'id al-Sirafi, Sarh Kitab Sibawayh [hereafter SK], ed. R. ‘Abd al-Tawwab et al, 2 vols. (Cairo, 1986-1990), vol. 1, p. 316, ad Slbawayh, al-Kitdb, 2 vols. (Bulaq, 1316), vol. 1, p. 18, 1-5. In the sequel, where the citation is found, as here, in the margins of the Bulaq edition of the Kitab reference is given simply asadloc.
8. For a list, cf. Gimaret, Noms, pp. 151ff.
9. Lisan al-'arab, s.v. and al-Gawhari, Tag al-luga wa-sihah al-'arabiyya, 6 vols., ed. T. A. ‘Attar (Beyrouth, 1979), s.v., citing Ta'lab. So in the line of Ibn Abi Rabi'a {Diwan, # 204, 5): in kana saqamun fa-kana land I wa-lahd l-saldmu wa-sihhatu lnafsi (If there is illness, let it be ours, while to her, well being and good health. The plural, ‘anfus’ is treated as masculine because it is taken to refer to men: Magdlis Ta'lab, ed. A. M. Hartin (Cairo, 1969), p. 252.
10. Ta'wll al-ayat al-muskila, MS Dar al-Kutub al-Misriyya, Tal'at, mag. no. 490, fol. 133v, 4ff.
11. Note that the ‘-hi’ of datu al-say'i wa-lam takun ‘arifan bihi refers to ‘say” and not to ‘dat’, which is simply an emphatic as in ‘he himself. The phrase means the individual as an individual. (With this contrast its use in the phrase ‘mawgudu alddt’ in the following citation (Mug, p. 218, 16)). It may be worth pointing out that in kalam works ‘dat’ is often treated as a masculine, e.g., Abu al-Ma'ali al-Guwaynl, al- Satnil fi usul al-din [hereafter Sam (69)], ed. A. S. al-Nas§ar (Cairo, 1969), p. 127, 9 and 132, 11, but al-Sirafi in the passage translated above treats it more properly as feminine (. Id datahu allati ‘arafaha at the end of the passage cited). Regarding variant readings, K = the portion of the text edited by H. Klopfer (Cairo, 1963), T = Tehran University Library, MS 350, and E = a paraphrase found in Escorial MS 1610. NaSSar's edition is based on Dar al-Kutub al-Misriyya MS kalam no. 1290, which is in fact a photocopy of MS Kopriilu no. 826 from part of which Klopfer prepared his edition.
12. R. Robert, Baydn muskil al-hadit des ibn Furak: Auswahl nach den Handschriften Leipzig, Leiden, London, und dem Vatikan, Analecta Orientalia 22 (Rome, 1941), p. 19, 13f. [hereafter Baydn (K)].
13. Abu al-Qasim al-Baqillani, al-Insdf fimd yagib i'tiqdduh, ed. M. al-Kawtari, 2nd edn (Cairo, 1963), p. 23, 15. Cp. al-As'ari, Risdla ild ahl al-tagr bi-Bdb al-Abwdb [hereafter Tagr], in Dar al-Funiln: llahiyat Fakultesi Mecmuasi 8 (1928), pp. 80-108, at p. 93, llf. (= p. 65, 8f. in the edition of M. A. al-Gulaynid [Cairo, 1987]), where he says the world has a single creator “ihtara'a a'yanahu. wa-hdlafa bayna agndsihi” using “ayn’ where al-Baqillani employs ‘ddt’. God's creating the classes of contingent beings we shall take up later.
14. In denning “ayn’ al-Gawhari says (s.v.), “wa-'aynu al-say'i nafsuhu, yuqdlu huwa huwa ‘aynan wa-huwa huwa bi-'aynihi.”
15. A. S. Abdel Haleem, “Early theological and juristic terminology: Kitdb al-Hudud fi l-Usul by Ibn Furak,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 54, 1 (1991): 5-41, p. 20, # 13f. [hereafter Hudud].
16. The use of the singular noun here seems a bit curious, since the plural plainly refers to the multiple instances of each of the two classes. I have for this reason emended the datuhuma of the first sentence in accord with the plural that follows and for the sake of the sense have translated the three singulars in the final clause as plurals even though I have let them stand in the transcription. What I have transcribed as lam takun lacks the diacriticals; I have chosen the feminine because of the plural dawatihima that precedes.
17. Sam (69), p. 401f., where with T read al-datayn for al-dat at p. 401, 2.
18. Abu al-Qasim al-Qusayri, al-Tahbirfi al-tadkir, MS Yeni Cami no. 705, fols. 22v- 131v, under the title Sarh asmd’ Allah al-husna. An abridged and mutilated version of the work was published by I. Busyuni (Cairo, 1968) which is here referred to when it contains the integral text of the passage cited.
19. So too, for example, al-Baqillani speaks of a set of names that signify features of things which are “structure and shape, as with ‘horse’ and ‘man’ and ‘human being’ and those analogous nouns that convey the meaning of structure and composition” (al-mufidatu li-al-binyati wa-al-ta'lif: Tarn, p. 235, 9ff.). With this cp. al-Mubarrad 4, p. 276, 3ff.
20. Cf., e.g., Bayan (K), p. 18, Iff., where he contrasts the strict meaning of ‘one’ to its use with reference to things that are in fact composites or conglomerates, e.g., when it is said of a man or a house, where what is referred to is in reality an assemblage of beings (fi al-haqiqati asya'u mugtami'a). Thus ‘Abd al-Qahir al-Bagdadi (Usul al-din [Istanbul, 1928], p. 35, 8f.) speaks of bodies as things that are single units considered as a class (i.e., members of the class named by ‘gism') but not as actually existent beings (mufradun fi al-ginsi duna al-dat). That is, they are members of a particular, well defined class, but in themselves are not unitary beings and so are not primary entities.
21. Commonly ‘huliqa’ and ‘waqa'a\as in Sibawayh 1, p. 21, 13 but the ‘huliqa’ is paraphrased as hadata’ by al-Sirafi, SK 2, p. 354.
22. Abu al-Husayn ibn Faris, Maqayis al-luga, ed. A. M. Harun, 6 vols. (Cairo, 1969- 1972).
23. Al-As'ari, Maqalat al-islamiyyln [hereafter Maq], ed. H. Ritter (Istanbul, 1929- 30), p. 529, 6f. Accordingly ‘baq’ may not be said of a human being (Abu al-Husayn ibn Faris., p. 531, 6f. The same position is asserted in Tarn, p. 263, 8 and Istiqaq, p. 347); and al-Baqillani employs the phrase ‘ka'inun bi-gayri hudut’, Tarn, p. 263, 8.; cp. ‘Abd al-Gabbar al- Hamadani, al-Mugnl fi abwab al-tawhld [hereafter M], 16 vols. (Cairo, 1959-65), 5, p. 237, lOf. Thus the use of ‘ka'in’ seems to have been common, as ‘Abd al-G-abbar says wa-yusafu ta'ala bi-annahu ka'inun wa-yuradu bihi annahu mawgudun li-anna kulla mawgudin yastahiqqu an yusafa bi-dalika (M 5, 232, 10f.). For a discussion of the semantics of ‘mawgud’, ‘ka'in’, and ‘tabit’ as equivalents cf. M 5, p. 202.
24. Sam (69), p. 208, 19f., reading nafsan with T and K against the nafsahd of NaSSar's edition. Note too that the in which is added in line 17 is found neither in T nor K and is not needed.
25. Inna was fa Alldhi ta'dld bi-anna lahu nafsan. ma'nd hddd al-itldqi yargi'u ild annahu mawgudun li-anna data al-say'i huwa nafsuhu wa-wuguduhu: Baydn (H), pp. 181f.
26. Gn, fol. 13r, 9. Thus “the atom's being an atom is, in our view, identical with its being an entity: Sam (69), p. 132, 14, where with T read ‘aynu kawnihi datan for gayru kawnihi datan.
27. Mug, p. 139, ult. The indefinite, ‘qadiman’, is used here because God's eternal attributes are distinguished from His Self.
28. Ta.gr, p. 94, 4ff. (= p. 67, 2ff., deleting the ta’ marbuta erroneously added to almagwud in the Cairo edition). Similarly, distinguishing between what is meant by existence in metaphysics and ‘existence’ as a general expression, al-HarasI says (fol.
29. v, Iff.), “The particular characteristic of a being (hdssiyyatu al-say') is its existence and its existence is its particular characteristic and nothing more; ‘existence’ is simply a loose expression that is common to disparate beings (laqabun ‘amma almuhtalifat) since it is a concept (qadiyya) generally applicable to disparate beings.” If one consider the morphological form of ‘hassiyya’, ‘hdss’ with its suffixed -iyya, it might be more appropriate to render it by ‘being a particular entity’ and in some places this would suit very well, even though ‘specific/particular characteristic’ or the like is generally more convenient in translating. One should, in any case, keep this (in English) ambivalence in mind.
30. ‘Wasf and ‘sifa’ are not everywhere interchangeable, however, since ‘sifa’ lacks the verbal force of ‘wasf and therefore cannot take an accusative object.
31. Al-dawatu la tu'qalu gayra mawsufa (Iht, fol. 227v, 16). The intended sense of ‘mawsufa’ here is clear enough (cp. the use of ‘sifat’ in Kdfiya, p. 4, llf., the translation of which follows immediately here, and see generally below). A being is intelligible only as qualified by its essential attributes (as mawsuf Imuttasifun biha), but since on the other hand knowledge (cognition) is considered as prepositional, a being is known as mawsuf, i.e., as that of which a given description is true. That knowing is prepositional does not entail that it be articulated.
32. Cp. Gn, fol. 61v, cited in n. 44. “Al-ismu ida istuqqa min ma'nan istahala ahduhu min gayrihi fa-al- ‘alimu istuqqa min al- ‘ilmi wa-yastahilu itbatu al-ismi almustaqqi bi-duni itbati al-mustaqqi minhu” (Iht, fol. 71r, 13f.). For the sense of ‘mustahil’ here, cp. the use of ‘muhal’ in Slbawayh 1, p. 8, 13, which is followed in Istiqaq, p. 292, 18f.
33. Tahbir, fol. 72, Iff.; cf. also Luma’ (A), §§ 15ff., Insaf, p. 37, Iff, and Ir, pp. 72ff (where he has then to get rid of taste, smell, etc, as essential attributes, pp. 76f.).