A History of Islamic Philosophy by Majid Fakhry

Review by: Lenn Evan Goodman

Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 15, No. 1 (Jan., 1979), pp. 120-123
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4282736 .
Accessed: 21/06/2014 03:19

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Middle Eastern
Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.21 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 03:19:32 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
120 MIDDLE EASTERN STUDIES

for the disturbanceswhich were to be known as the 'General Strike' or the 'Arab
Rebellion'. Accordingly,the second part of the book deals with the six months that
elapsed until the strikewas temporarilycalled off and a Royal Commission- the Peel
Commission - arrived in Palestine. During these months the leadersof the 'Yishuv'
were engaged in a debateover Jewish reactionsto the situationthat had been createdin
Palestine.They could eitheradopta policy of reprisalsand agressionagainstthe Arabs
and the British,or a policy of 'Havlagha'.'Havlagha',which in fact was adopted,was
the policy of restraintof the 'Haganah',the Jewish militaryorganisation.Sharettopted
for this line. That did not mean that he advised his colleagues to adhereto a passive
policy. His was a more complicatedway, aimed not a short term, but ratherat a lasting
solution, for the Palestine problem. He argued that the 'Yishuv' should adopt
'Havlagha'and co-operatewith the BritishGovernmenton a politicallevel and with
Britishsecurity forces to suppressthe disturbances.In the meantime, he argued,they
should accumulate force until theirs matchedthat of the Arabs and the British.Only
then, he said, the Jews would be ready either for a showdown or for a peaceful
settlementwith the Arabs(p. 127).Ratherthan a moderateand a dedicatedAnglophile,
Sharettappearsto have been a realistwho wanted to build graduallyboth the political
and the military forces of the 'Yishuv', until they could face on equal terms the two
other interestedparties.
His realism is also revealed in this attitudetowards the PalestinianArabs, whose
language he spoke and whom he respected. On tactical grounds he argued that the
Arabs benefited from the settlementof the Jews in Palestine, hence there were no
grounds for stopping Jewish immigration,and the Governmentshould break up the
strikeby force. But in camera he always stressedthat solid guaranteesmust be given to
the Arabs that the Jews had no intention of displacingthem from their land or of
becoming the only mastersof the country (p. 249).
The third and last part of the book reveals the tensions that existed between the
Jewish Agency in London and its Jerusalembranch on the backgroundof the Peel
Commission enquiries in Palestine. The tensions were aroused by a debate on the
tacticsthe Jews would applyin giving evidencebefore the Commission,and especially
on the desirabilityof raisingthe demand for political 'Parity'in the administrationof
Palestine.
Although the main featuresof the story of that year are known, the Diaries shed
additionallight on the qualityof the relationsbetween Jews and local administration,
which were, at least with the High Commissioner,friendlyand frank.The Diariesalso
shed light on the position of Dr. Weizmann within the Zionist leadership.Although
Sharett'sviews variedfrom those of Weizmann,he respectedthe 'chief', as he referred
to him, and was not willing to let Weizmanndown, even when it seemed to him that
Weizmannhad made grave mistakes,as was the case when rumourswere spreadearly
in July that Weizmann had reached an agreement in London with Nuri Pasha that
entailed the total cessation of Jewish immigrationinto Palestine.(p. 195).
It is now clear that Sharett's judgment was unrealistic with regard to the
effectivenessof Zionistpressuresexertedby their friendsin Parliament,publicopinion
in Englandand AmericanJewry, on the BritishHome Government.The Colonial and
Foreign Office archives show clearly that to a very great extent the British were
immune to all these pressuresand that they formed their policies strictlyaccordingto
what they regardedas BritishImperialself-interests.
G. SHEFFER

A History of Islamic Philosophy by Majid Fakhry ColumbiaUniversityPress, 1970.

Pp. 427.

In his spiritualautobiography,al-Munqidhmin ad-Dalil, AbuiHamidal-Ghazalitells

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.21 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 03:19:32 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
BOOK REVIEWS 121

us that he mastered the principal fields and schools of Philosophy in less than two
years during the leisure hours he was able to steal from his heavy scheduleof lectures
to some three hundredstudentson Islamic law and jurisprudence.In something less
than a third year Ghazali was able to digest philosophy as it stood in his time and to
discern in detail where its validity lay and where it was misleading.
We know from the works which are the productsof this periodthat this was no idle
boast. The Maqdsid al-Falasifa, Ghazali's analytical summary of the Philosophers'
perspectives,is unsurpassedas a model of dispassionatephilosophicalexposition. The
Tahdfut al-Faldsifa penetrates to the very core of the thought of the Islamic
philosophical tradition to expose the deep roots of internal incoherence within the
philosophy of Aristotlewhich rendercrucial elements of that traditionindigestibleto
GhazalianIslam. And, most importantlyof all, Ghazali'slater works are capable of
incorporatingall but the carefullyexcised indigestiblepoints into the unique alloy that
is Islamicthought. Thus, paradigmatically,Ghazali'sdoctrineof creationas emanation
which allows Islam (and particularlythe theory of Suifimysticism)to profit from the
achievement of the neo-Platonistswithout being overwhelmed by it, which allows
creation (and the cognate act of inspiration)to be understoodin terms of emanation
without its being subsumedunder the classic model of emanation.
What made possible such by no means unique feats of learning, analysis,
interpretation,and synthesisas Ghazali'swas the fact that philosophyas it came to the
medieval Muslim was by no means virgin land. Nor was it the welter of conflicting
views that modern philosophy sometimes seems to presentto the novice. Rather,the
disparate views of the Greek philosophers had been forged by their Greek and
Christian,Jewish, and Islamicfollowers and expositorsnot into a 'unifiedworld view'
but into what is philosophicallyfar more useful: an exhaustive and detailedmapping
of the philosophic options open to the speculativelyinclined mind. It is not the case
that all medieval Muslims believed the world to be created. What is the case is that
every thoughtfulMuslim knew that eitherthe world had come to be or it had not, and
every bookish Muslim was capableof learningthe full cost in implicationsof both of
these two views and could figure in his mind with some precision the varieties of
interpretations,with their various ramificationswhich could be put upon either.
If Westernphilosophy is, as Whiteheadclaimed,a set of footnotesto Plato,then the
Islamicinterlude(integratedas it properlyshould be with the Christianand the Jewish
phases) is the fullest and most self-aware edition. The issues which were given their
most poetic expressionby Plato and their most explicit discussionby Aristotlebecame
in the Islamic context fully articulatedas a set of options. All that will become the
epistemologyof Kantor of Descartes,the metaphysicsof Spinozaor of Hume, the logic
of Leibnizor of Russellis alreadyhere in embryo- in context, as yet unextricatedfrom
the smotheringcompletenessof medievalencyclopaedaicscholarship,as yet unbornto
the naked isolation of the Rennaissance,the illusion of individuality,singularity.
What makes these medievals medieval is certainly no crabbednessof mind, no
slavish imitation of the ancients. It is the fact that all around one the options are
known, the path untakenis as well definedas that well trodden- The new world is not
yet a dream.
If there is truth,then, in the notion that we must explorethe innerspaces somewhat
before we venture to cast off our moorings to explore deep space, then every modern
must explore the world as it was before the shatteringof the crystallinespheres of
antiquity made man a wanderer in unchartedinfinity. Paradoxically,the ground of
that old world will not be unfamiliar:Even when we float in apparentlyunbounded
space, we float among the fragments of those shattered worlds. And whether our
objectivebe to piece them back together(which, as Ghazaliwarns us, is impossible)or
simply to get our bearings,we shall not comprehendthese fragmentsuntil we picture
somehow the structureof which they once were parts.
Fakhry's book is a respectablebeginning. In English, up to now, the student of

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.21 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 03:19:32 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
122 MIDDLE EASTERN STUDIES

Islam or of philosophy who requireda one volume general treatmentof the Muslim
philosophical tradition was forced to rely, most probably, on De Boer, a much
reprintedbook which first appearedin 1903, before the rediscoveryof the principal
philosophicaltexts of Kindiand of Razi,beforethe editingof numeroustexts of Farabi,
Ibn Sina, and Ibn Rushd,at a time when Kalnmstudieswere in theirinfancy, with the
rediscoveryof such texts as Abd al-Jabbar'sMughnisome 50 years in the future, and
Sulfistudies even less developed.Thus time alone gives Fakhrya great advantage.It is
difficultindeed to imagine how a serious study of Islamic philosophywas possible at
all without the contributionsof Paul Kraus, A. R. Badawi, Maurice Bouyges, Franz
Rosenthal, Harry Wolfson, Shlomo Pines, Simon Van Den Bergh, RichardWalzer,
IbrahimMadkour,Henri Corbin, R. J. McCarthy,Henri Laoust, A. J. Wensinck, M.
Asin Palacios, Louis Massignon, A. M. Goichon, L. Gardet,G. C. Anawati, M. Cruz
Hernandez,Muhsin Mahdi, Fakhryhimself, and many others, all of whom wrote of
much that De Boer could not have known. Which is not to say that Fakhry'sbook is
'definitive.'A new generationof scholars have alreadybegun work in this field, who
will in time put Fakhry'sbook in the positionof De Boer's.The rateof work in Islamic
philosophy, while not yet torrential,is accelerating:much more remains unknown
than is yet known. And this is not solely a matter of texts unedited. Vast materials
remain to be uncovered,edited, translated,commented, and in the process, gradually
understood.We are not as 'fortunate'as Ghaz&li:For us it is not possibleto digesteven
a small corner of philosophy to our complete satisfaction(or'dissatisfaction)in just a
few years' time.
TakingFakhry'sbook not as a definitivecompendium(for this it does not pretendto
be) but as a kind of cumulative progress reportsumming up the present state of our
graspof the careerof philosophyin Islam,it is worth notingthat not just the volume of
our knowledge has grown. As will be obvious from the list of those on whom Fakhry
relies, there has been a growth of scope as well. (The spirit of Gilson has not been
without its influence.)Kalamand Sufi studieshave takentheir rightfulplacesalongside
falsafa as serious and intellectually rewarding. It is no longer possible to dismiss
Sufism in two pages as more properlybelonging 'to the historyof Religionratherthan
to the history of Philosophy'(De Boer p. 64). Again, there is no confusion in Fakhry's
mind between philosophy and theosophy and certainly no effort to inculcate such
confusion in the minds of his readers,but Fakhryhas the breadthto affordrecognition
to the ontological sophistication of a Suhrawardi and to cite the 'metaphysical
eclecticism'of Mulla Sadraash-Shirazias 'an eloquent disproofof the view expressed
by many historiansof Islamic medieval philosophy that al-Ghazalihad by the end of
the eleventh century dealt philosophy a crippling blow from which it never
recovered.' (Fakhry, p. 346). The point here, well evidenced by the discussion that
precedes the drawing of this conclusion, is not to glorify Shirazibeyond his deserts
(there is no trace of scholarlyjingoism in Fakhry'smethod)but simply to make clear
that radicalchange is not at all the same as death. Nothing as proteanas philosophy
may easily be pronounceddead, as long as human beings wonder and have the power
to think.
No studentof Islamicphilosophycan fail to be painfullyaware of the limitednessof
our present knowledge, the vastness of what remains yet to be known. Yet
acknowledgingthose limitations,the time had surely come for the sort of summing up
that Fakhry provides, and his performanceproves him equal to the task: Fakhry's
presentationis both balancedand informed. Kindinow appearsin his rightfulplace as
inauguratorof the Muslim philosophical tradition. Razi too is treated briefly but
completely,althoughhe still is representedas 'essentiallyPlatonic'and even 'Socratic,'
a judgment which seems to rely too much on the physician'sown outrageoussay-so.
The seminal role of Farabi and the magisterialcentralityof Ibn Sina to the entire
enterpriseof falsafa are given their just due and so too is the creative discontentof
Ghazfli, on whom Fakhryhas done excellent primarywork. Ibn Rushd is given his

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.21 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 03:19:32 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
BOOK REVIEWS 123

rightful treatmentas a philosopher rather than a mere commentatorof Aristotle or

founder of European'Averroism,'and the crucial role of his Aristotlescholarshipin
the formation of the philosophical standpointfrom which Ibn Rushd develops his
critiqueof Farabiand Ibn Sinaand his denunciationof Ghazaliis well drawn. There is
none of the ancient fiction and cant regarding 'Averroes and the Two Truths,' but
rather a clear exposition of the philosophic and Shariaic grounds of Ibn Rushd's
'compartmentalism.'Such pivotal figures as Yahya b. Adi, The Ikhwan as-Safa,
Miskawayh, Ibn Taymiyyah, and others are adequatelytreated; and there is even a
final chapter on 'Modern and ContemporaryTrends,' which puts in historic and
philosophicalperspectivesome often ignored representativesof Islamic thought.
To be sure, there are numerous points on which others may differ with Fakhry's
interpretationsor with his emphasis, but on the whole he has been conservative,as a
book of this sort should be. Fakhry'scombinationof sympathy with distance,sincere
involvement with mature and disciplined scholarly method, the fullness of his
summaries of important works and his generous provision of Greek and other
necessary backgroundmaterialsfor the novice will render his book invaluableto all
who wish to look into philosophy in the Islamic context. This book is certainly the
basic introductionto Muslim philosophy and should be so for some years to come. Its
contentsbelong in the mind of everyone who has a serious interestin philosophyor in
the Middle East.
LENN EVAN GOODMAN

Arabsand Berbers: From Tribe to Nation in North Africa, editedby ErnestGellner&

Charles Micaud, London, Duckworthand Co., 1972. Pp. 448, ?12.50.

This is a well-conceived book, an exemplarycase of group researchre-examiningthe

received wisdom. The several authors were asked to consider the question of the
Berberfactor,of Berberethnicity,in the modern historyand presentsituationof North
Africa. Although they addressedseveral differentcomponentsof the large issue, their
findingsare virtuallyunanimous:The role of Berberismhas been grossly exaggerated.
There is no sense of Berber separatism coalescing the different groups of Berber
speakers to be found in North Africa. In Andre Adam's provocative formulation,
'There may be a Kurdistan,but there is no "Berberistan",whether in Morocco or in
Algeria'.
The authorsarguepersuasivelythatthe studentof North Africawould be advisedto
abandonthe assumptionof linguisticor presumedethnic self-identity(Berbervis-a-vis
Arab) as a major desideratumand look instead elsewhere - to patterns of tribal
organisationshared by Berbersand Arabs, readily demonstrablerivalries of group
economic interests(e.g. Swasa v. Fassis),the dynamics of centre-peripheryrelations,
rural to urban migrationsand other such factors.
The book is large (and the type irritatingly small). A whopping twenty-three
contributions by nineteen authors (two each by Coram, Gellner, Marais and
Waterbury)are grouped by the editors into four sections: Part One, 'The Traditional
Base' (six chapters), Part Two, 'Ethnicity and Nation' (nine chapters), Part III,
'Ethnicityand Social Change'(five chapters),and PartIV, 'The Coup of 10 July 1971'
(three chapters).The lattersection is presented,it would seem, as a special case study
testing the extent of Berbernessas a factor in the abortivecoup against King Hasanof
Morocco. There is also Geilner's stimulatingintroductionand a brief conclusion by
Micaud.
Only four of the chapters have appearedpreviously in scholarly journals, and in
quite disparatesources of that. This is, in short, both an integratedbook and one that
does much more than provide the limited convenience of gatheringtogether material
already availableelsewhere.

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.21 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 03:19:32 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions