Salafī‐Ashʻarī Polemics of the 3rd & 4th Islamic Centuries

While Sunnism is the largest sect of Islam, Sunnism itself is divided into many strands. The two main strands of Sunnism for the last few centuries are the Atharī (or Salafī) strand, and the Ash?arī strand. This papers seeks to examine the earliest recorded controversies that signal this intra‐Sunnī divide. While each of these two groups has historically attempted to claim true Sunnī ‘orthodoxy’ by denying the legitimacy, and at times even the early existence, of the other, it will be shown that the genesis of this intra‐Sunnī divide dates back to the first century of Sunnism itself, viz., the 3^rd AH/8^th CE centuries, and that there are specific historic incidents that indicate theological tensions within the nascent Sunnī movement that would later be manifested in the two streams of Ash?arism and Salafism. Hence, it can be argued that Sunnism was never truly unified to begin with, and that these incidents demonstrate theological tensions that existed from its very origins.     

Islam without Fuqahāʾ: Ibn al-Muqaffaʿ and His Perso-Islamic Solution to the Caliphate's Crisis of Legitimacy (70–142 AH/690–760 CE)

This paper seeks to advance the existing scholarship on Persian secretary and belles-lettrist, ?Abd Allāh Ibn al-Muqaffa? (d. 139/757) and his Risāla fī ’l-?a?āba (Epistle Concerning the Entourage). It argues that the Risāla, addressed to the second Abbasid caliph al-Man?ūr, set out to tackle the political ills of the caliphate, especially the crisis of political legitimacy. As the first documented articulation of the Islamic polity, the Risāla made a series of recommendations, including a proposal for legal codification that attempted to reinvent the caliphate by reuniting the institution's political and legal authority at the expense of private jurists (fuqahā?). The paper illustrates how Ibn Muqaffa?’s solution relied on a creative integration of Iranian and Islamic ideas of statecraft and legitimate rule. Ironically, this creative integration may have played a part in the Risāla’s failure to garner necessary support to effect change.     

The Influence of Ibn Sīnā on al‐Ghazzālī in Qur'anic Hermeneutics

Al‐Ghazzālī criticized Muslim philosophers in general and Ibn Sīnā in particular in a number of matters notwithstanding, he was deeply influenced by philosophy and Ibn Sīnā's views as to some issues. Of the contexts in which al‐Ghazzālī is under the clear influence of Ibn Sīnā are the interpretations of some Qur'ānīc chapters and verses which are related to the demonstration of the existence of God and the explanation of some divine attributes and names. In many of his works, al‐Ghazzālī reproduces Ibn Sīnā's interpretation of the verses in harmony with the ontological proof. One can observe Ibn Sīnā's influence on al‐Ghazzālī in relation with the hierarchy of beings, too. However, the context in which Ibn Sīnā's influence is most obvious is the interpretation of the 35^th verse of the Sūrah Nūr. Ibn Sīnā's interpretation of the terms occurring in this verse as symbols of the human faculties exercised a profound impact on the thought of al‐Ghazzālī, which manifests itself in his interpretation of the verse in Mishkāt al‐Anwār. Another of such contexts is the topic of human psychology and the interpretations of the verses related wherewith. Immensely influenced by the psychological views of Ibn Sīnā, al‐Ghazzālī adopted Ibn Sīnā's notion of the simultaneous creation of soul and body, interpreting some Qur'ānic verses in harmony with this notion. This article is intended to illustrate that al‐Ghazzālī, who is opposed to the blind imitation of any school of thought, did not make a wholesale denouncement of the views of philosophers; on the contrary, he made an extensive use of Ibn Sīnā's ideas in conformity with his general attitude of benefiting from all schools of thought.     

1. DECENTERING HISTORY: LOCAL STORIES AND CULTURAL CROSSINGS IN A GLOBAL WORLD

This essay was first presented at the 2010 Ludwig Holberg Prize Symposium in Bergen, Norway, where I, as the prize recipient, was asked to describe my work and its import for our period of globalization. The essay first traces the interconnected processes of “decentering” history in Western historiography in the half century after World War II: the move to working people and “subaltern classes”; to women and gender; to communities defined by ethnicity and race; to the study of non‐Western histories and world or global history, in which the European trajectory is only one of several models. Can the historian hold onto the subjects of “decentered” social and cultural history, often local and full of concrete detail, and still address the perspectives of global history? To suggest an answer to this question, I describe my own decentering path from work on sixteenth‐century artisans in the 1950s to recent research on non‐European figures such as the Muslim “Leo Africanus” (Hasan al‐Wazzan). I then offer two examples in which concrete cases can serve a global perspective. One is a comparison of the literary careers of Ibn Khaldun and Christine de Pizan in the scribal cultures on either side of the Mediterranean in the late fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries. The other is the transmission and transformation of practices of divination, healing, and detection from Africa to the slave communities of Suriname in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.     

Essays in political philosophy

The Desert and the City and Rational Enthusiasm are experiments in comparative historiography, based on no more evidence than is necessary in order to carry out the comparison, since to pursue either text into its historical context would be to pursue its intended meaning and no longer to compare it with the other. The essays aim to imagine an eighteenth-century judgement on a fourteenth-century text, intended not to support such a judgement, but to imagine what Gibbon would have said of Ibn Khaldun and to understand each the better by doing so; in particular, to show how the former would have responded to the latter as he has become known to us since the twentieth century.     

伊本·卡尔敦的史学观

结合当代史学发展趋势 ,对阿拉伯史学大师伊本·卡尔敦史学观的现代意义作了诠释是有意义的事。卡尔敦有关“内在史学”和“外在史学”、史学的整体性和多学科研究的讨论 ,确与当代史学有相通之处 ,而且其有关论述对我们当前的史学研究 ,亦不无启发意义。