Moosa, A New Source on Ahmad Ibn Al-Tayyib Al-Sarakhsi

7/28/2019 Moosa, A New Source on Ahmad Ibn Al-Tayyib Al-Sarakhsi

1/6

(Reprinted from Journal of th e AmericanOriental Society,Volume 92, Number 1, January-March 1972)

A NEW SOURCE ON AHMAD IBN AL-TAYYIB AL-SARAKHSI:FLORENTINE MS ARABIC 299

MATTI MOOSAG A N N O N COLLEGE, EBIE, P E N N S Y L V A N I A

Th e Bibliotheea Medieeo-Laurenziana M S Arabic 299, entitled Kitab Fihi al-Shudhur al -Dhahabiyya f i Ma&hhab al-Nasraniyya, has long been erroneously attributed to the Syrianlogician Yahya ibn 'Adi. In fact, this anonymous MS is an anthology of essays writtenby several authors in defense of Christian doctrine. A very interesting portion of this M Sis a dialogue between Israel, bishop of Kaskar, and Ahmad ibn al-Tayyib al-Sarakhsi, thepupil of the philosopher al-Kindi. The first part of this dialogue deals briefly with theagnomen Abu by which the Arabs customarily address each other; the second part treatsthe essence of numbers and debates whether this essence is altered by the process of addi-tion; the last part deals with the question of whether there is any separation among thethree persons of the Trinity.

TH E BIBLIOTHECA MEDICEO-LATJKENZIANA containsamong its Oriental manuscripts Arabic MS. 299,entitled Kitab T ? % h i al-Shudhur al-Dhahabiyya /$MadKhab al-Nasraniyya, which we have undertaken toedit and comment upon for the benefit of those con-cerned with Christian apology. The first description ofthis manuscript was provided by Istiphan Awwad al-Sim'ani (Stephen Assemani), a member of the cele-brated Lebanese family, in his Bibliothecae Mediceo-Laurentianae et Palatinae codicum manuscriptorumOrientalium Catalogus (pp. 113-15), Rev. Louis Cheikho(d. 1927) also mentions this manuscript in his mono-graph "Al-Makhtutat al-'Arabiyya li Katabat al-Nasraniyya" (Arabic Manuscripts of Christian Au-thors), in al-Mashriq (1924), pp. 220-21, but errone-ously lists it among the works of the Syrian logicianYahya ibn Adi (d. 974). He cites the manuscript as"The Golden Fragments in the Christian Doctrine:Quotations from the Sayings of Yahya ibn 'Adi at theFlorence Library." Other writers, to be sure, havecopied this mistake and followed Cheikho in attribut-ing the manuscript to Yahya ibn Adi.11The anonymous article "Mashahir al-Suryan: al-Faylasuf Yahya ibn 'Adi al-Mutawaffa Sanat 947,"al-Hikma (1929), No. 4, p. 189, mentions the manuscriptunder discussion. After comparing this article withMurad Pu'ad Chiqql's introduction to Yahya ibn 'Adi,TahdMb al-ATMaq (Jerusalem, 1930), I am convincedthat Chiqql is the author of the article, ChiqqJ's intro-duction, however, lists twenty-four additional works by

Yahya ibn 'Adi which are not cited in the anonymousarticle; especially important to us is his listing of a Z -Shudhur al-Dhahabiyya as item 71 in his introduction.

The first thing to be noticed about this manuscriptis that it is anonymous. The explanation of its anonym-ity is that it is not the work of a single writer, but ananthology of essays of varying lengths written byseveral authors. These diverse essays, however, haveas their common purpose the defense of Christian doc-trine. The compiler's name does not appear on themanuscript, simply because it was not the custom ofancient Oriental learned men to compile and editanthologies, as is the current practice in the Westernworld. However, the title of the manuscript, referringto "golden fragments," indicates that the work is ananthology. Stephen Assemani mentions in his com-mentary (p. 113) that this manuscript has been com-piled by an anonymous person, but goes on to say thatits author is unknown. (Possibly he has confused theterms "compiler" and "author"; perhaps tie has as-sumed that the essays were the work of one man, com-piled later by another.) He further states that the"author" of this manuscript, whom he is unable toidentify, lived possibly after the eleventh century.The MS. contains the following works:(1) Kitab a l - S a f y a ' i f y , by al-Safi Abu al-Fada/il ibnal-Assal (his name does not appear in the text),(113pp.)(2) A tract including the doubt of al-Imam Fakhral-Dln al-Khatib concerning the unity of the divine

and human natures of Jesus, together with al-SafTs answer to it (10 pp.).(3) A tract concerning the state of the soul after it

departs from the body and before the Resurrec-tion, being a summary of a monograph by thenaturalist and sage Abu al-Farajj Hibat AQah Abu19


2/6

20 Journal of the American Oriental Society, 92,1 (1972}al-Mufaddal ibn Abi Ishaq, known as ibn al-'Assal(10 pp.)."{4) A tract concerning the necessity of the incarnationof Jesus Christ, the Son of God, by Yahya ibn'Adi (3 pp.).{5) An anonymous tract describing the Lord Christ asdivine rather than human, although it concedesthe propriety of describing him as both (6 pp.).

(6) An assembly reported of Elias, Metropolitan ofNisibin, attended by Israel al-Kaskari (15 pp.).

(7) Several anonymous tracts, not more than threepages each in length, dealing with various theologi-cal subjects

(8) A tract by Yahya ibn 'Adi on the Lord who wasborn of Mary (7 pp.).

(9) A brief tract f rom the book entitled al-Ahad by'Abbad, containing a discussion of the Lord Jesus(3pp.).A very interesting portion of this manuscript is (6)

the dialogue between Israel, bishop of Kaskar (Kash-kar), and Ahmad ibn al-Tayyib al-Sarakhsi, the pupilof the philosopher al-Kindi, The dialogue is titled AnAssembly Reported of Elias, Metropolitan of Nisibin,Attended by Israel al-Kaskari (Bishop of Kaskar).2Israel, we know, was the bishop of a now extinct townlocated in present-day Iraq on the Tigris River. Butthe undiseerning reader may easily be misled into be-lieving that Iliyya (Elias), the Metropolitan of Nisibin,is the same Iliyya known as Bar Shinaya (Ibn al-Sani), who lived in the eleventh century. Indeed,Stephen Assemani himself mistakenly believed thathis Iliyya was Bar Shinaya, mentioned in Kitab al-Majdal as the author of Daf al-Hamm (The DrivingAway of Worry).3 What is still more puzzling is ho-assertion that the manuscript here under review eon-tains most of the seven assemblies of Iliyya, Metrispolitan of Nisibin,4 for it is clear that the MS includesonly one such assembly. Moreover, the manuscriptrefers to Iliyya as the metroplitan of al-Maghrib (thepart of the Syrian world west of the Euphrates), add-ing that before becoming a monk he was called 'AH ibnt3"bayd ibn Dawud, and that he was a contemporary

both of the eminent Muslim philosopher Abu YusufYa'qub ibn Ishaq al-Kindi (d. ca. 873) and of hispupil al-Sarakhsi.5

The assembly of this metropolitan apparently hasbeen recorded f rom the testimony of an authority whowas present at the proceedings. According to this au-thority, while Iliyya was visiting al-Kindi, someonecame with the news that Israel, the bishop of Kaskar,had arrived in Baghdad. Al-Kindi sent his pupil, al-Sarakhsi, to debate with the bishop in the presence ofmany people o f different religious convictions (theirdebate is the substance of the account of the assembly,a translation of whichwill appear later in this article).The author of Kitab al-Majdal calls Israel, who wasbishop of Kaskar from 860 until his death in 872, anintelligent and saintly man, skilled in logic, who wasthought worthy to be a patriarch. Indeed, his nomina-tion for that office caused an argument which led tohis death; for one Sunday, while Israel was officiatingat the altar, a man pushed his way through the con-gregation and attacked him, grasping his vitals andtwisting them vigorously, sothat he fainted. Forty daysafterwards, Bishop Israel died and was buried in theMonastery of St. Phethion.6 All of this information isreiterated by Stephen Assemani in his commentary onFlorentine MS. Arabic 299. Thus it seems incrediblethat Assemani should regard Iliyya, Metropolitan ofNisibin, and a contemporary of this bishop, as identicalwith Iliyya Bar Shinaya, whodied in the middle of theeleventh century.

It is my belief that the dialogue between BishopIsrael and Ahmad ibn al-Tayyib al-Sarakhsi has notbeen previously published. The distinguished professorFranz Rosenthal, who has written extensively on al-Sarakhsi's life and works, has made no mention of it.7

2 FlorenceMS. Arabic 299, pp. 149-56.3 'Amr ibn Matta,Akhbar Fatarikat Kursl al-Mashriq:min Kitab al-Majdal, ed . Henricus Gismondi (Rome,1896), p. 99.4 Stephen Evodius Assemani, Bibliothecae Mediceo-Laurentianae et Palatinae codicum manuscriptorumOrientalium Catalogiis, p. 115.

5 Florence MS. Arabic 299, pp. 149-50. See also thiswriter's article "Al-Kindi's Role in the TransmissionofGreek Knowledge to the Arabs," Journal of the PakistanHistorical Society, XV (1967), 1, and Mar Ignatius Ya'-qub III, "al-Kindi wa al-Suryaniyya," The PatriarchalMagazine (1963), No. 6, pp. 255-67.

6 'Amr ibn Matta, pp. 73-74.7 See his book. Ahmad B.At-Tayyib As-Sarakhsl (NewHaven, 1943), and the following articles o f which he hasgenerously sent me copies: "From Arabic Books andManuscripts IV: New Fragments o f As-Sarakhsi,"JAOS, LXXI (1951), 135-42; "From Arabic Books andManuscripts VI: Istanbul Materials f rom al-Kind! andAs-Sarakhsi," JAOS, LXXVI (1956), 27-32; and "FromArabic Books and Manuscripts VIII: As-Sarakhsi onLove," JAOS, LXXXI (1961), 222-24.


3/6

Florentine MS Arabic 299 21So that the reader may comprehend its philosophicalcontent and its uniqueness for himself, I have appendeda complete translation of it to this article. But beforediscussing the dialogue, let us speak briefly about al-Sarakhsi.The date of al-Sarakhsi's birth is uncertain, but ithas been conjectured that he was born between 833and 837 at Sarakhs, in Khurasan in present Iran. Hisfull name, according to al-Mas'udi, is Ahmad ibn al-Tayyib ibn Marwan; according to Yaqut, he was alsoknown as ibn al-Fara'iql. His agnomen is Abu al-'Abbas, but he was sometimes called Abu al-Faraj;Professor Rosenthal believes (though this is most un-likely) that the two agnomens indicate that he musthave had two sons, al-'Abbas and al-Faraj.8

Al-Sarakhsi was quite possibly the best of al-Kindi'spupils, and his excellent knowledge and eminence as aman of letters won him an appointment as tutor to the'Abbasid Caliph al-Mu'tadid when the latter was stilla prince. He accompanied al-Mu'tadid in his waragainst Khumarawayh ibn Ahmad ibn Tulun, theruler of Egypt, and participated in the battle of al-Tawahin (The Mills) in 884. When al-Mu'tadid be-came Caliph in 892, he entrusted his former tutor withdifferent governmental positions. Later, however, al-Sarakhsl fell into disfavor and was humiliated by theCaliph, who, fo r reasons which have been the causeofdisagreement among Muslim historians, threw himinto prison, where he spent the last three years of hislife.9

The dialogue between al-Sarakhsi and Bishop Israelconsists of three parts. The first of these deals brieflywith the agnomen (kunya) Abu by which the Arabscustomarily address each other instead of using thepersonal name, such as Abu Yusuf, Abu Ya'qub, etc.The second part treats the essence of numbers anddebates whether the addition of one number to anotheralters its essence; e.g., if one is added to one, wouldthe result be two, and would the entity and essenceofthe number one be changed by the addition of anothernumber to it? To prove his argument, the bishop ap-parently resorts toAristotle's view that a number has adistinct entity, and that even when another number isadded to it, its essence is unchanged. When al-Sarakhsiasks the bishop whether, if we add one to eight, theresult will be nine, the bishop answers that the numberdoes not become nine, for the simple reason that eachnumber has its separate entity and qualities, which

Cf. Rosenthal's book on al-Sarakhsi, pp. 16-17.Ibid,, p. 25.

are not altered by the process of addition. Most prob-ably al-Sarakhsi asks this question in order to refutethe dogmaof the Trinity, by proving that the additionof the three persons of the Trinity represents purepolytheism, which is contrary to the Muslims' funda-mental belief in monotheism, Al-Sarakhsi apparentlyintends, by asking this question, to prepare his op-ponent for the final question, namely, whether there isany separation among the three persons of the Trinity,Further, he asks, if there is such separation, is it essen-tial or accidental? What al-Sarakhsi intends, ofcourse,is that the addition of the second person (Jesus) andthe third person (the Holy Spirit) to the first (God theFather) would assign partners to God, who, accordingto Islam, is alone and has no partner. To be sure, theMuslims have held this mistaken notion about theTrinity from Muhammad's time to the present, er-roneously believing that the persons of the Trinity arethree separate individuals, worshipped as three sepa-rate Gods. The bishop says that the separation of thepersons of the Trinity isneither essential nor accidental,but an imaginary separation occurring between theincorporeal and corporeal elements, between the thingsdescribed and their attributes, and between the particu-lars and the qualities which indicate the reality oftheir causal determinants. In other words, althoughthe persons of the Trinity are independent in theirqualities and attributes, yet they are one in essence.What is particularly noteworthy about this assemblyis the great interest it reveals among many people inBaghdad, whether they were Jews, Muslims, or Chris-tians, in questions pertaining to religious dogmas; suchquestions and debates were evidently encouraged bythe 'Abbasid Caliph al-Ma'mun, at least at the startof his reign. What evokes our admiration is the quietand scholarly atmosphere which dominated the as-sembly and above all the complete tolerance andfreedom of speech with which the debaters exchangedtheir views. There is no indication that they becameangered or condemned one another. The audience,meanwhile, was listening with great attention andconsideration, even showing concern over the outcomeof the debate. Since the subject of the debate was religi-ous, the audience must have thought that its outcomedetermined the truthfulness or falsehood of that aspectof religious doctrine with which the participants weredealing. The dialogue presented in the following pagesis, as we have indicated above, consistent with thegeneral nature of Florentine MS. Arabic 299, whichcontains treatises written in defense ofvarious pointsofChristian dogma.


4/6

22 Journal of the American Oriental Society, 92.1[TRANSLATION]

An Assembly Reported of Ellas, Metropolitan ofNisibin, Attended by Israel al-Kaskari

[Bishop of Kaskar].A certain authority has told us about Iliyya [Elias],

Metropolitan of al-Maghrib, who was called 'All ibn'Ubayd ibn Dawud before he became a monk, thatwhile he was with Ya'qub ibn Ishaq al-Kindi, some-one came to inform him of the arrival of Israel, Bishopof Kaskar, in the city of Dar al-Salam [Baghdad]. He[al-Kindl] said, "I have been informed that this bishophas speculative knowledge of religion and has all thesciences at his disposal. I believe, however, that thematter may be different from what it is reported to be,for his reputation may exceed what he would showif he should be examined [orally]."10 [Elias] said tohim, "Upon my life, with some reports it is perhapsas you say. However, conversation is more decisive,and talking with this bishop will give you more infor-mation than second-hand reports and will surpass allthat you have heard about him." Al-Kindi said, "Whatis to be expected of him who maintains that three areone and one is three, and that God has become in-carnate and that a man has become God? Would heexceed your learned men [in what they have main-tained]?" [Elias] said to him, "Although those areeminent in their learning, yet this bishop has soundnessof doctrine and authentic evidence, more than I cantell you in detail." Al-Kindi turned to Ahmad ibn al-Tayyib al-Sarakhsi, who was foremost of all his disci-ples, and said to him, "0, Abu al-'Abbas, hasten tothis man [and stay] until you have come to know hisviews and the extent of his [knowledge]."

[[Elias] said, "I left and went to see the bishop toinform him about what had happened. I found himstaying at the monastery of Mar Phathion.11 I greeted

10 This statement comes from al-Kindi, who had beeninformed of Israel's knowledge in religion and specula-tive theology."TheMonastery ofMar (Saint) Phathion (Phethion)was built in the fifth century to memorialize the Persiannobleman Phethion, a native of Blashbar who embracedChristianity and was martyred in A.D. 446.The Monas-tery was built about a mile from Baghdad, near thevillage of Sunaya, which, soon after the building ofBaghdad in the seventh century, became part of thesection of the city referred to as "al-Mahalla al-'Atiqa"(The Old Quarter). Cf. Yaqut, Mu'jam al-Buldan, III,19.

him and explained to him some of what had beensaid. I found him sitting with metropolitans and bish-ops at his left hand, and in his presence were otherpeople who had come to greet him. Not long afterwards,Ahmad ibn al-Tayyib arrived with a group of polemi-cists and speculative thinkers, among them Jews,Muslims, and Mu'tazilites. They offered their greet-ings. Ahmad sat facing the bishop, and the peopletook their seats and turned their eyes toward him. He[the bishop] was good-looking and dignified, great instature, with a consummate mind and a quiet, serenedisposition, a venerable and august person, handsomeand sonorous-voiced. We knew that this was the bishop.

"When the assembly was filled, Ahmad said, 'Abuwhom?may God strengthen you.' The bishop turnedto his disciple and said, 'What is he inquiring about?'(It is said that he had probably seen and dictated toIbrahim [the disciple] in the assemblies, and thathe had a fair knowledge of logic and polemics.) 'I donot know the man.12 Therefore, I will address the an-swer to you in Syriac, so that you may interpret it tohim in Arabic.' The bishop then said to the disciple inSyriae, 'Explain to him that this term [Abu] is dividedinto four parts, ah1 of which are invalid, according tophilosophical speculation.' The disciple translated thisfor him. Ahmad, surprised at what he had heard, said,'And what are these invalid parts?' He [the bishop]said, 'One of them is that this [term] is peculiar to theArabs, and that speculation in our assembly is general,and the law of philosophical speculation does no t makeit necessary that particular knowledge should predomi-nate over general knowledge. Second, it is a rank as-sumed by the Arabs, but I am a Syrian, and it wouldbe shameful for me to assume what is not mine. Third,I find that many people have claimed the fatherhoodofthose who were not their sons and abandoned thatwhich was their ow n [i.e., the fatherhood of their ow nsons]. Fourth, it is evident that groups of people haverelinquished the nisba of fatherhood by not havingsons. Therefore, as the causal determinants ( m a " a n % )of the divisions [of the term 'Abu' into four parts] are

12 This part of the MS . is confused, and several wordsappear to be missing. Evidently Bishop Israel, knowingno Arabic, brought with him an interpreter namedIbrahim, himself fairly well versed in logic and highlyskilled in intellectual debate. Perhaps, again, Ibrahimwas a Christian living in Baghdad who had met theBishop's pupil, who had served as his interpreter atsimilar assemblies in Baghdad. At any rate, BishopIsrael relied on an interpreter in his debate with al-Sarakhsi, and this interpreter was a learned man.


5/6

Florentine MS Arabic 899 23rendered invalid by the whole of this argument, it alsoinvalidates the relationship of what has been shown tobe invalid and imperfect.'

"Upon hearinghis eloquence,the people turned theireyes to the bishop, because he had stated what no oneelse before him could have said so naturally and with-out constraint. His excellence became manifest tothem, and they and Ahmad knew that he was skillfulin philosophical reasoning and capable in argument.Ahmad said, 'How shall I call you, then?' And he said,*By my office, Bishop, since it has been my name.'Ahmad said, 'It is not permitted for me to comparemyself with a dignitary ofyour denomination, such asyourself.' The argument continued, until at last anagreement was reached, that Ahmad should addresshim as 'Bishop'."Ahmad said, '0 Bishop, may God make youhappy, if we add one to eight, it becomes nine.' Thebishop said to him, 'No.' Ahmad turned to those inthe assembly and said, 'Are you not surprised at thisobjectionable [answer]? Is it not true that if we add oneto eight, it becomes nine?' All of them said, Tes,'Andthey did not doubt that the bishop had forsaken thetruth by failing [to provide an answer], and that hehad refused to answer because he was incapable ofdoing so. Gloom hung over the Christians, for fearthat the bishop might be unable to answer a point atthe beginning of the first encounter, while Ahmad'svoice, as well as the voices of al-Kindl's disciples, theMu'tazilites and the Jews, were raised in commotionand ridicule, testifying to Ahmad's victory and thebishop's defeat. The bishop, however, maintained hiscalm and serious attitude, paying no attention to theirfoolish talk, and not abandoning his viewpoint becauseof their commotion.This made him even more insistenton his position and more adamant about what he hadsaid. After a while the bishop turned to his discipleand said, 'Tell Ahmad, "If you have sought me forinquiry, then turn to me and hear my reply, and letyour purpose not be to debate without proof and tocontradict me without explanation."' Ahmad, elatedby victory and arrogant in his triumph, began to agi-tate, as did the others who were present. When theycalmed down, toward noontime or so, the bishop saidwith a sharp tongue, 'You say that when we add one toeight, the number becomes nine. But the condition ofeight does not cease to be what it is, and it is notaltered from its essence [literally, 'thatness'] by takingthe number and altering it. Do you not see that if weshould count a number of things to a certain termand then add the same amount or less, the charac-

teristic essence of the first number would not change tosomething else, though the number had been taken[and altered]? The number merges as a whole in aparticular term, but nothing which exists in its essencepasses from its nature when the number is taken [andadded] to the [other] term.'

"Ahmad and those in the assembly became aston-ished after they had been elated by their victory and,after having had no doubt of their triumph, all ofthem said, *By God, well done, the bishop has hit thepoint.' Ahmad stood stammering with shame andmade no attempt to answer. When the assembly calmeddown, Ahmad said, 'I do not know which makes mewonder more, your little regard for all of us whileeveryone testified to your defeat and the fact that younever yielded or cared for anyone, or your encounteringme, despite the fact of your being a non-Arab, withthis eloquent speech and effective tongue.' Thus be-came evident to Ahmad and those whowere with him,and to all whowere present, the capability of the bishopin speculative reasoning, his perfection in formingreplies; his sound presentation of evidence,his masteryof polemics, and his ability in logic.

"When the discussion in which the assembly wasengaged calmed down, Ahmad said, Tour return inyour "Gospel"13 to the predicate must be either withor without assent ( tawatu3 '),' The bishop said, Tes.'Ahmad said [to the others] as if he were astonished,'Don't you realize what he has said?' The bishop saidto him, 'Be calm, and do not hasten to make a judg-ment without proof, for soon I will explain to you thepoint of view and the reality of the truth, and I willconsult with the people [in the assembly] on thesematters.' Ahmad had no rebuttal to refute thisanswer.And when the affair had taken some time, the bishopsaid, 'One positive has only one negative, and theaddition of assent or non-assent does not necessitatethe existence of many negatives for one positive, be-cause it is otherness [ghayr iyya] which necessitatesmany contraries for one positive. What you ought tosay is, "Can the predicate be with or without assent,if the negative is to be contrary to the positive andthe contradictory, etc. with respect to assent contraryto its affirmative?" Otherness does not necessitate [eon-tradietoriness], for if you should say, "Can there beGod and no God in the heavens?" the answer is, "No."But if you say, "[Can there be something] other than

13 This term, is quite obscure and difficult to compre-hend. The only understanding I have of it is that al-Sarakhsi is referring to Inj^Ekum ("your Gospel").


6/6

24 Journal of the American Oriental Society, 92,1 (1972}God?" then there are angels, birds, etc,' Ahmad wassilenced, and the people approved the words of thebishop and his excellence in presenting [conclusive]proof, just as they had done at the beginning, when thefirst question was discussed. The bishop went on ex-plaining his statement and confirming the evidence withconclusive eloquenceand inimitable proof, while every-one was astonished at his presentation of logical indi-cations and rational testimonies."The people kept silent for a while; then Ahmadsaid, *Is there a separation between the three persons[of the Trinity] or not?' The bishop said, Tes.' Ahmadsaid, 'Is it substantial or accidental?' The bishop said,'Neither substantial nor accidental.' Ahmad said tohim, 'What is it?' The bishop said to him, 'An imagi-nary separation that occurs between the incorporealand corporeal elements, between the [thing] describedand its attributes, between the particular [thing] andthe qualities which indicate the reality of its causaldeterminants and distinguish each one with respect tothe causal determinant which it contains, designate it,and ascribe to it what belongs to it. As for the sub-stantials and accidentals, they are lifted from the FirstEssence, which is unparalleled, and they are necessaryfor the corporeal [elements], not the ineorporeals; forthe compound,not the simple; nay, as some of them aresubstantial that distinguish between the essences,kinds, and corporeal [elements], and as these threepersons [of the Trinity] are not different corporeal[elements], therefore, they become subject to suchseparation and accident. Nor is [the difference] betweenthe three persons of the Trinity the same as the differ-ence between the reflections of corporeal [elements]which are similar in kind and dissimilar in qualities,and since these three persons are not corporeal, suchimaginary separation between them becomes neces-sary. However, I am distinguishing between them onlyby using imaginary separation, like that which existsbetween the [thing] described and its attributes, be-tween the particular [thing] and its qualities. The prooffor this is that we find that the living rational being is

not his life and reason. Therefore, what affects thespeech of the [thing] described and the attributesuchas the causal determinant which is peculiar to itdoesnot affect anything else. Also, with each one of them isassociated a knowledge which differentiates it from itscounterpart, and each one of them requires an evidencenot required by its counterpart. And there are no sub-stantial and accidental separations. Here you are, aliving and rational being, and each oneyour person,your life, and your reasonis not the other, and be-tween them there is no substantial and accidentalseparation. Consider the fire, which has heat, light,and dryness, and each onethe essence of fire andits qualitiesis not the other; each one of them sub-sists in the causal determinant which differentiates itfrom the others, without the existence of substantialand accidental separations. Also, [consider] the waterin its coldness and dampness, and the air in its heatand dampness, and the earth in its coldness and dryness,and the sun in its light and raysthese elements, de-spite the fact that they are composites and are subjectto quantities and qualities, [are such that there] may befound among their qualities and attributes that whichdifferentiates them from the others and which makesthem independent. And what makes the causal de-terminants of the division necessary is that one of these[elements] cannot stand alone unless the substantialseparations are associated with it, and unless the acci-dental separations have some connection with it. [Thus]these separations should more appropriately and cor-rectly be set apart from their Creator.'"Ahmad and those with him took the necessity ofthe noon prayer as an excuse to leave the place; I left,and they left too. Then the whole affair was related toal-Eindi, who began to paw the ground in astonish-ment in my presence, and nodded, looking downward,with great perplexity. And he forbade Ahmad to de-bate further with the bishop, and the speculativethinkers and polemicists heard of what had happenedto Ahmad, despite his eminence and proficiency. Thisis what came of the questions and answers."

Moosa, A New Source on Ahmad Ibn Al-Tayyib Al-Sarakhsi

Documents

Transcript of Moosa, A New Source on Ahmad Ibn Al-Tayyib Al-Sarakhsi