f. jamil ragep and alī al-qūshjī-freeing astronomy from philosophy an aspect of islamic influence...

7/17/2019 F. Jamil Ragep and Alī al-Qūshjī-Freeing Astronomy from Philosophy An Aspect of Islamic Influence on Science.pdf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/f-jamil-ragep-and-ali-al-qushji-freeing-astronomy-from-philosophy-an-aspect 1/23

Freeing Astronomy from Philosophy: An Aspect of Islamic Influence on ScienceAuthor(s): F. Jamil Ragep and Alī al-Qūshjī

Source: Osiris, 2nd Series, Vol. 16, Science in Theistic Contexts: Cognitive Dimensions (2001),pp. 49-64+66-71Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The History of Science SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/301979 .

Accessed: 30/10/2014 11:18

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 formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The University of Chicago Press and The History of Science Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,

preserve and extend access to Osiris.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 158.251.134.41 on Thu, 30 Oct 2014 11:18:36 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=hss

http://www.jstor.org/stable/301979?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp





http://www.jstor.org/stable/301979?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=hss

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress



Freeing

Astronomy

rom hilosophy

An Aspect f slamic

nfluence

n

Science

By F

JamilRagep*

I.

INTRODUCTION

IF ONE IS

ALLOWED to speak

fprogressn

historical

esearch,nemay

note

with atisfactionhe rowingophisticationithwhichhe elationshipetween

science

ndreligion as

beenexaminedn recent ears.

he "warfare" odel,

he

"separation"

aradigm,

nd the partnership"

deal have

been

subjected

o

critical

scrutiny

nd

the

glaringight

f

historical

vidence. s

John edley

Brookehas

so astutely

oted, Serious cholarship

n the

history

f

science

has

revealed o

extraordinarily

ich ndcomplex

relationshipetween

cience

nd

religion

n the

past

hat eneral

heses

re difficult

o

sustain."1nfortunately,

his

morenuanced

approach

as not

een s evident

n

studies

f

slam

nd cience. hough

here as

been

some erious cholarship

n

the

relation

etween cience

nd

religion

n Is-

lam,2 uchwork asmadebarely dentneitherhe eneralccounts

r

the

eneral

perceptions

fthat

elationship.

hese atterontinueobecharacterizedyreduc-

tionism,

ssentialism,

pologetics,

nd

barely

masked

gendas.3

*

Department

f he

History

fScience,

University

fOklahoma,01

Elm St.,Room

622,

Norman

OK

73019

Earlier

ersions

fthis ssay

were resented

tthe

Symposium

n Science

ndTechnology

n

the

Turkish

nd slamic

World"Istanbul,

une

994)

and t theOctober

994meeting

fthe

History

f

Science

ociety

nNew

Orleans.

My sincere hanks

othosewho

offeredomments

nd

uggestions

on both

ccasions

nd

to twoanonymous

eviewers,

ll

of

whom

helped

n

my

own

"deliverance

from rror."

I

JohnHedleyBrooke, cience nd Religion: ome Historical erspectivesCambridge:

am-

bridge niv. ress, 991),p. 5.

2

Two

works hat

eserve

special

mention

reA.

I. Sabra,

TheAppropriation

nd

Subsequent

Naturalization

f Greek

Science

in Medieval

slam:

A Preliminarytatement,"

ist. Sci.

25

(1987):223-43

reprinted

n

dem,

Optics,

stronomy

ndLogic: Studies

n

Arabic cience

nd

Phi-

losophy

Aldershot,

.K.: Variorum,

994],

no.

1,

and

n

Tradition,

ransmission,

ransformation,

ed.

E

Jamil

agep

and Sally

P.

Ragep

[Leiden:

Brill,

1996],

pp. 3-27);

and

A.

I.

Sabra,

Science

and

Philosophy

n Medieval

slamic

heology,"

eitschriftfiur

eschichte

er

Arabisch-Islamischen

Wissenschaften

(1994):1-42.

DavidKing

ndGeorge

alibahave

lso

made

valuable

ontributions

(in

works ited

atern

thenotes).

I

Three airly

ecent

ooks

llustratehe oint

icely. lthough

hey epresent

astly

ifferent

iew-

points,

ervez

Hoodbhoy

Islam

ndScience

London:

ed, 1991]),

Toby

Huff The

Rise

of

Early

Modern cience

Cambridge:

ambridge

niv.

ress,

993]),

nd

S. H. Nasr Science

nd

Civiliza-

tion n slam, nd d. [Cambridge:slamicTexts ociety,987])blithely ove romenturyocen-

tury

nd

fromegion

o

region,

pplying

heir

wn

particular

ision

o whatever

istorical

vent

r

personage

omes

heir ay.

oodbhoy,

contemporary

hysicist

ho s confronting

eligious

anati-

cism

n Pakistan,

inds eligious

anaticism

o

be thedominant

spect

of science

nd religion

n

Islam.

Huff,

sociologist

ntent

n demonstrating

hat

cience

ould

have risen

nly n the

West,

?

2001

by

The History

f Science

Society.

ll rightseserved.

369-7827/01/1601-0001$2.00

Osiris,

001,

16:00-00

49








50

F. JAMIL

RAGEP

Buteven

cursoryxamination

fsources,

many

fwhich

nfortunately

emain

in

manuscript,

eveals

remarkable

iversity

fopinion

n slamregarding

arious

aspects

f

the

elationshipetween

cience

ndreligion,

hichmakes ttempts

o

generalizen "Islamic" ttitudeowardcience speciallyoolhardy.nd he nflu-

ence

of

he eligion

f slamupon cience,

ndviceversa,

ook

surprising

umber

offorms,

ometimesnexpectedly

progressive"

rom modem

iewpoint.4

WhenHellenistic

stronomy

ound home

n slam n

the ighth

ndninth

entu-

riesA.D., it was

adapted

n numerous

ays

o fitnto his

newdomicile.

here

re

many

easons

or

his

ransformation,ut

here concentrate

n how

slam-under-

stood s

both

octrine

nd

ritual-affected

nd

nfluenced

he ourse

f stronomy.

I firstive n overview

f hesenfluences

nd hen

xamine

specific

ase nwhich

one

can

see

how

religious

iscoursen

the ompatibility

f heAristotelian

atural

world ndGod'somnipotence

ade

tself

eltwithinheoretical

stronomy,

ushing

it nvarious egreesowardndependenceromaturalhilosophyndmetaphysics.

I

suggest

hat

herewas

nosingle Islamic"

iewpoint,ut

rather ivergent

iews

arising

rom

variety

f

historical,

ntellectual,

nd

ndividualactors.

hough

t s

not hefocus

f the ssay,

occasionally

oint

o similaritiesetween

iews f

s-

lamic cholars

nd heir uropean

eers,

imilaritieshat

may

ot

ecompletely

o-

incidental.

II.

OVERVIEW

OF

THE

RELATION

BETWEEN HELLENISTIC

ASTRONOMY

AND ISLAM

Broadly

peaking,

ne

can dentify

wodistinct

ays

nwhich

eligious

nfluence

manifested

tself

n

medieval

slamic

stronomy.

irst,

here as the

ttempt

o

give

religious

alue

o

astronomy,

hat

avid

King

has called

astronomy

nthe

ervice

of slam."Onemight

lso call

this,

o

ppropriate

nother

ontext,

he

handmaiden

rationale.")

he second eneral ay

n which

eligious

nfluence

hows

p

s in

the

attempt

o

make

stronomy

s

metaphysically

eutrals

possible,

n order o

ensure

that

t

did

not

directly

hallenge

slamic

octrine.

s we shall

ee,

some

ook

his

tomean

hat

ellenistic

stronomy

adnot

nly

o

be reconceived

ut lso

stripped

of tsphilosophicalaggage.

Let us begin

by

ooking riefly

t

thefirst

ype

f

nfluence,

astronomy

n

the

service

f slam."

Astronomy

ould

nddid

provide

he aithful

at

east hose

who

were

nterested)

ith

xtensive

ables

nd

techniques

or

eterminingrayer

imes,

attempts

nconvincingly

o

show hat

there

as an absence in

slamic

ivilization]

f

he

ationalist

view

of

man nd

nature"

hatffectively

revented

he

reakthroughs

hat

ccurred

n

early

modem

Europe

p.

88).

Nasr,

whowishes o point

heway

o

a new

"Islamic

cience"

hat

would

void

he

dehumanizing

nddespiritualizing

istakes

f Western

cience,

inds

wherever

e

ooks

n the

past

an

Islamic

cience

hat

was

spiritual

nd

antisecular,

o

much

o that

ven

hough

all that

s

astro-

nomicallyew nCopernicusanbe found ssentiallyn the chool f l-Tus '' slamic stronomers

were

prescient

nough

ot obreak

with he raditional

tolemaic

osmology,

because

hat

would

have

meant

otonly

revolution

n astronomy,

ut

lso

an

upheaval

n the

eligious,

hilosophical

and ocial

domains"

p.

174).Essentialism,

ndemic

n

slamic

tudies

whether

roduced

n

the

ast

or

West,

s

pervasive

hroughout

hese

works.

uff,

or

whom

istorical

ontext

eems

n especially

alien

oncept,

oes

nothesitate

omove

rom yatollah

homeini

o medieval

urists

nd

back

gain

(p.

203),

akin o

using

Jerry

alwell

oanalyze

homas

Aquinas.

4An example

s provided

y

B. F

Musallam

nhis Sex

and

Society

n

slam

Cambridge:

am-

bridge

niv.

ress, 983),

where

e documents

he se

of

ncient

ources

y

numerous

slamic

urists

of

various

tripes

obolster

heir

anction

f

contraception

nd

abortion;

ee

especially

p.

39-59.








FREEING ASTRONOMY FROM PHILOSOPHY

51

for

indinghe acred

irectionfMecca,for alculatinghe

eginningfRamadan

(themonth

f

fasting),nd o

on.SinceMuslim

itual ouldhave urvivederfectly

well

withouthe

stronomersdoes God really emand hat ne

pray o within

minute r ess of arc?), tdoes not ake oogreat leap of maginationo realize

that his

service

o

religion" as

really eligion'service o the

stronomers,oth

Muslim

nd

non-Muslim,5

roviding

n

the ne

hand degree f ocial egitimation

andon the ther setof

nteresting

athematicalroblemso solve.6

One

may lso findnstancesf different

ype

f

service" hat

stronomyould

provide, amely o reveal he

glory

f

God'screation, point

madeby

no

less a

personage han

bn

al-Shatir,

he

fourteenth-centuryimekeeperf the

Umayyad

Mosque

n Damascus.7

his

type

f servicewas

not

new

with

slam,

of

course;

Ptolemy,lato, nd

Aristotle,mong thers,aw astronomys a

way

toward

he

divine

though

n

practice,dmittedly,

his

meant

omething

ifferentor ach

of

them).8ut f were ohazard ere particularIslamic" nfluencenddifference,

would

ay

hat

t s nthe

mphasis

n

"God's reation"atherhan

n

some

latonic,

otherworldlyeality.

slamic

stronomers

ere

hus

ess

disposed

oward

he wo-

tiered

eality

hat ne sees n

Neoplatonists

uch s Proclus

d.

A.D.

485)

or

even

n

Ptolemyimself.9

f

am

right

bout his

ifference,

twould

o

a

longway

oward

explaining

he

urprising

mbiguity

ne

finds

n

Ptolemy

bout

he

reality

f

his

planetary

odels nd themuchmore ealist

pproach

aken

enerally y

slamic

I

An example fa non-Muslim,ndeed agan, stronomerho worked inthe ervice f slam"

is

Thabit bnQurra

d.

A.D.

901),who wrote

t easttwo

reatises

n crescentisibility;

ee

R6gis

Morelon,

hdbitbnQurra: Euvres

'astronomie

Paris:Belles Lettres,

987),

pp.XCIII-XCVI.

6

DavidKinghas

been n

theforefrontf research

ealingwith

oth spects. or social

egitima-

tion, ee

his essay On the

Role of theMuezzin

nd theMuwaqqit

n

Medieval slamic

ociety,"

n

Ragep and Ragep,

Tradition,

ransmission,

ransformation

cit. n. 2), pp.

285-346,

where

King

discusses

hehistory

f timekeeping

ndtherole

of

theMosque timekeepermuwaqqit)

oth

n

Islamic ivilization

nd nthehistory

f astronomy.

or

moredetailed,echnical tudies,

ee

his

Astronomy

n

the ervice

f slam

Aldershot,

.K.: Variorum,

993).

7Ibn

al-Shatir

s

today est remembered

orhis

treatise

n theoretical

stronomy

nwhich

he

presented

stronomical

odels

hat re virtually

dentical

o onesusedbyCopernicus.

he

passage

referred

o,

hough,ccurs

n

the

ntroductiono hisal-Zfj

l-jadid,

book

on practicalstronomy;

see

Sabra, Science

nd Philosophy"

cit.

n. 2), pp. 39-40.

In

additiono the

scientificontexts

where uchpraise or stronomyccurs,heres a religiousosmologicaliteratureedicatedo the

glorification

f God'screation;

ee AntonM.

Heinen,slamicCosmology: Study fAs-Suyu-itf's

l-

Hay'a

as-saniyafi-l-hay'a

s-sunnrya

Beirut:

teiner,

982), specially p.

37-52.

8

Plato discusses

he mportance

f astronomy

or indingrue

Reality

n

Republic

28E-530C,

especially

30A,

ndfor nderstanding

heDivine n Laws820E-822C;Ptolemy

xtols he tudy

f

astronomy

ormaking

itsfollowers

overs f this ivine eauty,

ccustoming

hem

ndreforming

their atures,

s

itwere,

o

a

similarpiritual

tate"

Ptolemy

Almagest,

rans. nd annot.

G.

J.

Toomer New

York: pringer,

984],

1.

,

p. 37).

ThoughAristotle

s

a

bit

moremundane,e s

not

averse

o ssociating

is tudy f he

elestial

ether

ith

he ivine

De Caelo,1.3,

specially

70b6-

12) nor o

recommending

he se of

stronomers'

esults or

scertaining

henumber

fdivine

eings

(Metaphysics,

II.8,

1073b

-17).

9

This

manifeststself

with roclus

n his

contrast

etween

uman eings,

whocan

only pproxi-

mate he ruth,ndthegods,who lonecan knowt, nd n hisambivalenceegardinghe ealityf

astronomical

odels uch

s eccentricsndepicycles.

his

position

as

called instrumentalist"

y

Pierre uhem

n

his nfluential

ut

deeply

lawed

aving

he

Phenomena

"YOZEIN

TA

OAINO-

MENA: Essai sur

a notion

e

th6orie hysique

e

Platon

Galil6e,"

nn.

Philo.

Chrnienne,

th

ser., (1908):113-39,

277-302,352-77,482-514,

561-92;

ssued

n bookform

Paris:

Hermann,

1908;

reprinted

aris:

Vrin, 982];

Englisheds

ToSave

thePhenomena:

n

Essay

on the dea

of

PhysicalTheoryrom

lato

to

Galileo,

trans. dmund

oland and

Chaninah

Maschler

Chicago:

Univ.

f

ChicagoPress,

1969]).

Duhem's iewshavebeen

carefully

nalyzed y

G. E. R.

Lloyd

n

"Saving

he

Appearances;"

l.

Quart.,

.

s.,

28

(1978):202-22,

specially

p.

204-11

reprinted

ith

new ntroduction

n dem,

Methods nd

Problems

n Greek

cience

Cambridge:

ambridge

niv.








52 F. JAMILRAGEP

astronomers-anpproach,should dd, hated

a large umberf hem oattempt

toreformtolemy yproposing ore hysically

cceptablemodels.10

So much or stronomy

n the ervice f slam.Let us now moveon to

those

religiousnfluenceshated toa more metaphysicallyeutral"stronomy.hefirst

example eednot etain

s. Clearly hemost eligiouslybjectionableart f

Helle-

nistic stral ciencewas astrology,hich eemed

o givepowers o the tars

hat

should e reservedorGod. Attacks n astrology

n slam renotdifficulto

find,

and hey ame, redictably,

rom eligiousuartersut lso,more urprisingly,

rom

someHellenized hilosophers

uch s Ibn Sina = Avicennad.A.D. 1037]).

t is

instructivehat vicenna,

ot

noted or onventional

eligious iety, idnothesitate

to

use

Qur'anic

erses nd a traditionrom he

Prophet

o bolster is case against

astrology;

his ends ostrengthen

he

rgument

hat ven hose cientistsommitted

toa Hellenisticutlookwere ensitiveo religiousbjectionsndwillingo forgo

parts

f heir reek eritage.

A more ubtlenfluence

anbe

detected

nthe

epara-

tion f astrology

rom stronomy.

n

early slamic stronomical

exts nd

n works

categorizinghe ciences, stronomy

nd

astrology,

ollowingtandard

ellenistic

practice, ereusually

isted ogethernder rubric

uch s "science

f

the

tars"

('ilm

l-nujim)

or ven stronomia

i.e.,

he

ransliteratedreekerm).tarting

ith

Avicenna, owever,

strology

ame obe

categorized

s a

part

fnatural

hilosophy

(or physics),

hereas

stronomywhich

ecame

known s 'ilm

l-hay'a)

was cate-

gorized

s

a

strictly

athematical

iscipline.2

s

we shall

ee,

thiswas

ust

one

of

several

moves

whose

urpose

eems

ohave een ofree

reconstitutedathemati-

cal astronomy,hich,twasclaimed, asobjectivelyrue,rom he eligiouslyb-

jectionable arts

fGreek

hysics

nd

metaphysics.

In additionothese

redictablebjections

o

strology,

here ere

eligious

bjec-

Press,

1991],

pp. 248-77).

Lloydprovides

useful

orrective

o Duhem

nd argues hat

roclus,

somewhat

urprisingly

or Platonist,

ad realist ttitudesegarding

henomenalstronomy

ven

while

claiming

hat

he"true

hilosopher"

hould say

goodbye

o the senses" p. 207;

reprint,

p. 259).

Although,

nlike roclus,

tolemy

as

a

working

stronomernd certainly

ot

Platonist

(at

eastnot

n

any

imple

ense),

he does

warn

hat it s

not

ppropriate

o

compare

uman

con-

structions]ith ivine" nd,with aintchoesofPlato's nsistencen theTimaeushat ny ccount

of

the

henomenal

orld

sonly

"likely

tory,"

dmitshat one

should ry,s

far s

possible,

o

fit

the simpler

ypotheses

o

theheavenly

motions,

ut

f thisdoes not succeed,

one

should

pply

hypotheses]

hich o

fit" Almagest

cit.n. 8],

XIII.2,

p. 600).

Butthese

eemingly

nstrumentalist

remarks

hould

e

balanced

gainst

is

boldconfidence,

nthe ntroduction

o the

Almagest,

that

onlymathematics

including

stronomy]

an

provide

ure nd unshakeable

nowledge

o ts

devo-

tees"

ndthat

this s the

best

cience

ohelp heology

long

ts

way" p. 36),

as

well s

against

is

later ttempt

o provide

cosmology

nhis

Planetary

ypotheses.

learly his spect

f Greek

s-

tronomy

nd

cosmology

eserves

much

more laborate

nd

serious tudy

han s

possible

ere.

0

To connect

ertain

spects

f

slamic eligious

octrine

ith he slamic

radition

f

reforming

Ptolemaic

stronomy,

tself

art

f

seemingly

ore ubstantial

nterest

xhibited

y

slamic

stron-

omers compared

ith

heir reek redecessors)

ndiscovering

true

henomenal

osmology,

ould

require significantistoricaltudyhat s atbest n its preliminary

tages.

Myremarks

ere

re

meantimplys a workingypothesis.

For

a competent

iscussion

f the

objections

o astrology

y

both eligious

ndphilosophical

writers,ee

George

aliba,

A Historyf

Arabic

Astronomy:

lanetary

heories uring

he

Golden

Ageof slam

New

York:

New York

Univ.

ress,

994),pp.

53-61,66-72.

Cf.

gnazGoldziher,

The

Attitude

f Orthodox

slam

oward

he Ancient

ciences,"'

n Studies n

slam,

d.

andtrans.

Mer-

lin

L. Swartz New

York:Oxford

niv.

Press,

1981),pp. 185-215, specially

p.

195-6

(German

original:

Stellung

er lten

slamischen

rthodoxie

u den ntikenWissenschaften,"

bhandlungen

der

Kiniglich

reussischen

kademie

er

Wissenschaften

(Berlin,

916).

I'

For further

laboration

fthis

oint,

ee

E J.Ragep,Nasfr

l-Din

l-Tais

Memoir

n

Astron-

onmv,

vols.

New

York:

pringer.

993),

vol.

1,pp.

34-5.








FREEING

ASTRONOMY

FROM PHILOSOPHY

53

tions

o Hellenistic stronomy

s a whole.

t s

to these nd their

ffects

pon slamic

astronomy hat

we now turn.

III. ON SAVING

ASTRONOMY FROM THE TAINT OF

PHILOSOPHY

Because

it was one

of the

"ancientsciences"

(i.e.,

pre-Islamic), stronomy

was

sometimes

arredwith he same

brush hat esmirched

nyknowledge

hat ellout-

sidethe

domainof the

religious ciences. This taint

ook severalforms. here

were

certainly hose

who condemned

ll the

ancient" r "foreign"

ciences.13

n the

one

hand, ome singled

out astronomy ecause

of tspresumably

lose

association

with

astrology

nd

evenmagic.

4

Others aw

it as advancing

trangend dangerous

deas,

such

as thenotion

f

regionswith

midnight

un, whichwas a consequence

of the

astronomers'

ircularmotions

nd

spherical

odies.

f true, his

wouldmake t

virtu-

ally impossibleunder ome circumstancesorMuslims n extreme orthernlimes

to maintain

he

daylight

ast

duringRamadan.'-5

l-GhazalI d. A.D.

111

1),

certainly

a more subtle

and profound

hinker,

cceptsthat here

re parts

of astronomy

for

example,

he heory

f solar and lunar

clipses) that

re based on apodeictic

demon-

stration nd

are thus

"impossible

to

deny";

such

things re,

in

and of themselves,

unconnected

withreligious

matters. owever,

hese "neutral"

nd true

spects

of

mathematicsmay

educe the

unwary

tudent

nto

believing

hat

ertainty

lso

exists

in the

physical nd

metaphysicalheories

f

thephilosophers,

ome of

which tand

in

contradiction

o Islamic

religious

dogma. Thus the

study f these

sciences

must

be limited nd constrained,or few there re who devotethemselves o this tudy

without eing stripped

f

religion

nd

having

hebridle f

godly

fear

removed rom

their eads."

6

But besides

thesemore

general

warnings gainst

stronomy

s a

representative

f

the ancient ciences,"

herewas

another,

ore

pecific bjection.

Ghazahl

ellsus

that

[t]he

asisof

all

these

bjections

to

natural

hilosophy]

s the

ecognition

hat

ature

is

in

subjection

o God most

igh,

ot

cting

f

tself

ut

erving

s an instrument

n

the

hands f ts Creator.

un

and

moon,

tars nd

elements,

re n

subjection

o

His

command.

here

s none f them

whose

ctivity

s

produced

y

or

proceeds

rom

ts

own ssence.

7

This

is

part

of Ghazall's

criticism

f what

we

might

erm

Aristotelian

atural

au-

sation.

3

Goldziher,

The

Attitude

fOrthodox

slam"

cit.n.

11),

provides

everal

xamples.

'4 This s

the

nsinuation

ade

by

Qadi

Judge)

aj

al-Din l-Subki

14th .);

see David King,

On

theRole

of

heMuezzin"

cit.

n. 6),pp.

306-7 p.

329for he

Arabic

ext). orSubki's

ostile

ttitude

toward

ll

ofphilosophy

with he xception

f

ogic),

which ould

wellbe the

nderlying

eason

or

hisdisdain

f

astronomy,

ee

Goldziher,

The Attitude

f

Orthodox

slam" cit.

n.

11),p.

207.

5 Cf.Goldziher,

TheAttitude

f Orthodox

slam"

cit.

n.

11),p.

197.

6

Abi Hamid l-Ghazali, l-Munqidhmin l-dalal,ed. Abd al-Karliml-MarraqTunis: l-Dar

al-Ttinisiyyai-'l-Nashr,

984),

pp.

49-52.

The

translation

sed

here

s from

W

Montgomery

att,

TheFaith

ndPractice

f

al-GhazdlT

London:

George

Allen &

Unwin,

953),

pp.

33-5.

Cf.the

more

ecent

nglish

ranslation

y

Richard

.McCarthy,

reedom

nd

Fulfillment

Boston:

wayne,

1980),

pp.

73-4,

which

s

somewhat

esselegant

ut ather

ore eliable.

or n

nformed

iscussion

of Ghazali's

ttitude

nd

tspossible

mplications

or he

ourse

f slamic

cience,

ee

Sabra,

Ap-

propriation

nd

Subsequent

aturalization"

cit.

n. 2), pp.

239-41.

1'

Ghazall,

Munqidh,

. 54;

translationyWatt,

he

Faith

nd

Practice

f

l-Ghaza-lf

both

it.

n.

16),p.

37; cf.

McCarthy,

reedom

nd

Fulfillment

cit.n.

16),

p. 76.

Thispoint

s

closely elated

o

the

issue

of ause

and

effect

ndto

the ccasionalist

osition

fthe

Ash'arite

mutakallims

theologians).








54

F.

JAMIL

AGEP

Theconnection

etween hat

s habituallyelieved

obe a cause

ndwhat s habitually

believed obe

an effectsnotnecessary,

ccording

ous.... Their onnection

s dueto

theprior ecree

f

God,

whocreateshem ideby

side.not o

tsbeingnecessaryn

itself,ncapable

f separation.

n the ontrary,t

s withindivine]

ower o create

satiety ithoutating,o reate eathwithoutecapitation,ocontinueife fter ecapi-

tation,

nd so on to all connectedhings.

he philosophers

enied hepossibility

f

[this]

nd laimed

ttobe impossible.'8

This is the well-known

ositionof the

Ash'arite heologians's

sometimes

eferred

to as Islamic

"occasionalism."21"

xactly

how thismightwork

for stablishing,ay,

a science of astronomy

somethingGhazall

is not

particularlynterested

n) is un-

clear.But there re

some ntriguingints.

or example,

n Ghazall'sal-Munqidhmin

al-dalal

(Deliverance

from rror),written

s an intellectual

iographyn the atter

part

f his

life,

he warns

gainst

heman, loyal to Islam

but gnorant,"

ho tries o

defend hefaith y"the denialof the mathematicalciences."Such a person"even

rejects

their heory

f

the

eclipse of sun

and moon,considering

what

they ay is

contrary o the

sacred Law." Ghazali perceptively

otes that

omeone who under-

stands hecertainty

f

themathematical

roofs

nvolved

might

onclude

"that slam

is

based

on

ignorance

nd

the denial of apodeictic

proof" and

that uch a person

"grows n love

for hilosophynd hatred

or

slam."

After uoting

heProphet, ha-

zali

judges

that there

s

nothing

ere

obliging

us to

deny

he

science

of

arithmetic

which

nforms

s in a

specific

manner

f the

paths

of sun and

moon,

and of their

conjunction

nd opposition."?'

WhatGhazali seemsto be proposings an acceptanceof themathematicalspect

of

astronomy

ut not the

physical

part

of that

discipline,

which

might ompel

one

to

accept

a "natural"

motion n theheavens hat

was somehow

ndependent

f

God's

will.

This view

has been

called "instrumentalist"

nasmuch

s it would tend

to re-

move astronomers

rom heoretical

onsiderations

egarding

he causes of

celestial

motion nd

confine

hem,presumably,

o matters f

calculation,

more

ikely

than

not

in the service

of

religion.2

Of

course,

interpreted

nother

way,

"instrumen-

talism"

ould also

free stronomers

o

pursue

lternative

ypotheses

egarding

eles-

tial

motion nd

the

configuration

f the

heavens, point

to which we shall

return

later nthis

ssay.23

,x

Al-Ghazali,

he ncoherence

f the

Philosophers,

d.

andtrans.

Michael

E.

Marmura

Provo,

Utah:

Brigham

oung

Univ.

ress,

997),

p.

170.

19

From he

leventh

enturyr

so,

theAsh'arites

ecame

hedominantheological

kalam)

group

among

he

unniMuslims,

ucceeding

he

Mu'tazilites.

hey

id,

hough,

ontinue

he tomist

radi-

tion f

heir

redecessors

swell

s,

for hemost art,

rationalistpproach

o

physical

nd

heologi-

cal

matters.

20

For a

lucid

discussion

f this osition

n the ontext

f

slamic

kalam,

ee

Sabra,

Science

nd

Philosophy"

cit.

n.2);

he

alsocompares

t

with he

osition

fDescartes

pp.

29-32).

2'

Ghazdlh,

unqidh,

p.

51-2.

have omewhat

modified

att's

ranslation,

heFaith

nd

Prac-

tice f l-GhazdlTcit.n. 16),pp.34-5; cf.McCarthy,reedomndFulfillmentcit.n. 16),p. 74.

22

This

position

as been

aid outby Sabra,

The

Appropriation

nd

Subsequent

aturalization

f

Greek

cience" cit.

n. 2),pp.

238-42.

23

It

s

worth

oting

hatGhazali

himself

roposes

ossible lternatives

othe

view

held

by

both

philosophers

nd

astronomers

uch s

Ptolemy)

hat he

ntire

eaven

s ananimal

with

soul

that

causes

ts

motion. n

this atter

iew,

ee

Ragep,

NasTr

l-Din

cit.

n.

12),

vol.

2,

pp.

408-10.

For

Ghazl-l's

lternatives,

ee The

ncoherence

cit.

n. 18),pp.

149-5

.

The

possibility,

ace Sabra,

hat

Ghazdl-'s

osition

ould

openup

theoretical

s well

as

instrumentalist

ossibilities

eeds

much

more

areful

nd ustainedtudy

han

s

possible

ere.

Cf.

P.

Duhem's

ontroversial

iews egarding

the

iberating

ffects

f

themedieval uropean

ondemnations

f

Aristotle.)








FREEING

ASTRONOMY

FROM

PHILOSOPHY

55

Ghazali's

warnings bout

being

overly ealous

in condemning

ll of

ancient ci-

ence,

even

the apodeictic

parts,

ndicates that

he was trying

o establish

some

"middleposition."

ut whatwas the

extreme

heological

osition,

nd how might

t

workforunderstandingelestial phenomena?We learnfrom l-QUshj (d.

A.D.

1474),

a Central

Asian scientist

ssociated

firstwith the

Samarqand

observatory

and laterwith

hescientific ommunity

f Constantinople

after

ts conquest

by the

Ottomans),

what these may have been.

In his

major theological

kala-m)work,

commentaryn Nasir

al-Din al-Tus 's

Tajrrd

l-'aqd'id,

he presents

whathe sees

as

some

of

the

bsurd

mplications f

the tandard sh'arite

enialofnatural

ausation:

On the ssumption

taqdfr} fthe

validity

thubtt} fthe

volitionalmnipotent,

t s

conceivablehat

hevolitionalmnipotent

ould

byHiswill irada}

darken

heface

of

theMoonduring lunar clipse

withouthe nterposition

f

the

Earth nd

ikewise

during solar clipse hefaceof the un[would arken] ithouthe nterpositionf

theMoon; ikewise,

e coulddarken

nd ighten

he ace fthe

Moon ccording

othe

observed

ull nd rescenthapes.24

It is notclear

whether e

was setting p

a strawman

or whether

ishjT was

re-

sponding

o

an actual argument

e

had encountered.

Whichever,

t s interesting

hat

Ghazall

had,

as

we

have

seen,

raised

ust

this ort

f

example

n

his

warning gainst

taking

he condemnation

f the ancient

ciences too

far.But in

one of the most,

f

not hemost,

nfluential

f

the

ateAsh'arite extbooks,

heMawdqifff

ilm l-kalam

by

thePersian Adud

al-Din

al-Iji

(ca. A.D.

1281-1355),

we

do

not find

his xtreme

viewpoint egarding he explanation f eclipses but,surprisingly,full and quite

well-informed

xposition

f Ptolemaic stronomy.25

By

this ime, he

Ash'arites

ad

adopted

much

of the

erminology

f Greek

philos-

ophy,

nd

IjI

was no

exception;

this did not

mean,however,

hat

he

adopted

the

doctrines

f

Greekphilosophy.26

n

particular,

e

maintained,

ontra

Aristotle,

hat

the universe

was atomistic

n

structure

nd

contingent,

epending

n God's will

to

exist from nstant

o instant.When

it

came

to astronomy,

ji,

who was

well ac-

quainted

with the basic

picture

f Ptolemaic

astronomy,

eld that

the orbs

were

"imaginary

hings"

umuir

mawhfima)

nd more

tenuous

han

spider's

web

(bayt

al-'ankabut).27 ut Ij did notdraw theconclusionthat stronomers'onstructions

were

o be censured

r

condemned,

s

implied

n

the

passage

from

UshjI's

harh

l-

tajrfd.

ather

e

insisted,

choing

Ghazl-l,

that

[religious] rohibition

oes not

x-

tend o them, eing

neither

n

object

ofbelief

nor

ubject

o

affirmationr

negation."28

Viewed

from he

perspective

f the

possible

range

of

religiouspositions

n

this

matter,

ne

would

have

thought

hat he

astronomers

ould

have been

grateful

or

this eemingly enerous

olution

o their

roblems;

hey

oulduse whatever

mathe-

matical

ools

they

needed

for heir

raft s

long

as

they

id

not

declare

them eal.

n

24

Allb.Muhammadl-QUshj ,harh ajrzdl-'aqd'id Tehran,890

?)],

p. 186 line 8) through

p.

187 line

2).

A

translation

nd

Arabic

ext f

the arger

assage

fwhich

his

sa

part

s

contained

intheAppendix.

quare

brackets

[

1)

are

usedfor

ditorial

dditions

ndexplanations.

urly

rack-

ets

I

})

areused

for

riginal

rabic

words

ran

English

ranslation.

25

For

brief

ut nformative

xposition

f his

ection

f

jl'stext,

ee

Sabra,

Science

nd

Philos-

ophy"

cit.

n.

2), pp.

34-8.

26

The

adoption

y a

number

f

Muslim

heologians

f the erminology

utnot

necessarily

he

doctrines

f

Greek

hilosophy

s a

fascinating

tory,

orwhich

ee

ibid.,

p.

11-23.

27

Ibid.,

. 37.

28

Ibid.








56

F.

JAMILRAGEP

essence, heywere

eing

iven n"instrumentalist"

ption.

ut

he stronomers,

s

we shall ee,were

ardlyhrilled

ith his

olutionothe

cience-religion

roblem,

and we

will

need

to explorewhy

heywerenot.

But

before hat,we need

to ask

ourselves notheruestion:Whydid j feel henecessityooffer hem solution

in

thefirst

lace?Afterll,

he was

not n astronomer

imself,nd n

themainhe

rejectedmany

ftheirmost

undamental

laims

bout henature

fthe

niverse.

To

answer

his uestion,

e need

tounderstand

omething

f the

contextnd

historicaleriod

n which

his ebate

wasoccurring.

or

themost art,

hepartici-

pants

were ither ersians r Central

sians;

heperiod

was the ftermath

f the

Mongol

nvasions

fthe hirteenth

entury,hich

onsiderably

eshaped

hepoliti-

cal and ntellectual

andscape

fthe rea.

Notonly he

raditional

olitical ut

lso

the

eligious

eadershipn

the ast

was eitherestroyed

r considerably

eakened.

TheMongols referredofill heir ourtsndbureaucraciesith omerelatively

heterodox

igures.

Thereasons

orhis re

fairlyasy o

grasp.)

hemostignificant

of

these

rom

n ntellectualtandpoint

as Nasir

l-Din

l-Tisl

A.D. 1201-1274).

Tiis

was a

crucial

igure

or number

f reasons,

ut specially

ecause

he left

behind

corpus

fwritingshat

ecame hemain

ehicle

ot nly or

tudying

ut

also

for

defending

reek cience

nd philosophy,

t

least neastern

slam,until

modern

imes. e

alsowrote n

religious

matters,nd

n theseworks

e continued

the

process

f

bringingreekphilosophical

erms nd

deas

nto

he heological

context.

hough e

was

born

mainstream

hicite

nd

had

dabbled

or time

with

Ismad'lism,

muchmore

eterodoxhT'ite

octrine,y

he ime

UsT eganworking

for heMongolsn 1256,his ntellectualllegiancewasfirmlyith heHellenistic

tradition

f slam,

which

orhimwas

not

nly

way

f

unifying

he

ciences

ut

also a

means f ranscendingeligious

ifferences

nd

disputes.

s such

hehearkens

backto

an earlier

eriod

f slamic ntellectual

istory,

o the

Kindis,

he

Farabls,

and

specially

o

Avicenna,

or

whom

Greek

hilosophy

ecame

kind

f

ranscen-

dent

eligion.

or this

Tiis was

bitterly

eviled

y

the

religious

stablishment

n

Mameluke

gypt

nd

Syria,

which ad

mostlyscaped

he

Mongol nslaught.

uri-

ously, hough,

he ersian

heologians,

uch s

Iji,

eem

ohave een

mostly

espect-

ful oward im-but

not

implyespectful.

have

no

doubt hat

jI,

whowas

born

less than enyears ftertisi's eath,earned isastronomy,ndperhapsvenhis

Greek

hilosophy,

rom

Usl's

writings;

n that

ase,

he

was

swept p

n

TUsT's

is-

course

even

while

disagreeing

with t.

It

should therefore

ot

surprise

s that

jT

would

try

o

reassure he

Ash'arite

faithful

hat

hey

had

nothing

o fear

from

he

surging

ide of

Hellenistic

cience

and

philosophy

n Iran

while at the same

time

accommodating usi

and

his

many

followers

y

offering

hem

respectable

way

to

be

both

good

astronomers

nd

good

Muslims.29

Returning

o

the

stronomers, hy

would some

of them eel

uneasy

with

j 's,

and

for

hat

matter

hazali's, compromise?

hat

they

would

reject

his

ccommodation

tellsus somethingbouttheir elf-confidencend the trengthf their raditionur-

ing

these

centuries.30

ut

this was

not

simply

case of

disciplinary

ride.

Some

29

For

more

etailed

nd

documented

iscussion

fthe

oints

made

n

this

aragraph,

eeRagep,

NasTr l-DMn

(cit.

n. 12),

vol.

1, pp.

3-20.

30Thecontinuing

trength

f

the radition

f science

n slam

after

.D.

1200 has

only

ecently

been

recognized

y

researchers

n the

field.

he

reasons

or

his

ong

neglect

ave

great

eal

to do

with

he

Eurocentric

ature

f most

history

f science,

which

has tended

o assume,

whether

on-

sciously

r

not,

hat nce

the welfth-century

ranslation

ovement

rom

rabic

nto

atin

was

com-








FREEING

ASTRONOMY FROM

PHILOSOPHY

57

were ed to this

rejection

y what hey aw

as therequirements

f

an astronomyhat

could

provide correct

icture

hay a) of the universe s well as insight

nto

God's

creation

as we have seen).

Thiscan be

clearly

bserved n theresponse

f

al-Sharif

al-Jurjani

A.D.

1339-1413) to IjT's dismissive emarks egardinghe "imaginary"

and "tenuous"

nature

f the astronomers'

rbs. n addition

o his

manyotherhats,

which

ncluded

being a renowned

heologian,

urjdanT

as

an astronomer

ho wrote

a widelyread

and appreciated

ommentary

oThsT's stronomical

masterpiece, he

Tadhkira.

Withhis astronomer's

urban irmly

n place,

he responded o

Ij

as fol-

lows,

by trying o explain

that hemathematical

bjectsof the astronomers,

hough

"imagined,"

o have a

correspondence

ith eality:

Even

f

hey

o nothave n externaleality,

et

hey re hingshat

re orrectly

mag-

ined

nd

correspondo what

exists]n

actuality

ff

afs

l-amr} s attested

y sound

instinctal-fitral-salfma};hey renotfalsemaginingsuch s ghouls' angs, uby

mountainsnd

two-headed en.Bymeans

f these astronomical]

otions,

he ondi-

tions f

[celestial]

movementsre regulatedn

regard ospeed nd

direction,

s per-

ceived

directly]

robserved ith

the

id of] nstruments.

Bymeans

fthese otions

also] discovery

s made

of the

characteristics

ahkam}

of

the

celestial rbs

nd the

earth,

nd of

what

hey

eveal f subtle

wisdom nd wondrousreation-things

hat

overcome

hoever

pprehends

hemwith we,

ndfacing im

with heglory

f

their

Creator,rompt

im o

say: Our

Lord,

hou as not reatedhis n vain'" his

hen

s

a valuable

esson haties

hiddenn thosewords

of

he stronomers]

nd hat

ught

o

be

cherished,

hile gnoring

hoevers driveno disdain

hem

y

mere rejudice.31

It is

important

o note here thatJurjani's

ommentary

uickly

became an

integral

part

f

ji's

textbook

nd was

studiedwith

t n the chool tradition.

It

was

stillbeing

studied

n Islamic

theological

chools,

such

as Cairo's

al-Azhar,

nto

the

twentieth

century )

Thus Ij1's conventionalist/instrumentalist

iew of

astronomical

models

would

have been read

with

Jurjani's

orceful

ejoinder.32

Jurjani, hough,

while defending stronomy's

ntegrity

nd

its

religious

value

against jT's

dismissive

emarks,

oes

not

here

deal with

the ssue of

astronomy's

alleged

dependence

upon suspect

religious

doctrines,

uch

as natural ausation

nd

theeternity

f

theworld.

Most, though

ot

all,

Islamic

astronomers

elt hat

t least

some of these doctrineswere ndispensable.As TUsi saysin theTadhkira, Every

science

has

...

principles,

which are

either

elf-evident

r

else

obscure,

n which

case they

re

proved

n

another

cience and are

taken

for

granted

n this science

...

[T]hose

of its

principles

hatneed

proof

are demonstrated

n three ciences:

metaphysics,

eometry,

nd natural

hilosophy."33

hus

in addition

o mathematics

and observation,

Us

is

claiming

hat

ertain

hysical

nd

metaphysical

rinciples

need to

be

imported

rom

hilosophy.

his

mportation

as not aken

ightly;

ndeed,

in

general

one

finds

mong

slamic

astronomers

great

reluctance o use

physical

principles

rom

hilosophy

s a

substitute

or

basing

their onclusions n what

hey

pleted,slamic

ntellectuals,

aving

ulfilledheir

istorical

ission

f

preservation

or

urope,

must

havegiven

p their

cientific

ndeavors.

3'

al-Iji,Kitab

l-Mawdqiffl'ilm

l-kalam

with

he

ommentary

f

al-Jurjani),

d.Muhammad

Badr

l-Din

l-Na'san1

Cairo,

.H. 1325/A.D.

1907),

pt.vii,p.

108.

This s

mostly

abra's

ranslation

(with

minor

hanges)

rom

is

"Science

ndPhilosophy"

cit.

n.

2), p.

39.

32

One hopes

hatuch

xamples

might ive

pause

othose

who

nsist

n

treating

slamic

eligious

views

s monolithic.

33 Ragep,

Nasir l-D~n

cit.n.

12),

vol.1,pp.

90-1.








58

F.

JAMIL RAGEP

saw as mathematics,

hich ncluded bservation.n this hey eem to have

followed

trends hathad already

been established n antiquity.n a passage preserved

y Sim-

plicius 6th c.

A.D.)

in his commentary n Aristotle's

hysics,he quoted

Geminus

(ca. 1st c.

A.D.),

whowas, we are told,"inspired y the views of Aristotle," o the

effect hat clear demarcation

an be made between

he role of the physicist nd

the role of the astronomer.34

The physicistwill in many ases reach the

cause by

looking to creative orce;but the astronomer,

hen he provesfactsfrom xternal

conditions,s notqualified o udge of thecause,

as when,for nstance, e

declares

the earthor the starsto be spherical."This is

elucidated n an earlierpartof the

passage:

Now in

many ases

the stronomernd thephysicist illpropose o prove

he ame

point, .g., hat he

un s of great ize or that he

Earth s spherical,ut heywillnot

proceed ythe ameroad.The physicist illprove ach fact y considerationsf es-

sence r

substance,

f

force,

f ts

being

etterhat hingshould e as they

re, r of

coming

nto

being

ndchange; he stronomerill prove hem y theproperties

f

figures

r

magnitudes,

r bythe mount f movementndthe ime hat s

appropriate

to

it.35

Geminus,

no

doubt inspired ythe

views of

Aristotle,"

eclares hat he stronomer

"mustgo

to the

physicist

or

his first rinciples, amely, hat

he movements

f

the

stars

re simple,

uniform

nd

ordered." ut thiswas a

view

thatwas

not

universally

held n antiquity.tolemy,

or xample, efers o physics nd metaphysics

s

"guess-

work" and proclaimsthat"only mathematics an providesure and unshakeable

knowledge

o tsdevotees."36

ne would

assume

thathe would

therefore

ry

o avoid

physical nd metaphysical

rinciples

n his

astronomy,nd, ndeed,

n

the ntroduc-

tory osmological

sections

f the

Almagest,

e

generally

stablishes

uch

things

s

the

sphericity

f the heavens

and the

Earth,

he Earth's

entrality

nd

its lack of

motion, ccording

o observational

nd

mathematical

rinciples,

n contrast o

the

morephysical

means used

by

Aristotle

n, say,

De

Caelo.37

Ptolemy's tatedposition

had

some

major

support mong

Islamic

astronomers.

The Persian

scholar

Qutb

al-Din al-Shirazi

A.D.

1236-1311),

onetime

tudent

nd

associateof Nasir al-Din al-Thsl,paraphrases tolemy: Astronomys thenoblest

of the

sciences....

[I]ts

proofs

re

secure-being

of number nd

geometry-about

which

here an

be no

doubt,

unlike

he

proofs

n

physics

nd

theology."38

But

several slamic astronomers

ote,

ftenwith

dismay,

hat

tolemy

adbroken

his own rule and

had used

"physical"principles.

n

particular,

he eminent

entral

Asian

scientist

Abfi

Rayhan

al-Birtini

A.D.

973-1048)

chides him for

using argu-

ments ased

on

physics

o

prove

he

sphericity

f the heavens

nthe

Almagest 1.3)

and

nsists hat each

discipline

has a

methodology

nd rules nd thatwhich s

exter-

34

This sprobablynreferenceoAristotle,hysics 1.2; f.Lloyd, Saving heAppearances"cit.

n. 9),

pp.

212-13.

35 Translation

yT. L.

Heath

n his

Aristarchusf

Samos Oxford: larendon,

913),

p. 276;

re-

printed

n Morris

.

Cohen nd

.

E.

Drabkin,

Source

Book n

Greek

cience Cambridge,

ass.:

Harvard

niv. ress,

948),pp.

90-1.

Cf. Lloyd,

Saving

he

Appearances"

cit.

n.

9), pp.

212-14.

36

Ptolemy

Almagest

cit.n.

8),

1. ,p. 36.

37 Fora discussion

f how

this

s viewed

n

the slamic

ontext,

ee

Ragep,

Nasfr

al-D~n

cit.

n.

12),vol.

1,pp.38-41;

vol.

2,

pp. 382-8.

38

Qutb

l-Din

l-Shirazi,

reface

o "Nihayat

l-idrak

i

dirdyat

l-aflak,"

hmetII

MS

3333 2),

fol.

34b,

Topkapi aray,

stanbul.








FREEING

ASTRONOMY FROM PHILOSOPHY 59

nal to tcannotbe imposed

yastahkimu

upon them; herefore, hat Ptolemy] as

set forth hat s external o thisdiscipline s persuasive ather han

necessary."39

Looking at

BIrUn

s insistence pon a

clear separation f astronomy rom hysics

(or natural hilosophy) ndTUsT's ntroductoryemarks egarding he need of as-

tronomy orprinciples rom atural

hilosophy nd metaphysics,ne mightwell be

tempted

o

conclude that what we

have is a continuation f the ancient debate

between

the

mathematicianssuch as Ptolemy,who insistedupon an autonomous

astronomy)

nd the

philosophers

represented,

s we

have seen, by Aristotle nd

Geminus,

who

placed

the

astronomersn

a dependent ole).40But this would be

misleading.

Even the

more

philosophically nclined of the Islamic astronomers

seem,

for hemost

part,

o

be intent

ot

onlyon demarcatingstronomy rom atural

philosophy ut also

on

making

t

as

independent s possible. We have already een

how Avicenna separated stronomyas a mathematical iscipline)from strology

(considered

o be

part

f natural

hilosophy). urthermore

iisy imself

made clear

in the

Tadhkira hat

n

astronomer hould provemost cosmological matters sing

"proofsof the fact" that imply

stablish

their

xistenceusing observations nd

mathematics)

ather

han

proofs

f the

reasoned

fact"

that convey

he

necessity

of that

xistence"using physical nd/or

metaphysical rinciples);

he atter indof

proofs, e tellsus, are givenby

Aristotle

n

De Caelo.41

In

other

words,

he strono-

mer

hould

void

dealing

withultimate

auses

and instead

stablish

hefoundations

of his

disciplineby employing

he

apodeictic

ools

of mathematics. his attitudes

reinforced

s

well

n the

physical rinciples

hat

Ths'

ses

to

explainregular

motion.

He analyzes t n sucha waythat he sourceof thatmotion,whether n Aristotelian

"

nature"

as

in

the

ase of thefour

lements)

r

a

soul

(as

in thecase of thecelestial

orbs)

becomes rrelevant

or

stronomy;

n both

ases,

he maintains

departing

ere

from

Aristotle)

hat

egular

motion s

always

due to an innate

principle mabda'

=

opX)

called

a

"nature"

tab'),

thus

sidestepping

he

problem

of

ultimate

ausa-

tion.42Muhammad

AUh l-TahanawT

1

8thc.

A.D.) nicely

ummarizes he

situation:

"In this

science

[i.e., astronomy],

motion s

investigatedin

terms

f]

its

quantity

and direction.

he

inquiry

nto

the

origin asi)

of this motion

nd its

attribution

{ithbdtij

o theorbs

s

part

f Natural

Philosophy

al-tab'iyydt

sic])."43

3'AbU

Rayhan

al-Biruni,

l-Qanuin

al-Mas'adi,

3 vols. (Hyderabad:Da'irat

al-ma'arif

l-

'Uthmdniyya,

954-1956),

ol.

1

p. 27.

Thecriticism

s directedtPtolemy'sse

of

certain

hysical

considerations"

egarding

he ethero

prove he phericitynd ircular

otion f heheavens

Ptole-

m's

Almagest

cit.n.

8],

1.3.p.

40). Elsewhere

n theQdnan

vol.

2, pp. 634-5),

Birfini

trongly

criticizes

tolemy

or

using

ssumptions

nd ideas

from utside

f

astronomy

n his

Planetary

Hypotheses;

ee Ragep.

Nasfral-Dfncit.

n.

12),

vol.

1,

p. 40, for

translationnd discussion

f

this assage.

4(

Thanks

o the

ecent ork

fLloyd ndothers,

e

canmake uch

distinction

ithout

esorting

to

Duhem's eductionist

hetoricf "instrumentalists"

ersus

realists";f.n.

9.

41

Ragep,

Nashral-Dizn

cit.

n.

12),

vol.

1. pp. 106-7. For

an examination

f thispassage

and

its

relationo the

uia-propter

uid distinction

ade

n Aristotle'sosterior

nalytics,

ee vol.

1,

pp.38-41, andvol.2, pp.382,386-8.

42

TUs1 eems

obe trying

o account or

he act

hat he nsouled

elestial rbs,

ven houghhey

have

volition,

choose" o move

niformly,

nlike ntities

ith ouls

n

the ublunar

ealm.

his

was

obviously problem

ith long

history

rom nciento early

modern

imes;

ee

Ragep,

Nashr

al-

Dfn (cit.n.

12).vol. 1,pp.

44-6; vol.

2,

p. 380.

Cf. Harry

Wolfson,

The Problem

fthe ouls

ofthe

Spheres

romheByzantine

ommentaries

nAristotlehrough

heArabs nd

St.Thomas

o

Kepler,"

Dumbarton

aks

Papers

16

1962):67-93,

ndRichard

. Dales,

"The

De-Animation

f he

Heavens

in theMiddle

Ages'"

J.

Hist. deas,

41 (1980):531-50.

43

Muhammad

'1d .

All al-Tahanawi,

ashshdfi'istildhat

l-funm-n:

Dictionary of

the

Technical

Ternms

sed

in the Sciences

(f'

the

Musalmans,

edited

by

Mawlawies Mohammad

Wajih,

Abd








60

F.

JAMILRAGEP

Let us take tock.slamic cientistsnheritedn astronomyrom he ncientshat

already adbeendifferentiatedoa lesser rgreateregree rom aturalhilosophy.

Islamic stronomers,hough,arried hisprocessmuch artherlong, nd t does

not eemunreasonableo see this, t east n part, s a response o religious bjec-

tions

irected

t

Hellenistic hysics ndmetaphysics,n the ne hand, ndto reli-

giousneutralityoward athematics,nthe ther. nattentiveeader,hough, ight

still ave uestionsbout hese entativeonclusions. hy, or xample, id some-

one ikeTUs till nsist hat stronomyeeded hysicalndmetaphysicalrinciples

even

while

he contributedoward

making

t more

ndependent?id any slamic

astronomer

ver

defend

n

astronomyompletelyndependentfphilosophy?nd

finally,an

we make

stronger, ore xplicit nd ess circumstantialase for

connectionetweeneligionnd his reeingf stronomyrom hilosophy?n the

remainingart

fthe

ssay, explore hese uestions.

As we have een,Blriinimplies hat hephysics ne needs or stronomyould

be

generated

ithin he

stronomicalontext

sing

mathematicsnd

observation;

hence

ne would

notneedto

importphilosophicalhysics." ut was this eally

feasible?

ould

one

claim hat niformircular otion

n the

heavens,

he

traight-

line

motions

f the ublunar

ealm, nd,

most

mportant

f

all,

theEarth's tate f

rest

werenotbased

upon

Aristotelian

hysics?

s mentioned

arlier,

Us

ertainly

didnot elieve

necould

go

that ar. n

part,

hiswas dueto one

particular

nstance

that ecame causecelebre

f

ate

medievalslamic

stronomy.44

n

a famous

nd

controversial

assage,

Tus

explicitlyays

hat heEarth's

tate f rest

annot

e

observationallyeterminednd xplicitlyenies tolemy'slaim hattcan be.45n

at east

his ne

nstance,

athematics

nd bservationail

s,

nd

we thereforeeed

to

import

rom atural

hilosophy

he

physical rinciple

hat he

element

arth's

natural otions rectilinearnd

hereforehe

arth

annot

otate

aturally.

n a

more

general orm,

his

osition

was reiterated

orcefully

nd

at some

ength y Thsi's

sixteenth-century

ommentator

l-BlrjandL.46his, then,

was

a bottomine that

shows

s

why

ome stronomers

ould not bide

ji's

compromise

nd

whyTius

and

othersnsisted

n

astronomy's

eed

for

atural

hilosophy.

But

not

very

stronomer

greed

with hsT.

n fact

is

own tudent

utb

l-Din

al-Haqq,

nd

Gholam

Kadir

under he uperintendence

f

A.

Sprenger

ndW. Nassau

Lees,2

vols.

(Calcutta:

W. N.

Lees'

Press, 862),

vol.

1,

p.

47.

44

his

question,

amely

whether

heEarth's

tate

f rest ouldbe determined

y

observational

tests,s

dealt

withn my Ttisi

ndCopernicus:

heEarth'sMotion

n

Context,"

o

appear

n

Science

in Context.

t

s also

discussed,

more

ummarily,

n

Ragep,

Nasir

l-Din

cit.

n.

12),

vol.

2, pp.

383-5.

45

The

passage,

which s from

heTadhkiraRagep,

Nasrr

l-Din cit.

n.

12],

vol. 1,pp. 106-7),

s

as follows:

It

is notpossible

o attribute

heprimary otion

o

theEarth.

his s

not,

however,

because

of

whathasbeen maintained,

amely

hat his

would ause

an

object

hrown

p

in

the

ir

not o fall

o ts original

osition

ut nstead

t wouldnecessarily

all o

thewest f t,

or that

his

would

ause the

motion

f whatever

eaves he

Earth],

uch

s anarrow

r a bird,

n the

direction

ofthe Earth's]motionobe slower, hile n thedirectionpposite o tto befaster.orthepart f

the ir

adjacent

o the

Earth]

ould conceivably

onform

yushavi'u)

o theEarth's

motionlong

with

whatever

s

oined

o t, ust

as the ether

(here)

upper

evel

of

air]

conforms

yushayi'u)

o

the

orb as evidenced y

thecomets,which

move

with

ts motion.

ather,

t s on

account

f

the

[Earth]

aving

principle

frectilinear

nclination

hat t

s precluded

rommoving

aturally

ith

circular

motion:"

he

similarity

o

Copernicus,

e

Revolutionibus

Nuremburg,

543),6a,

ines

16-

34,

s

discussed n

the

eferencesisted

n the

preceding

ootnote.

46

'Abdal-'All

l-Blrjandli,

Sharh

l-Tadhkira,"

oughton S

Arabic 285,

fol.

9b,

Harvard

ol-

lege

Library,

ambridge,

ass.;

for ismore eneral

tatementsefending

heuse

ofnatural

hilos-

ophy n

astronomy,

ee

fols. a-7b

and 38a.








FREEING ASTRONOMY

FROM PHILOSOPHY

61

al-Shirazi ook ssue withhis sometime

master nd

claimed that ne could establish

the Earth's tate of rest by an

observational est, hus obviating

he need for m-

porting physicalprinciple rom

hilosophy.47his position, f

course,goes well

withwhatwe have seen of Shirazi's nsistence, ollowing tolemy,hat he mathe-

maticalproofs f astronomy

ere more ecure than

hoseof physics ndtheology;

by claimingthatobservational

ests could establish

the Earth's tate of rest,one

could protect

stronomy'sntegrityrom he encroachment

f naturalphilosophy

and metaphysics.

But because thisdebate was

mainlybeing carried

ut within heconfines f the

scientificiterature,hereligious

imensions re notvery xplicit.

We mayfeel usti-

fied

n claiming hat irUni nd

Shiraziwerebeing nfluenced y religious

onsider-

ations

n

trying

o

separate stronomy

rom

hilosophy,

utthis s merely conjec-

ture.

n

contrast,here

an be no

doubt

as to the

religious

ontext

f this

debate

n

the lreadymentionedommentarynTUsi's theologicalwork, he

TajrTd

l-'aqd'id

(Epitomeof belief),written y

All

al-QUshj .

QUshj1

was the son

of

PrinceUlugh Beg's

falconer nd grewup

in or close to the

Timurid ourt

n

Samarqand

n thefifteenthentury.amarqand

t the

ime,

with

ts

observatory,arge

scientific

taff,

rilliant

ndividuals,

nd

scientifically

ccom-

plished patron

Ulugh Beg,

was

without doubt

the

major

center

f science

in

the

world nd certainly

ould

rival ts

thirteenth-centuryredecessor

hathad been es-

tablished

y TUsi

n

Maragha

under

Mongol patronage.48

fter

he

assassination

f

his

patron

Ulugh Beg, Qutshj1

raveled

hrough

ran and Anatolia

and

eventually

assumed chair nastronomynd mathematicstthe ollege madrasa) ofAyaSofia

in

the newly

slamic city

f

stanbul.49

t should

be

emphasized

hat he

teaching

f

science

in

the

religious

schools,

and later

the

establishment

f an

observatory

n

Istanbul,

were

opposed,

sometimes

itterly,y

the

religious

stablishment.50

QUshj ,

writing

is

commentary

n

Tus-'s

"Epitome

of Belief"

after he assassination

but

before ssuming

his

chair,

was no doubt

mindful

f

this

religious

opposition

nd

sought

o answer

he

objection

o

astronomy

hat

have

previously

uoted

from im.

Let us

summarize ome

of the

key points

he makes.

The

entire

Arabic

text,

with

my translation,

s

in

the

Appendix.)

Qhshji

is

clearly

sensitive

o the Ash'arite

47

Shirdzi's iscussion

an

be found

n maqala

I, bMb ,fasl (fols.

6a-47b)

of

his

"Nihayat

l-

idrak t

dirayat

l-aflak"

cit.

n. 38),which

was completed

n

A.D.

1281.

A similar assage

s

in

his

"al-Tuhfa

l-shahiyya

i

al-hay'a,"

hich

ppeared

nA.D. 1284

bMbI,

fasi

4

[Jdmi'

l-Basha

MS

287,

Mosul =

ArabLeaguefalak

musannaf

hayrmufahras

ilm346),

fols.

15a-18a,

ndMS

Add.

7477,

British

Museum,

ondon,

ols.

9b-l a]).

This

section

f the

"Nihaya"

was translated

nto

German

y

Eilhard

Wiedemann

n "Ueber

die Gestalt, age

undBewegung

er

Erde,

owie

philo-

sophisch-astronomische

etrachtungen

onQutb

l-Din

l-Schirazzi,"

rchivfiur

ie Geschichte

er

Naturwissenschaften

nd der

Technik (1912):395-422

(reprinted

n E. Wiedemann,

Gesammelte

Schriften

ur

arabisch-islamischen

Wissenschaftsgeschichte,

vols.

[Frankfurt

m

Main:

Institut

ur

Geschichte

er

Arabisch-Islamischen

issenschaften,

984],

vol.

2, pp.

637-64).

On theSamarqandbservatory,eeAydin ayilh, heObservatoryn slam Ankara: urkish

Historical

ociety,

960), pp.

259-89.

See

also

E. S. Kennedy,

The

Heritage

f

UlughBeg,"

n

idem, Astronomy

nd

Astrology

n

the Medieval

Islamic

World Brookfield,

Vt.:

Ashgate,

1998),

no.

XI.

49

See

A. Adnan

Adivar,"All

b.Muhammadl-Kuishdj ,"ncyclopedia

f slam,

nd d.

Leiden:

Brill, 960),

ol. 1,

p.393,

nd dem,

a Science

hez es

Turcs ttomans

Paris:Maisonneuve,

939),

pp.

33-5.

PP

divar iscusses

his

n his La Science

hez

es Turcs

ttomanscit.

n.

49).

For

the

stanbul

observatory,

hich

he

eligious

stablishment

orced

obe

demolished,

ee

Sayili,

he

Observatory

(cit.

n.

48), pp.

289-305.








62

F JAMIL

RAGEP

position

on causality, nd

he makes

the interestingbservation

hatpart of their

objection

to it,

at least as regards stronomy,

as to do withthe astrological

on-

tention f a causal

linkbetween he

positions f theorbs

nd terrestrial

vents espe-

cially"unusualcircumstances"). o get around uch objections,QUshji nsists hat

astronomy

oes notneed

philosophy,

ince onecould build

the ntire

difice f orbs

necessary

or he astronomical

nterprisesing

only geometry,

easonable upposi-

tions, ppropriate

udgments,

nd provisional

ypotheses. hese premises

llow

as-

tronomers

to

conceive

takhayyalu-}

rom mong

hepossible pproaches

he ne by which

he

circumstances

f

theplanets

with heirmanifold

rregularities

ay e put n

order n

such

way

s tofacilitateheir etermination

f he ositions

nd onjunctions

fthese

planets

or ny ime hey

might ish nd o

as to conform

ith erception

Jiss}

and

sight 'iyan}.

What

thiswill allow us to

do is make

presumptionshat

best explain"or save"

the

phenomena.

Of course

God might,by His

will, cause

the phenomena

directly;

QUshji gives

the exampleof God

darkening he

Moon without he

Earth's hadow

and causing

an

eclipse.

But

ust

as

we

go

about our everydayives using

what he

calls

ordinary

'adiyya)

and

practical

tajribivya)

knowledge,

husshould

we pro-

ceed in science.

Here

he

allows himself bit

of sarcasm, rguing

hat

we could (for

example)

claim that

fterwe

had

left ur house

one

day,

God turned

ll thepots and

pans

into human scholars

who took

to

investigatinghe

sciences

of

theology

nd

geometry;nsofar s we feel confidentn assuming hat hishas nothappened, o

also shouldwe have

confidence hat he heavens

normally ollow

a regular attern

that

we

have the capacity

o

explain.

We

do not,however,

eed

to make

the

further

claim that

ur

explanation epresents

he

only

possible one;

in this

way,QUshji

be-

lieves he has

made astronomy

ndependent

f

philosophy.

Whatmakes

Qutshj 's osition

specially

fascinating

re some of the

repercussions

it had

for

his

astronomical

work.Since he

claims

to be no

longer

ied

to

the

prin-

ciples

of Aristotelian

hysics,

he

feels free o

explore

other

ossibilities,

ncluding

the

Earth's

otation.

learly

within he

radition

f thedebate

hat

we outlined

arlier,

he agreeswithTuisi, hus ounteringtolemy ndShirazi, ndarguesthat heques-

tion

of the

Earth's

motion annot

be

determined

y

observation.

ut unlike

Tiisi,

he

refuses o

settle he

matter

y appealing

to

Aristotelian

atural

hilosophy.

nstead

he states hat

it s not

established hat

what

has a

principle

f

rectilinear

nclination

is

prevented

rom

having]

ircular

motion."5'

e

then

nds

with

startling

onclu-

sion:

"Thus

nothing

alse

fidsid)

ollows

from

he

ssumption

f a

rotating arth].""5

Qtshji

also showed

thathe

was true

o

his

principles

n his

elementary

stronomy

work,

Risa-lah

ar

ilm-i

hay'a;

in

it,

he

took

the

highly

nusual

step

of

dispensing

with he

section

n natural

hilosophy

with

which

lmost

ll other imilar

reatises

began.5

51

QUshji,

harh

Tajrid (cit.

n.

24),

p. 195.

The

same

point s

made

byCopernicus

n

De

Revolu-

tionibus cit.

n.

45),

1.8.

52

Ibid.

Qtishjl's

osition,

ndthepossible

elation

f this slamic

debate

o

Copernicus,

s dealt

withmore

ully

n

my Tisl

andCopernicus"

cit.n.

44).

51

Thiswork

was

originally

n

Persian

nd,

given he vidence

f the xtantmanuscripts,

uite

popular.

t

was translated

y QUshj

himself

ntoArabic

nd

dedicated

o

Mehmet,

he

Conqueror

(Fatih)

f

Constantinople,

hence

twas

called

l-Risdla

al-Fathivva.

Cf.

Tofigh eidarzadeh,

The

Astronomical

orks

f All

Qiishj "

in

Turkish),

. A.

thesis,

Istanbul

niv.*

997), p.

24,

30-32,








FREEING ASTRONOMY FROM PHILOSOPHY 63

But n freeing imself rom ristotle,id

Qtshj

also free imself rom eeking

reality?n otherwords,nstead f being heprecursorf Copernicus,s he rather

the redecessorfOsiander,he utheran inister hose nonymousrefaceoDe

Revolutionibusroclaimed,[Lletnooneexpect nythingertainromstronomy"?

My tentativenswers that do not hink Ushji's ositions instrumentalistn the

same sense s Iji's (orOsiander's)54

Andthereason, n a way, s quite imple.ji

was a theologian, hereas

uishjl,

nhisheart fhearts, as a scientist,hosework

was ultimately wayto know nd understandod's creation. tshji makes his

clear

with is

remarkst

the ndof his discussion f premises. he astronomers'

modelsmay

e

calculatingevices hat annot e claimed s unique, utneverthe-

less they re,he tellsus,a source f wonder,ecause f their orrespondenceith

theobserved henomena.

e

continues,Whoever ontemplateshesituationf

shadows nthe urfacesf sundialswillbearwitness hat his s due to something

wondrousndwillpraise the stronomers]ith hemost audatoryraise." tshj

here

eems o echothewords

f

Jurjani,

ited

arlier,

n

which

he atterountered

Ij

by nsisting

hat

hroughstronomy e can beholdGod's subtlewisdom

nd

wondrousreation. Ushji, hough,

n

rejectinghe

iew

hat omehow e can

know

true eality,

s

attempting

o

present rathermore ophisticatedosition:

hat

he

correspondence

etween ur

human

onstructionsnd external

eality

s

itself

source f wonder.55

Ultimately,hen,

or

Jurjani,iIshji,

nd

many

therslamic

cientists,ji's

well-

meant nstrumentalist

ompromise

as

rejected.

s

would

lso occur n

Europe,

they eld hat ne couldglorifyod with cience; necouldnotglorifyod with

conventions.

IV. CONCLUSION

In

the

generation

r

two

following ushji,

cience n the slamic

ast continued

o

thrive.

everal

major

stronomical

orkswere

roduced y

two

ontemporaries

f

Copernicus,

Abd al-cAl

l-Birjandid.

A.D.

1525 or

1526)

and Shams l-Din l-

Khafri

fl.

A.D.

1525).

As we have

lready oted,

-Irjandli

ontinuedhedebate e-

gardinghe arth'smotionnd tronglyefendedheneed ouseboth aturalhilos-

ophy

nd

metaphysics

n

astronomy.

n

fact,

e

quotes

nd

directlyrgues gainst

thepassage

hat

have

uoted

rom

ushjL.56

n

developing

is

position,

irjandli

41; E.

Ihsanoklu

t l.,Osmanli

stronomi

iteratiiri

arihi,

vols. Istanbul:RCICA,1997),

ol.

1,

pp.

27-35;

and David

Pingree,

Indian

Reception

f

MuslimVersions

f Ptolemaic

stronomy,"

n

Tradition,

ransmission,

ransformation

cit.

n. 2), p.

474.

54

For comparison

f

ji

andOsiander,

ee

Sabra,

Science nd

Philosophy"

cit.

n. 2), pp.

38-9.

It

would e quite

nteresting

ocompare

he atermanifestations

f

jT's osition

nthe

slamic

chools

with

what

RobertWestman

as called

the Wittenberg

nterpretation"

f

Copernican

heory,

hich

allowed

hehypothesis

f Sun-centered

niverse

obestudied

n sixteenth-century

utheran

ircles

while tcondemnedny ttempto embracet as true r real.

55

Cf.

Albert instein,

deas

and Opinions

New

York:

Dell, 1973),

p.

285:

"The

very

act

hat he

totality

f our ense

experiences

s

such

hat

ymeans

f thinking

operations

ith oncepts,

nd

the

creation nd

use

of

definite

unctional

elations

etween hem,

ndthe

coordination

f sense

experiences

othese oncepts)

t an

be

put

n

order,

his act s one

whicheaves

s

n

we,

but

which

we shall

never

nderstand.

ne may ay

the ternal

mystery

f he

world s

its omprehensibility.'

t

is one ofthe

great

ealizations

f

mmanuel

ant hat he

postulation

fa

real xternal orld

would

be

senseless

withouthis omprehensibility."

56

Birjandi,

Sharhl-Tadhkira"

cit.

n.46),fol.

a-7b.

Curiously,

irjandi

oes

notmention

Ushj

by

namebut imply

efers

o him

s

"oneofthe minentcholars"ba'd

al-afiddil).








64 F. JAMILRAGEP

makes n nterestingnalysisfwhatmight ccur

f he arthwere otatingwhich

he himself ejects) nd

hypothesizesomethinguite

lose to Galileo'snotion f

"circular

nertia.?57

The point s not o claim hat opernicusor Galileo)readBirjandithoughhis

does not

now

seemas

far-fetcheds it might ncehave ppeared), utrather

o

indicatehe emarkable

ntensityf cholarshipnddiversityfopinion hatontin-

ued n

slamic

andswell nto he ixteenthenturyand n fact ven ater).

his s

a time hat ntil ecently as

seen

s a period haracterized

y he teep ecline, r

even

bsence

f

scientificork. incethevastmajority

ftextswrittenuringhis

lateperiod n thehistory

f slamic cience ave

yet o be studiedmuch esspub-

lished),many xciting

urprises ight ellbe anticipated.utwhetherr not

his

proves o be the ase,the

present iscussion fonesmall spect fthe ituation

f

science n slam hould lert s to the act hat ciencewasstill major orcewell

into heearlymodern

eriod nd can shed ight otonly n Islamic ntellectual

history

ut he

history

fEuropean cience

s well.Andonehopes hat art fthat

lightwillhelp

s

to

understandhe elationetweencience ndreligion

nboth he

Islamic

world nd n

Christendom.

Thatreligion layed

role n Islamic

cience-perhaps

ven

a

crucial

ole-

should

ot urprise

s. What

s

surprising,specially

o

a Westernudience

n the

twenty-firstentury,

s

that hat

olewas not

imply

ne of

opposition

ndobstruc-

tion ut

ather,

t east

ometimes,

f

constructive

ngagement.hope

willnot e

misunderstood

s

being

n

apologist

or

eligion

f make hehistorical

bservation

that eligiousttacksnaspects fscience ndphilosophynbothslam ndChris-

tendom

ed to

a

more ritical ttitude

oward cientificnd

philosophical

octrines

andthat his

ften esulted

n

some

nteresting

nd

even

productive

utcomes. his

has been

point

ncreasinglyccepted y

historians

f

European cience,

ndone

that

would

reatly elp

slamists,

ndthosewho

write

n

slam,

o understandhe

complexity

f

the nteraction

f

secular

nd

religiousnowledge

n slamic ivili-

zation.

57

Ibid., ol.37a.

See further y Tosl

and

Copernicus"

cit.

n.

44).








Appendix

Concerning

he upposed

Dependence

f

AstronomyponPhilosophy

By

'Alf

l-Qiishjf

[186]

It is stated hat he

positing

f

theorbs

n

[that] articular

ay depends

upon

false

principles

aken rom

hilosophy

falsafa},

for xample,

hedenialof

thevoli-

tional Omnipotent

nd the ack of possibility

f tearing nd

mending

f the orbs,

and that heydo not intensify or weakenin theirmotions, nd that heydo not

reverse irection,

urn, top,nor

undergo nychange

of state utrather

lwaysmove

with simplemotion

n

the

directionn

which

hey re going,

s wellas other

hys-

ical and theological

matters, ome

ofwhich

go against

theLaw

{sharc}

and some

of which

re notestablished nasmuch

s their roofs

re defective

madkhala}.

For

if

t

were notbased

uponthose

principles,

we could say

that hevolitional

Omnipo-

tentby

His will moves those orbs

in

the observed

order,

r we could say that

he

stars move

in

the

orb as fish

do in

water, peeding

up and

slowing

down,going

backward, topping

nd moving

forwardwithoutneed

for those many

orbs. But

by assuming he validity thubit} ofthoseprinciples,whattheyhave stated s an

affirmation

ithbat}

of a cause based upon

the existence

f an

effect;

ut this

will

notbe

valid unless

one knowsthecorrelation

musawwat}note

under he

ine:

"i.e.,

the

correlation

f

the

effect

o

the

cause"].

But this

s

not

known,

ince

there s no

necessary

connection];

or s there

demonstration

burhan}

of the

mpossibility

that

he observed

rregularities

re

forreasons

other

han he

ones

they

have

stated.

However,

here s nothing

o the above,

since it

stems

from

lack of

study

of

the

problems

nd

proofs

f

this

discipline.

Most

of

[its

principles]

re

suppositions

[{muqaddamat

hadsiyya}

=

(literally)

onjectural remises]

hat

he mind

caql},

uponobservinghe bove-mentionedrregularities,esolves oposit ccording oan

observed rder

nd

a reliance

upon geometrical

remises

hat

re not

open

to

even

a scintilla

f doubt.

For

example:

the

sighting

f the

full nd crescent

hapes

[of

the

Moon]

in

the

manner

n which

they

re observed

makes

it certain hat he

ight

f

the

Moon

is

derived

from he Sun

and that lunar

eclipse

occurs because of

the

interposition

f the

Earthbetween

heSun

and

Moon,

and

that

solar

eclipse

occurs

because

of

the

nterposition

f the

Moon between

he Sun and

the

eye,

this

despite

theassertion

f

the

validity

f

the volitional

Omnipotent

nd the

denial

Thisappendixsmy ranslationf Allal-QUshjl'sharh ajrfdl-caqd'idcit.n.24),p. 186 line

11)

through

.

187

line29);

part

f

this

assage

s cited

yBlrjand

n his "Sharh

l-Tadhkira"

cit.

n.

46),

fol.

a-7b,

nd

good

part

f

t s

quoted

y

Tahanawi

n his

Kashshdf

stildiha-t

l-funtincit.

n.

43),

vol.

1,pp.

48-9.

66








A

-

oL~

J-

I

L:~

I

J~

Joal+

j

A

.~~~~~-

s S

YJ

j

A;

p~l

Jkitl 2; JI

o

UR

j

D

?>9<y9eA

i

A~ ~ ~

A Y J~i

Y . Ioj

OA

sL

LtlA,

J1

~~~~~~~~~-lA

t LiLp

U

ipAlJ

sI S1Li 4.

w9>1 >1 <1 > JU1 tH

.. , . f W1 -

41 O11Jr

43JJS1UJI~~~~i~~lJ

JS~g1>914g








68

F.JAMILRAGEP

of those

above-mentioned

rinciples.

or the validity

f thevolitional

Omnipotent

and thedenial

of thoseprinciples

oes not

preclude

he situation eing

as stated;

t

most, hey

wouldallow

for ther ossibilities.

orexample:

on the ssumption

f

the

validity thubfit} f thevolitionalOmnipotent,t is conceivablethat hevolitional

Omnipotent

ould by

His will {irada}

darken heface

of the

Moon during

lunar

eclipse

without

he interposition

f

theEarth

and

likewiseduring

1187]

solar

eclipse

the

face of the

Sun

[would

darken]

without

he nterposition

f theMoon;

likewise,

he could

darken

nd ighten

heface of

the

Moon according

othe

observed

full

and crescent hapes.

Furthermore,n

the

assumption

f the possibility

f

the

irregularity

n the

motions s well as

theother

ircumstances

f

thecelestial

bodies

{falakiyyat},

t is possible

that one half

of each of

the luminaries

s luminous

whereas

the other s

dark.

The

luminaries

would

thenmove about

their

enters

n

such

a

way

that heir ark ides would

face us during

unar

ndsolar

eclipses,

either

completely,

hen they

re total,

r

partially

n

magnitude,

hen they renot total.

By

an analogous

argument,

he situation

f the

full and crescent

hapes

[can

be

explained].

Nevertheless,

espite heraising

fthe

previously

mentioned

ossibili-

ties {ihtimarlait},

e affirmnajzinau}

that he

situations

as stated,

amely hat

he

Moon

derives ts ight

rom he Sun and

that unar nd solar

eclipses

occur because

of the

nterposition

f the

Earth nd Moon. This

same

sort f

presumption

ihtimal}

is

made in ordinary

'divyya}

and

practical

tajribivya}

knowledge

'ulum}-in-

deed,

for all necessary

direct?]

knowledge

darflrivyydt}.

or we assertthat fter

leaving

house the pots

and pans

inside do

not turn

ntohuman cholars

who take

to nvestigatinghe ciencesoftheologyndgeometry,espite hefact hat hevoli-

tional

Omnipotent

might

make

t thus n

virtue f

His will.

But

[on

the otherhand],

on the

assumption

hat he

principle

mabda'} is

made

causal

{miimjab},

n unusual

circumstance

wad'

gharfb}

may

be realized

yatahaq-

qaqu}

from he

positions

f the

orbs;

according

o the

doctrine

f

the

proponents

f

causality,

hemanifestation

f that

nusual ccurrence

s

required y

the

dependency

of events

upon

the

positions

f

theorbs.

This and other

xamples

are embedded

n

the skepticism

shubah}

of

those

who condemn

necessary

knowledge.

The

upshot

s that

hat

which s stated

n the

science

of

astronomy

cilm

al-hay'a}

does notdepend upon physical {tabrcivya} nd theological ildhiyya} premises

{muqaddamdt}.

The

common

practice

by

authors

f

introducing

heir

ooks

with

them

s

by

way

of

following

he

philosophers;

his,

however,

s not

omething

eces-

sary,

nd t

s indeed

possible

to

establish

this

cience]

without

asing

t

upon

them.

For

of what

s stated

n

[this

cience]:

(1)

some

things

re

geometrical

remises,

whichare

not

open

to

doubt;

2)

others

re

suppositions

tmuqaddamct

adsiyya},

as

we have

stated;

3)

others

re

premises

etermined

y

{vahkumu

iha}

the

mind

{al-'aql}

in accordance

with

he

apprehension

al-akhdh} of

what

s most

suitable

and

appropriate.

hus

they

ay

that








A

.J1

?

c191

a.^

Ag

k

2

, JI yH

L?

t2J1

JuL1 i1 ? JL

SU >~ L? -~ J~

L-

>AjH1X

zA U1+

SISI

y~~~~Li

1

Ij I

J

YI Ii<; 1

f~ LA *JA

A+F O9K

I

Y

I

9

-

I

1;1 9LJW1

A

u Zj I j

S11~~~L

L,

BJI

1J

I~

B,

f1ltJX >ALl t

;

L;A

1

IlJ

A

L):

)

L;

I

AL

z

~

~?iS

J

I

I I

L

I

-j

W

L

?

>

l i

UA

ul

I

0L

rg

.g

j)S

f

S; X~~g

<Sl

LxJli

l;lL

I

LA

aSI

A~~~~~~~4

12 ka

-.J

LIl

s

o1s

M~~~~.-gL ka.,

Lr

L3

An A J?l

Yg1

ai

Jli > ;;1 + i e 4;2l Je ~g,t1~iLA 4

41,aJ,>








70

E

JAMIL

RAGEP

the convexity f the deferent ouches

the convexity f theparecliptic t a common

point, s is the case withthe concavities.They have no other eason {mustanad}

[for

his] xcept

hat t s more

proper

hat here

not

be

any

useless

part

n

theheav-

ens. Similarly hey ay that he Sun'sorb s above the orb of Venus and of Mercury,

since thebestarrangementnd order ictate hat hatwhich s fartherwayor having

a

larger

ircuit

has the slowestmotion

mong the planets;or that n the order

nd

arrangementhe Sun is in the middle-in the manner f thetassel of a necklace-

between

hosethat

each

thefour longations rom t, .e., the sextiles, uadratures,

trines, nd oppositions, ndthosewhose elongation s only he east, .e., the extile;

and

(4)

other

remises

hat

hey

tate re indefinite'ala- sabTl l-taraddud},

there

beingno

final etermination

al-jazm}.

Thus they ay that he rregularpeed

in

the

Sun's motion

s either ue to an eccentric r to an epicyclichypothesis ithout here

being a definitive ecisionfor ne or theother.

If one were to grant hat he establishingf the orbs

n

the

manner n whichthey

have

stated

was based on those falseprinciples,

his would

doubtless

be due to a

claim

by

the

practitioners

f this cience that herewas

no

possibility

ther han he

approach

we have stated.But

if

their laim

was

that t was possible

for

t

to be

by

this

pproach,

ven

though

t was

possible

that t could

be

by

other

pproaches,

ne

could not hen magine dependency.

t s more han ufficient

or hem

o

conceive

{takhavvalu-}

rom

mong

the

possible

approaches

the one

by

which

the circum-

stancesof

the

planets

with

heir

manifold

rregularities ay

be

put

n order n such

a

way

as to facilitate heir

etermination

f

the

positions

nd

conjunctions

f these

planetsfor nytimetheymightwish and so as to conformwithperceptionhiss}

and

sight

'iydn

,

this

n

a

way

that he ntellect nd

the

mind ind

wondrous

tatahay-

varu}.

Whoever

contemplates

he situation

f shadows

on the surfaces f sundials

will bear witness hat

his s due to

something

ondrous nd

will

praise

the

strono-

mers]

with

hemost

audatory raise.








~~ U

?J

A ~-Lz.wy

J

'.L<AO

~

(:

Jw

J,

-

AX1~

-W

LA1

JO9

5 1,

C ulW4 OS9j~

JJR.gUo) O 3~

&4{

lg

-l JA

ig

Yl~

-?

w

'.>- 4Q'

&4

S~lg

I

<)l

, J

'Ul

,

WLO4JI

1

4

wJ

r;- I

si

*

is 9

ii

D

*~

?

gX

Ji

>

'A >Kg

lA

si

ufs

~ ,_t,

4-,--,Q

J

'

91- 1j

(wT JU, ?

i

aL

U1 ~?' ?1n

OI

IgJLr

L

a)JJ

J

'

f. jamil ragep and alī al-qūshjī-freeing astronomy from philosophy an aspect of islamic influence...

Documents