Abu al-Barakat al-Baghdadi

Essentialism can be defined as a metaphysical theory according to which things have essential and accidental properties. In this paper, I will address Avicennian essentialism, that is, essentialism as we find it in Avicenna’s own writings and the writings of the immediate post-Avicennian philosophical tradition of the Islamic world. I will consider a number of primary sources, summarize the state of recent scholarship regarding Avicennian metaphysics of attributes, and I will draw comparisons between Avicennian essentialism and modern essentialism. As a result, I will show that Avicennians endorse two different types of essentialism: conceptualist essentialism and de re essentialism. Avicennian conceptualist essentialism only applies to kinds, while Avicennian de re essentialism only applies to particular individuals.

This article presents a comparative survey of Ibn Sina and Abu al-Barakat’s views on the problem of the origination of the soul and its transmigration (tanasukh) and contrasts their arguments and interpretations. The article identifies similarities and differences in the views of these two scholars, both of whom believed in and argued for the origination of the soul and rejected its transmigration. However, they differed in the way they defended their views and, to some extant, their differences are fundamental

Scholars have come to recognize the importance of classical Islamic philosophy both in its own right and in its preservation of and engagement with Greek philosophical ideas. At the same time, the period immediately following the so-called classical period has been considered a sort of dark age, in which Islamic thought entered a long period of decline. In this monumental new work, Frank Griffel seeks to overturn this conventional wisdom, arguing that what he calls the “post-classical” period has been unjustly maligned and neglected by previous generations of scholars.

The Formation of Post-Classical Philosophy in Islam is a comprehensive study of the far-reaching changes that led to a re-shaping of the philosophical discourse in Islam during the twelfth century. Earlier Western scholars thought that Islam’s engagement with the tradition of Greek philosophy ended during that century. More recent analyses suggest that Islamic thinkers instead integrated Greek thought into the genre of rationalist Muslim theology (kalām). Griffel argues that even this new view misses a key point. In addition to the integration of Greek ideas into kalām, Muslim theologians picked up the discourse of classical philosophy in Islam (falsafa) and began to produce books in the tradition of Plato, Aristotle, and Avicenna—a new and oft-misunderstood genre they called “ḥikma"—in which they left aside theological concerns. They wrote in both genres, kalām and ḥikma, and the same writers argued for opposing teachings on the nature of God, the world’s creation, and the afterlife depending on the genre in which they were writing. Griffel shows how careful attention to genre demonstrates both the coherence and ambiguity of this new philosophical approach.

A work of extraordinary breadth and depth, "The Formation of Post-Classical Philosophy in Islam" offers a detailed, insightful history of philosophy in Iraq, Iran, and Central Asia during the twelfth century. It will be essential reading for anyone interested in the history of philosophy or the history of Islam.

In the anonymous al-Nukat wa-l-fawāʾid, a summa of Avicennan philosophy written around 1200, a partisan of Avicenna accuses Faḫr al-Dīn al-Rāzī (d. 1210) of having come under the influence of the reprehensible Leader of the Jews, Abū l-Barakāt al-Baġdādī (d. c. 1165). The reasons for the anonymous author’s antipathy toward Abū l-Barakāt relate to the way Avicenna’s contribution to logic is both pillaged and pilloried in stretches of al-Kitāb al-muʿtabar. The claim that Abū l-Barakāt exercised direct influence over Faḫr al-Dīn is, at least in logic, unlikely to be true. Nonetheless, Abū l-Barakāt’s presentation and methods highlight significant changes in the methods of the later traditions of Arabic logic.

A survey of philosophy in the first half of the 6th/12th century that deals with al-Ghazali, al-Lawkari (d. after 1109), and Abu l-Barakat al-Baghdadi (d. c. 1165). I particularly focus on the relationship between Abu l-Barakat and al-Ghazali and present here at first the argument that Abu l-Barakat's philosophy is a reaction to al-Ghazali's critcism of Ibn Sina. In this paper I argue that Abu l-Barakat's method of "i'tibar" ("careful consideration") is developed as a conscious alternative to the demontrative method, whose application in metaphysics al-Ghazali rejects.

The current text expresses my reflections on Frank Griffel's recently published book "The Formation of Post-Classical Philosophy in Islam." As mentioned in the text, many intellectual aspects of philosophy became gradually integrated into the theological discourse among Muslim thinkers. Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī's contributions both in theology and philosophy (d. 1210) remark one of the most influential register of thought in the 6th/12th century.

If the philosophical discussion about the question whether the world existed from all eternity or was created in time were a story, it would start with some exegetical issues in Plato, introduce the Unmoved Mover of Aristotle, continue with some Neoplatonic ingenuity at the hands of Proclus, and end with even more ingenuity from Philoponus. That story would, then, have become so famous that it was worth translating into Arabic in a revised version by al-Kindī, to which Avicenna would write a sequel and al-Ġazālī the finale. Today, this trilogy would predominantly be sold with an elaborate, even if somewhat sterile, afterword by Averroes, and be celebrated as an epic classic, being reissued again and again in ever cheaper paperbacks.

The story, however, would also have created a spin-off which only recently would have garnered some fame. This spin-off would introduce many new characters – among them Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Karīm al-Šahrastānī (d. 548/1153) and Abū l-Barakāt al-Baġdādī (d. 560/1164-5) – and continue the story after al-Ġazālī, with plenty of recurring elements but also with fresh material. Moreover, it would unfold in a new context: the philosophical milieu of the Islamic East, focusing in the first instalments on twelfth-century Baġdād, the capital city of the ʿAbbāsid caliphate and one of the most vibrant intellectual centres of the Selğūk empire.

Both al-Šahrastānī and Abū l-Barakāt were thoroughly familiar with the philosophy of Avicenna. Indeed, they are notoriously known as two of his fiercest critics. They belonged to the intellectual elite in the philosophical milieu of Baġdād in the early twelfth century, each composing works in which they provided their own detailed discussion of God, the world, priority, relation, and eternity; yet, although drawing on the same materials and investigating the same question, they offered solutions entirely at odds with one another.

In this paper, I shall investigate their positions, their arguments, and their sources regarding the question of the eternity of the world and the nature of God's priority to His creation.

Although the question of the authorship of the ‘Uyūn attributed to al-Fārābī has yet to be studied, in Western academia in particular, Western scholarship on this matter usually assumes that ‘Uyūn al-masāil does not belong to al-Fārābī. On the other hand, Turkish scholarship regularly and frequently refers to ‘Uyūn as a work by al-Fārābī, particularly in studies of his metaphysical doctrines. This article aims to explore the question of al-Fārābī’s authorship of this book through a three-phase analysis. First, I will examine the classical bio-bibliographical works that refer to the ‘Uyūn, and then critically review the modern literature on the ‘Uyūn in Turkish and Western languages. Secondly, I will analyze the ‘Uyūn’s content, focusing on seven contested questions, and compare them with the doctrines of al-Fārābī’s authentic works, thus demonstrating the inconsistencies between the ‘Uyūn and other works. Finally, I present my own evaluation of the question of the ‘Uyūn’s authorship by also discussing the manuscripts.

Il fenomeno geopolitico dello Stato Islamico ha radicalmente modificato gli assetti geopolitici dell’area mediorientale. Esperti, parlano della fine del “periodo Sykes-Pikot”, ovvero il periodo successivo alla prima guerra mondiale, caratterizzato da una spartizione del Medioriente in zone di influenza. Parlare di confini sovrani e di attori stabili nel complesso scenario scaturito a seguito delle primavere arabe non rispecchierebbe, a dire di molti, la situazione corrente.
Le milizie curde dei Peshmerga e dell’YPG (People’s protection Units) sono tra forze militari che più hanno combattuto sul campo i soldati dello Stato Islamico, subendo anche forzi sconfitte e perdite, soprattutto nella prima fase del conflitto. Il ruolo di questi assetti paramilitari è così importante che la Casa Bianca ne ha recentemente formalizzato il proprio appoggio in termini economici e d’equipaggiamento.

The theory of essential definitions is a fundamental anti-sceptic element of the Aristotelian-Avicennian epistemology. In this theory, when we distinguish the genus and the specific differentia of a given essence we thereby acquire a scientific understanding of it. The aim of this article is to analyse systematically the sceptical reasons, arguments and conclusions against real definitions of three major authorities of twelfth-century Arabic philosophy: Faḫr al-Dīn al-Razī, Šihab al-Dīn al-Suhrawardī and Abu l-Barak at al-Baġdadī. I focus on showing how their refutation of our capacity to provide essential definitions of things is rooted in their semantic theory: we only know things under certain descriptions which are identical to the meanings of the words that we use to refer to them, yet these descriptions do not capture the essences of things in themselves. The best result one can achieve with Aristotelian-Avicennian scientific definitions is a "nominal definition". With this, Razī, Suhrawardī and Abu l-Barakat will put some serious epistemic limitations on our capacity to attain scientific knowledge of things, at least as Aristotle and Avicenna would have it.

In Doubts on Avicenna, Ayman Shihadeh brings to light an important new source, which marks a key moment of transition in twelfth-century Arabic philosophy. Sharaf al-Dīn al-Masʿūdī’s al-Mabāḥith wa-l-Shukūk ʿalā l-Ishārāt (Investigations and Objections on the Pointers) offers major insight into the dialectic between the two traditions of Avicennan philosophy and rational theology, particularly Ashʿarism, which by the end of the century culminates in the systematic philosophical theology of Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī. Inaugurating the long and distinguished commentarial tradition on Avicenna’s Ishārāt (Pointers), al-Masʿūdī’s Shukūk uniquely consists of aporias on selected passages, as opposed to exegesis. This monograph provides an overview and the first critical edition of the text, and in-depth case studies of metaphysical aporias and their Avicennan background.

Fate, as a religious concept, is a reference to nondimensional relation between God who has knowledge, will, and power and human who has the same attributes. In other words, it is a religious/intellectual origin of how capable human beings are or how capable they see themselves are. Because the primary field of interest both in philosophy and religion is God and human, the human freedom did not stay only within the religious limits. In fact, this problem attracted both believers’ and thinkers’ attention. Fate, in the context of Islamic thought, has primarily been a problem in Islamic theology (Kalām). With regards to Islamic philosophy, the problem owes to Avicenna, who committed to paper distinct treatises about “al-qadar”, its being a special interest in that field. But the problem has been able to find the relevancy and comprehensiveness it deserves in Abū al-Barakāt al-Baghdādīs writings. In this article, we will examine the conception of predestination of this independent philosopher. Having examined the religious and philosophical literature for many years, Abū al-Barakāt, ultimately reached acompletely authentic understanding of fate whose grounds are located in religious and philosophical sources.

Dinî bir kavram olarak kader, bilgi, irade ve güç sahibi Tanrı ile yine aynı sıfatlara sahip insanın boyutları müphem ilişkisine bir atıftır. Bir başka deyişle, insanın ne kadar muktedir olduğunun veya kendini ne kadar muktedir gördüğünün inançsal/düşünsel kökenidir. Ne var ki Tanrı ve insan, hem felsefenin hem dinin temel ilgi alanı olduğundan, insan özgürlüğü konusu sadece dinî sınırlar içerisinde kalmamış; hem dindarın hem düşünürün ilgisini çekmiştir. Kader, İslâm düşüncesi bağlamında, öncelikle kelâm ilminin bir problemi olmuştur. İslâm felsefesinde özel bir ilgi alanı olmayı ise bu konuda müstakil risaleler yazan İbn Sînâ’ya borçludur. Fakat felsefi anlamda hak ettiği ilgiyi ve kapsamlılığı, ancak Ebû’l-Berakât el-Bağdâdî’nin kaleminde bulabilmiştir. Makalemizde de bu bağımsız filozofunun kader anlayışı incelenecektir. Dinî ve felsefi literatürü uzun yıllar boyunca inceleyen Ebû’l-Berakât, nihai olarak, dayanakları dinî ve felsefi kaynaklarda yer alan özgün bir kader anlayışına ulaşmıştır.

Aristotle is considered to be the founding father of metaphysics. He specified the subject and scope of this
science and used the names “first philosophy (prote philosophia)”, “theology” and wisdom (sophia) for it.
However, there have been some changes both in the scope and naming of this science after his time. Although it is generally accepted that the subject of metaphysics is “being qua being,” there has been a confusion about the relationship between metaphysics and theology. Philosophers such as al-Fārābī and Avicenna
directly studied this issue to eliminate such confusions. Different names such as first philosophy, after the
physics, al-‘ilm al-ilāhī and al-ilāhiyyāt have always been used to refer to it. This study discusses why the
science of metaphysics is named in different ways, mainly based on the evaluations of Abū al-Barakāt alBaghdādī. It also questions if there is a relationship between different names and the scope of metaphysics
and the method of analysis it uses? Do different names for the same scholarly area refer to the same science
in terms of the subjects, areas of study and problems addressed, or does each name refer to different content
than others? To achieve its intended aims, it also refers to the epistemology of Abū al-Barakāt al-Baghdādī.

Müslümanların düşünce dünyası zengin bir tartışma zemininde yeni irtifalara doğru ilerlemeye devam ederken, mümbit bir döneme tanıklık eden Ebü'l-Berekât el-Bağdâdî, yahudilerin ve müslümanların düşünce birikimiyle birlikte, Yunan felsefesine inceliklerine de vâkıftı ve bu ona bütün düşünce sistemleri arasında söz söylemesi için büyük bir imkân sunuyordu. Bu imkânı; felsefî yapıyı, şahsî tefekkür ve sezginin yardımıyla  değişim çizgisine götürmek için kullanan Bağdâdî, Meşşâî felsefeyi, kelâma ve Kur'an'ın Allah anlayışına yaklaştırmış ve bu bağlamda, bir din-felsefe uzlaşımı örneği sergilemiştir.
Elinizdeki kitap, Ebü'l-Berekât el-Bağdâdî'nin bu düzlemde inşâ olunan felsefesinde Tanrı kavramının yerini ele alarak, öncelikle Tanrı'nın varlığının ispatı, sonrasında Tanrı'nın sıfatları ve isimleri bağlamında Bağdâdî'nin düşüncesini detaylandırıyor ve okuyucuya bütünlüklü bir izah sunuyor.

The Islamic State (IS) emerged forcefully as one of the most publicized and publicly captivating global phenomenon of a post 9/11 international order. After the declaration of the Caliphate in 2014, a coalition of more than 50 countries assembled to employ their war efforts against a rapidly advancing Islamic State. The Caliphate was stopped at the gates of the Iranian backed Baghdad and in the ruins of Assadist Palmyra, it is now facing an overpowering alliance and is pushed back from Turkey to Fallujah. Although its military prowess is in decline, its ideological appeal remains firm, terrorist attacks from Orlando to Samarra bear credence to it. Diverging from the common path of taking the ‘West’ as the main adversary of the Islamic State, this thesis argues in favor of a shift of attention towards the Shia-Nexus in IS’ discursive strategy. This thesis is relying primarily on the genealogical approach of Foucault which is being supplemented by theoretical insights of Carl Schmitt and his concept of the political. It is shown subsequently that the Shia-Iranian-Nexus in its fight against the Islamic State, is embedded in a strong binary discourse. Upon capitalizing on this discourse, IS draws legitimacy by constructing the Shia-Nexus as the principal enemy. The discursive tactics it employs are unearthed by a genealogical analysis. What this thesis concludes is thus that there is a significant complicity between the discursive construction of the Shia-enemy and the governmental rationality as being imperative for the survival of IS’ political project.

In this article I examine the work entitled Risāla fī sabab ẓuhūr al-kawākib laylan wa khafāʾihā nahāran, which aims to explain why the stars only appear at night. I resolve some uncertainties about the title and authorship of the treatise in light of its manuscript copies and relevant biographical and historical sources. In addition, I determine the time period it was likely composed and suggest that Abū al-Barakāt al-Baghdādī was its author. Analyzing the content of the treatise, I show that al-Baghdādī concluded that the reason for the disappearance of the stars during the day was that the strength of the sunlight outshone the light of the stars. Finally, I present a critical edition of the text as well as its Turkish translation.
أبو البركات البغدادي، رسالة في سبب ظهور الكواكب ليلا وخفائها نهارا

Metafizik ilminin kurucusu olarak Aristoteles kabul edilir. Aristoteles bu ilmin konusunu ve inceleme alanlarını belirlemiş ve bu ilme yönelik ilk felsefe (prote philosophia), teoloji ve hikmet (sophia) gibi isimleri
kullanmıştır. Ancak sonraki dönemde bu ilmin hem konusu hem de isimlendirilmesi hakkında değişiklikler
meydana geldi. Metafiziğin konusunun “varolması itibariyle varolan” olduğu genel kabul görmekle birlikte,
bu ilmin konusuyla teoloji arasındaki ilişki hakkında filozofların zihninde bir karışıklık olduğu da
görülmektedir. Fârâbî ve İbn Sînâ gibi filozoflar bu karışıklıkları gidermek amacıyla doğrudan bu konuyu ele
alarak incelediler. Bu ilme yönelik farklı isimlendirmeler de İslam felsefesi içerisinde hep var oldu. Metafizik
ilmi için ilk felsefe denildiği gibi fizikötesi, el-ilmü’l-ilâhî ve el-ilâhiyyât ilmi gibi farklı isimlendirmeler de hep
kullanıldı. Bu çalışmada metafizik ilminin niçin farklı şekillerde isimlendirildiği konusu Ebü’l-Berekât elBağdâdî’nin değerlendirmeleri üzerinden ele alınacaktır. Bu farklı isimlendirmelerle metafizik ilminin konusu ve inceleme yöntemi arasındaki bir ilişkinin olup olmadığı sorgulanacaktır. Aynı ilme yönelik bu farklı
isimlendirmeler konu, inceleme alanı ve sorunları itibariyle aynı ilme mi gönderme yapmaktadır, yoksa bu
her bir isimlendirme diğerinden daha farklı bir içeriğe mi sahiptir? Bu çalışmada ayrıca amacı
gerçekleştirmek için de ihtiyaç duyulduğu kadarıyla Ebü’l-Berekât’ın bilgi felsefesine değinilecektir.

Aristoteles De Anima (Nefs Üzerine) adlı eserinde nefsi bitkisel, hayvani ve insani olarak üç türe ayırır. Bu tasnif aynıyla İslam dünyasına aktarılmış ve orada da bu tasnife sadık kalınmıştır. Bununla birlikte nefse dair ortaya konulan teoriler Aristoteles’in teorisinden oldukça farklılaşmıştır. Bu teori, İslam Felsefesi içerisinde sadece zenginleştirilmekle kalmayıp hem felsefe ve kelam hem de tasavvufi düşüncede bilgi, nübüvvet ve ahiret gibi konuların işlenmesinde vaz geçilmez bir müracaat noktası haline gelmiştir. İbn Sînâ, nefis konusuna kendinden önceki Müslüman Meşşâîlerden çok daha fazla bir önem verdi. O, nefislerin ilk var olduklarında bireysel bir mahiyete sahip olduklarını kabul etmemiş; aksine nefislerin ilk aşamada bitkisel, hayvani veya insani olmak üzere türsel bir mahiyete sahip olduklarını benimsemiştir. Ancak bu durumda nefislerin bireysel kimliklerini nasıl kazandıkları bir sorun olarak karşımıza çıkmaktadır. Bu çalışmada nefislerin bireysel kimliklerini nasıl kazandıkları sorusunu hem İbn Sînâ’nın hem de ondan ciddi ölçüde farklılaşan Ebü’l-Berekât el-Bağdâdî’nin görüşleri doğrultusunda inceleyeme çalıştım. İbn Sînâ’nın nefislerin türsel mahiyet bakımından ortaklığını kabul ederken Ebü’l-Berekât’ın bunu reddetmesinin neden ve sonuçları üzerinde durdum.

In this paper I present a bibliography of Abū’l-Barakāt al-Bağdādī (d. 547/1152), who is one of the leading figures in the history of Islamic Philosophy. I initially give some brief information about his scientific personality, and explain the method of our examination. In this study, I make a list of the manuscripts of al-Bağdādī’s works, critical editions and translation of them, and classical and modern books giving information about the life and works of the philosopher, and the published books, sections, papers and encyclopedia papers about him. The study is completed with the evaluation and conclusion section. One of the key findings of our examination is that the number of the studies about al-Bağdādī is rapidly increased in recent years and they are focused on his physical and metaphysical theories, and the criticism in his philosophy. However, neither some works of the philosopher have been published nor the huge part of the issues in his thought have been examined yet. However, it appears that some of the works of the philosopher have not yet been published, and a considerable portion of the issues in his thought have not yet been examined. In addition, al-Bağdādī’s intellectual sources and influences await researchers’ interest.

Bu makalede, İslâm felsefesi tarihinin önemli temsilcilerinden birisi olan Ebû’l-Berakât el-Bağdâdî (ö. 547/1152) üzerine yapılan akademik çalışmalar hakkında bir kaynakça oluşturulmuştur. Çalışmada, öncelikle Bağdâdî’nin ilmî kişiliği hakkında bilgi verilmiş, ardından kaynakçanın yöntemi açıklanmıştır. Bunları takiben, Bağdâdî’nin kendi eserlerinin yazmaları, neşirleri ve çevirileri; filozofun hayatı ve eserleri hakkında bilgi veren klasik ve muasır kaynaklar; onun hakkında yayımlanmış kitap, kitap bölümü, makale ve ansiklopedi maddesi, bildiri düzeyinde eserler listelenmiştir. Çalışma, değerlendirme ve sonuç bölümü ile tamamlanmıştır. Bağdâdî hakkında yapılan çalışmaların son zamanlarda hız kazandığı ve onun fizik, metafizik teorileri ile felsefesindeki eleştirelliğe odaklanmış olduğu çalışmanın temel bulguları arasındadır. Bununla birlikte, filozofun bazı eserlerinin henüz neşredilmediği ve onun düşünce dünyasındaki meselelerin önemli bir kısmının henüz incelenmediği görülmektedir. Yine, Bağdâdî’nin fikrî kaynakları ve etkileri araştırmacıların ilgisini beklemektedir.

Bu çalışma, Ebū’l-Berakāt el-Baġdādī’ye (ö.547/1152) ait, usanç duygusunun oluşum nedenlerini açıklamayı konu edinen, Risāle fī Māhiyyeti’l-Melāl (Usancın Mahiyeti Hakkında Risale) adlı risaleye dair bir inceleme, risalenin tahkiki ve Türkçe tercümesini içermektedir. İnceleme kısmında, öncelikle, söz konusu risalenin el-Baġdādī’ye aidiyeti, çeşitli delillerle gösterilmekte ve ayrıca risalenin, Büyük Selçuklu Devleti’ne tâbi olarak Yezd’de hüküm süren emir II. Gerşāsb Ferāmerz b. ʿAlī’nin (hs.488-546 sonrası/1095-1151 sonrası) talebiyle kaleme alındığı ve büyük ihtimalle 517-537/1123-1143 yılları arasında telif edildiği tespit edilmektedir. Risalenin mevcut elyazmalarına dair bilgiler verilmekte ve metnin içeriğine yönelik açıklamalar yapılmaktadır. Risale metninin bu çalışmayla ilk defa sunulan tenkidli tahkiki, mevcut dört elyazmasına dayanarak gerçekleştirilmiştir. Makalenin sonunda risalenin Türkçe tercümesi yer almaktadır.

This article is composed of an original study about a treatise in Arabic attributed to Abū al-Barakāt al-Baghdādī (d.547/1152), the critical edition of the work, and its translation in Turkish. The treatise is entitled Risāla fī Māhiyyat al-Malāl (Treatise on the Essence of Ennui), which aims to explain the nature of and reasons for feeling ennui. This study first examines and shows the authenticity of the epistle’s attribution to Abū al-Barakāt al-Baghdādī through a variety of evidence, and then shows that treatise was composed upon a request by Gārshāsb II Farāmarz b. ʿAlī (r.488–post 546/1095–post 1151), a ruler of a vassal state in Yazd under the Great Seljuq Empire. It is also shown that the treatise was probably written in a period between 517-537/1123-1143. Providing information about the extant manuscripts of the treatise accompanied by an analysis of its content, this study presents, in the second part, the first critical edition of the text based on these manuscripts, and finally offers a Turkish translation of the text.
أبو البركات البغدادي، رسالة في ماهية الملال

The central cosmogonic principle in Ibn Sīnā’s philosophy is the elegant rule that “from what is essentially one, only one thing may proceed.” Paradigmatically, this “Rule of One” describes the unique circumstances that regulate the atemporal ‘creation’ of the first creature, which Ibn Sīnā calls the First Intellect. It is only by the mediation of this single entity that God can be said to be the origin of multiplicity without compromising His transcendence and oneness. This theory became immediately controversial in the post-Avicennian phase of Islamic philosophy and theology. Modern studies on this issue tend to focus on the challenge the Rule of One posed on kalām creationism and divine voluntarism. However, some of the most compelling criticism of the Rule to emerge during this period seem to regard it not only as a cosmogonic principle; rather they hold Rule of One as a general causal principle that permeates the entirety of Ibn Sīnā’s cosmic system, including the lower strata of the physical world. Accordingly, their critique touched on broader issues related to metaphysics and natural sciences. One of the first thinkers to propose this interpretation is the Jewish philosopher Abū al-Barakāt al-Baghdadī (d. 1165). He initiated a line of inquiry that became highly influential during the period, especially for the Sunnī polymath and theologian Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī (d. 1209). They argue that the Rule is operative in Ibn Sīnā’s account of the origination and inner structure of the human soul, i.e., in his theory of faculty differentiation, the soul’s governance of the body, and its transcendental origin in the Active Intellect. This paper will focus on this psychological dimension of the critique of the Rule of One and argue that it forms the starting point of Abū al-Barakāt and al-Rāzī’s reasoning for alternative models of the cosmic system, and ultimately of the doctrine of Divine Oneness itself.

Bin Laden was a legacy target of self-admitted guilt, tho' I think he was more an emeritus strategist and symbol at the time of his being taken out near the FRONT YARD of the Pakistani Military Academy! Baghdadi was an ongoing threat (as the other-Libs would call Trump an ongoing crime...). My implication was by the rationale you have presented: Trump was more interested in the GREATER benefit (NOT!) it would do for the general safety and welfare of the region and with NO political benefit for him (HA!), the Neo-isolationist/no more foreign involvements for the any of the wasteful incidental deaths and casualties (for his opportunistic and transactionally-minded self).

I will discuss how the emerging field of Islamicate occultism can contribute to the study of Islamic philosophy. Current scholarship has developed a detailed appreciation for the complex symbiosis between the disciplines of kalām, falsafa, and the natural sciences (such as astronomy and medicine), especially during the post-Avicennian period. In relation to these disciplines, the seemingly motley collection of “occult” sciences stands awkwardly out of place. However, during this period, we find many philosophers and theologians who engaged seriously with astral magic, letter magic, judicial astrology and other divinatory techniques. How should we regard this phenomenon? Based on the works of Abū al-Barakāt al-Baghdādī (d. 1165) and Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī (d. 1209), I will highlight one model of this engagement, in which “occult” knowledge—in their case the astrological cosmology of the Harranian Sabians—was integrated into philosophical discourse through the need of providing a comprehensive theory of prophecy, on the one hand, and a unified account of the cosmic system that respects both theological and naturalistic exigences, on the other. I propose that the study of these two philosophical authorities would be incomplete if it did not address this largely neglected aspect of their thought.

All technicalities are treated in this Report, unless of course he comes round again, but it won't change the outcome. Egregors are raising up one and taking down another flip, flop. Head wounds are nasty but autopsy can be faked to reface the entry from below to above. Some say Banquo had the goods on those paradise islands of the Chesapeake, others, the castles of Brussels, the City of London and had to be removed as much as Marlowe who had the goods on Walsingham. How long do we suffer mishaps of the past? Can't a decent murder get some rest? Twenty trenched gashes on his head is what Macbeth hears. Fleance is on the run and might come back to haunt. We need some method to promote the state, that's why this second banquet we attend.