Islamic Studies (Islamabad) 16:3 (1977)

PHILOSOPHICAL AND RELIGIOUS VIEWS OF

MUHAMMAD IBN ZAKARIYYA AL-RKZf

A.S. BAZMEE ANSARl

In our article published in the autumn 1976 issue of this journal we

discussed briefly the contribution of ~ J h a m m a dibn Zakariyyi ibn Yahyii
d-Wzi to the science of medicine with particular reference to his work
al-Judari wa'l Hisba on measles and small-pox and his magnum opus, al-
&iwififi'lTibb. We also outlined the universal character of his scholar-
ship and briefly alluded to those disciplines and sciences in which he left
a number of works. The list of his works as given by Jamil al-Din Abii'l
Wasan 'Ali ibn Yiisuf al-Qifti in his Ta'rikh al-Hukaincf'(cd. G. Lippert,
Leipzig 132011903) covers 133 titles and still is neither exhaustive nor
complete. A natural philosopher, an al-chemist and a practising physician
his compositions'include such disparate titles as Riscila fi Tadbir al-MrS'
wa'l-Thalaj, Riscila fi Ghuriib al-Shams wa'l Kawcikib, Risrfla fi'l 'Atash
wa Ziyadat al-Hardra li dhdika; Kittib Af 'ima al-Mardti; Kittib fi Qeidam
al-Ajstlm wa Hudiithihc; Riscila jl 'Zlal al-Mushkila; Kitcib fi 1 ' Awhm
wa'l garakat wa'l 'Ishq. This will give an idea of his multi-faceted and
versatile genius and his academic pursuits. The present is an age of
specialization but the time of al-Rki was an age of specialization-cum-
generalization. Imagine a medical man, an al-chemist writing a book
like Kittib r n Yu#a
~ min 'Uyib al-Awliyci', or Kitcib fi wujiib aEAd'iyya.
But al-R5zi did so. In this article we briefly propose to discuss and
examine his religious and metaphysical views.

According to Ibn AbI U~aybi'a,al-Rftzi was fond of studying rational

sciences from a very young age, even before he took up medicine (cf.
al-Qifti, Ta'rikh al-gukmnii', p. 178). He studied philosophy with Abii
Zayd al-BalkhI, counted by Shahraziiri among the wise men (@&a-')
of I s l h . Al-Balkhi partly annotated the Arabic translation of Aristotle's
Kit& al-Samti' wa'l 'Alum.

© Dr Muhammad Hamidullah Library, IIU, Islamabad. http://iri.iiu.edu.pk/

158 A.S. BAZMEE ANSARI

According to al-Qift?, al-R5zi was deadly opposed to Aristotle

as against the general trend of his times. He says:
-
(L 1 &-d&Jl e$) eb AK &2 +IJ d
il!=
&.>I ,js dlPiYl dK
On account of a weak argument he was opposed to Aristotle).
He, therefore, turned to the natural philosophy as propounded by
Pythagoras and Thales of Miletus, who had preceded Aristotle. It must
be remembered that in the pre-Aristotelian era, almost a century back,
natural philosophy was very much in vogue in Greece, although this ancient
system could not take firm roots in Greek culture. However, a number of
authors wrote a number of books on the philosophy of Pythagoras and in
support of the natural philosophy as propounded by the ancients and al-
RBzi was one of them. (cf, Ta'rikh al-Hukamii', p. 171).

AI-RM believed in the progress of scientific and philosophical

knowledge. He claims to have advanced beyond most of the ancient
philosophers and even thinks himself superior to Aristotle and Plato but
feels close to Socrates.
As already stated, al-RBzi was a great admirer of the naturalphi-
losophy of antiquity whose founder was Thales who denied the existence
of God, the Creator, but firmly believed in the eternity of the world. The
followers of Thales are, therefore, known as the Ddrites and Zanidiq
(heretics).
The second school of natural philosophers dealt with and debated
the activity and passivity of matter, and their reactions and results. They,
at the same time, believed in the existence of God and his attributes of
Omnipotence, Omniscience, Will and Power from the wonderful mani-
festations they observed in the composition, properties and anatomy of
animals (hayiw&zcit),plants (nabdtEt) and the limbs of the body (al-u'di').
This sect was born in HarrBn and Basra. They confined their elementary
discourses to Matter and Perception. They later on discussed the Soul,
Spirit and Divine Power, for human curiosity and piety would fain to
read the secrets of Deity in the book of His Creation.
In fact this was a popular philosophy which found acceptance
with the Shi'ites and other sects of the Muslims chiefly through the instm-
mentality of the Sabeans of HarrBn and in due course impressed not only
court circles, but also a large body of educated and half-educated people.
This system of philosophy is mainly derived from the works of Euclid
 PHILOSOPHICAL AND RELIGIOUS VIEWS OF RAZI 159
and Ptolemy, Hippocrates and Galen, partly from Aristotle's and in addi-
tion an abundant Neo-Platonic literature.
Stray portions of it were taken from the writings of the "Logician"-
Aristotle - e.g. from his "Meteorology", from the work "On the Universe"
(+Wl~rWlu s ) , which has been attributed to him, from the "Book of
Animals" ( 3 l d u s ) , from the "Psychology" ( 4 1 u u ) and so on;
but its general character was determined by Pythagorean - Platonic teach-
ing, by Stoics, and by subsequent astrologers and alchemists.

The assumption by the natural philosophers of the eternity of the

world (+ @), and of an uncreated matter in motion from all eternity, -
was readily combined with Astronomy. They believed that if the move-
ment of the Heavens is eternal, so too are, no doubt, the changes which
take place on earth. All the kingdoms of nature then, being eternal, the
race of man is eternal also, wheeling round and round in an orbit of its
own. There is, therefore, nothing new in the world: the views and ideas
of men repeat themsevles like everything else. All that can possibly be
done, maintained or known, has already been and will again be (cf. T.
de Boer, The History of Philosophy in Islam, London, 1933, p. 76).,

This natural philosophy actually stood for Philosophy with most

of the Muslim Scholars of the 9th century, as contrasted with theological
dialectic, and was styled Pythagorean. It lasted into the tenth century
when its most important representative was al-RBzi (T. de Boer, op. cit.
p. 77). He was averse to dialectic and was only acquainted with Logic
as far as the categorical figures of First Analytics (JJYI &L J Lil).

"Al-Riizi's metaphysics start from old doctrines, which his contem-

poraries ascribed to Anaxagoras, Empedocles, Mlini and others," observes
Professor T. de Boer. At the apex of his system stand five co-eternal
principles - the Creator, the Universal Soul, the First or Primeval Matter,
Absolute Space (& 315;) and Absolute Time (&a 31.j) or Eternal Dura-
tion (+I). As has already been said the Natural Philosophers recognised
God as the Creator, and the First Cause (J&YI WI). Notwithstanding
the eternity of his five principles al-RBzi speaks of a Creator and even
gives a story of Creation. At the same time following Thales he believed
in the eternity of the Universe and the antiquity of Matter, as opposed to
Form. After recounting his arguments on the pre-existence of Matter
NB$ir-i Khusraw, the IsmB'Tli philosopher, has refuted them in great detail.
160 A.S. BAZMEE ANSARI

It is, however, clear that al-Rb5 did not deny the existence of God, al-
though, like the Sabeans of Harrin whom Louis Massignon, followed by
P. Kraus, thinks are "fictitious persons", he believed in the eternity of Soul
Matter, Absolute Space and Absolute Time. Therefore his system was,
opposed to Islam and Materialism both. De Boer remarks:
I
Razi had to maintain a po!emical attitude in two directions. On
the one side he impugned the Muslim Unity of God, which could
not bear to be associated with any eternal soul, matter: space or
time; and on the other side he attacked the Dahrite System, which
does not acknowledge any Creator of the world. The adherents
of the Dahr are represented as Materialists, Sensualists, Atheists,
Believers in the transmigration of souls, and so on. The Dahrites
had no need to trace all that exists to a principle which was of spiri-
tual essence and creative efficiency. On the other hand Muslim
philosophy did stand in need of such a principle, if it should only
conform in some degree to the teaching of the faith. Natural
Philosophy was not suited for the furtherance of his object, as it
showed more interest in the manifold and often contrary operations
of Nature than in the One Cause of all. (cf. de Boer, op. cit., p. 80).

A fuller discussion of his ideas on Time, Space, Duration (+I),

Eternity of the Universe etc. is given in the next few pages. His theory on
Time wzs refuted especially by Abl'l Qisim aEBalkhi (d. 319/931), the
chief of the Mu'tazila of Baghdiid and a contemporary of al-RBzi. He
also criticized and refuted al-Razi's book on 'Ilm aI-IlZhi.
We may now proceed to give a brief account of the Five Etemals
which chiefly characterize the philosophy of al-RBd. Out of these Five
Etemals two are living and acting: God, and soul; one is passive and not
living; matter from which all bodies are made; and two are neither living
and acting, nor passive; vacuum and duration.
God's wisdom is perfect. Life flows from Him as He creates every-
thing and is incapable of nothing. Nothing can be contrary to His Will.
While He knows all things perfectly well, the soul knows only what it ex-
periences and not what is either hidden from it or not accessible to it.
God ordinarily has not endowed human beings with the knowledge of
the future or the Unseen. Nevertheless His Power is immense and He
can endow anyone, especially His chosen Servants, the Prophets, with
such knowledge.
 PHILOSOPHICAL AND RELIGIOUS VIEWS OF RAZI 161
AI-Rgzi maintains that God did not create the world either out of
necessity or wilfully. In fact it was another eternal, the sbul, which deter-
mined the Creator to do so, for he wanted to aid the soul vis-a-vis matter,
another eternal, which was rebe!lious to forms. It was precisely to accom-
modate the soul that the world was created with strong forms wherein
the soul could find corporeal pleasures. "God then created man and from
the substance of His Divinity He created the intelligence of man to awaken
the soul and to show to it that this world is not its real world". (cf.
'Abd al-Rahmiin al-Badawi in A History of Muslim Philosophy. Wiesbaden
1963, i :443).

AI-Rizi thinks that the acquisition of philosophy is a pre-requisite

for man to attain the real world. Because, according to him, souls remain
dormant in this world till they are awakened and quickened by philosophy
to the mystery and directed towards the real world.

Of matter he says it is composed of atoms and each atom has volume.

Matter is eternal because it is impossible to admit that a thing comes from
nothing. Compact matter becomes the earth; more rarefied than the
substance of the earth becomes water; still more rarefied becomes air;
and what is more rarefied than air turns into fire. This is the definition al-
Rib3 gives of the four elements ( & j Y l ~ L ! l ). Qualities such as heaviness,
levity, darkness, and luminosity are to be explained by the more or less
vacuity which is within matter. Quality is an accident which is attributed
to substance, and substance is matter. (Zid nl-MustSfih, p. 73).
ACRiizI gives two proofs to establish the eternity of matter. He
says that creation is manifest, there must be ipso facto a Creator and what
is Created is nothing but formed matter: therefore, the existence of matter
is w-eternal with the existence of the Creator.

The second proof which he adduces is the impossibility of creatio ex

nihilo. He maintains that it is far easier for the Creator to creat than to
compose. Here he is nearer to the Qur'tinic doctrine of & ,$. But
unfortunately he believes that all things in this world are produced by com-
position and not by creation. It necessarily follows, says he, that the
Creator is (.ir4J+) incapable of creatio ex nihilo and the cosmos came
into being by the composition of things the origin of which is matter.
True to the cult of the natural scientists, al-RM was an inveterate mate
rialist.
 Referring to space (bL) he says that as matter should occupy
space, therefore, space is also eternal as a co-existent. Space, according
to him, is i d n i t e and what is infinite is eternal. Further he says that
vacuum is inside space, it cannot exist independently, and consequently
it is inside matter. It has the power of attracting bodies and it is why a
sealed bottle sumberged in water, with the opening downwards, does not
sink. He distinguishes between vacuum and space. Therefore it is wrong
to translate space as @%). Space is either absolute (&) or universal
(X),partial (&-3) or relative (dl&) and a spatialized thing cannot
exist without space, though space may exist without spatialized things.
The last of the Five Eternals i.e. Time (bLj), according to al-Rlz?,
is an independent substance that flows; it is eternal. He also distinguishes
between two kinds of time: absolute (&) and limited (JH). Time,
according to him, has existed before the creation of the world and will
continue to exist after its dissolution.

Absolute time, al-RSz? maintains, is duration (+I) which is eternal

and moving. In a kdith quhi the Muslims have been exhorted not to
blame the duration (p>) because God has identified the Dahr with Him-
self. (&$+ - p>L.'Bp JIpZ Y). This very doctrine of Dahr exercised
the mind of Muhammad Iqbil, the Poet of the East, who carried on an
extensive correspondence on the subject with S. Sulaymin Nadw?, co-
aathor of 'A11Bma Shibli Nu'mini's standard Urdfi work on the biography
of the Prophet, the voluminous Sirat al-Nabi.

Both time and space attracted the close attention of Muslim thinkers
and philosophers because these two eternals are closely interlinked with the
miraculous event, unprecedented in religious history, of the Mi'riij of
the Prophet when, according to Muslim belief, Time and Space were both
suspended. The Prophet is described as having returned to Mecca, after
his extensive nocturnal heavenly visit, while the bed on which he lay was
still warm.

Here we must refer to a small treatise containing 8 folios only

attributed to al-RBb on the subject: Maqala li Abi Bakr Mu!zamrnad Ibn
Zakariyyc?al-R&i ji mc? ba'd al-Tabi'a (RBghib, Istanbul MS. No. 1463,
fols. 90a-98b). Its authenticity has been doubted as its contents do not
entirely agree with the otherwise known doctrines of al-Riz?. 111 this
treatise he refutes the idea of nature as principle of movement put forward
 PHILOSOPHICAL AND RELIGIOUS VIEWS OF RAZI 163
by philosophers like Aristotle and his followers: John Philiponos, Alex-
ander of Aphrodisias, and Prophry. On the question of eternity of
movement al-RBn discusses and critically examines the ideas of Aristotle
and Proclus. The general trend, says A.R. a1 Badawi, of this treatise is
polemical and dialectical and it cannot be reconciled with al-RM's ideas
on time, space and Deity (cf. A History of Muslim Philosophy, i :441).

. The late Paulus Kraus published in Paris in 1939 fragments or

expose"of the Maqcilafi mci ba'd al-Tabr'a. The main points treated in this
expos&are (i) nature (2) foetus, and (3) eternity of movement. It seems
that in this treatise al-RBzi wants to refute all doctrines which pretend that
nature is the principle of movement and creation, by showing the contra-
dictiones to which these doctrines necessarily lead. His stand-point is that
there is no place for admitting the existence of nature as principle of action
and movement.
As a consequence al-R3zT could not please the Muslim thinkers and
philosophers and Nii~ir-iKhusraw in spite of al-RBzi's belief in the exis-
tence of God, hotly refuted his ideas and even went to the length of declar-
ing him an atheist. N&$ir-iKhusraw says:

(He who calls the Time the substance might call God as the
Creator and in the case of Muhammad ibn ZakariyyB it is all the
more surprising that he has made some (atheistic) observations in
this respect).
It is widely known that the natural philosophers believed in the
general principle of mortality. They derived this inference from the fact
that all creatures, including animals, plants and other things meet with
annihilation and cannot come to life again. Similarly Man is mortal and
cannot be resurrected or resuscitated. These people, therefore, refuse to
believe in the Resurrection and the Last Day. They are consequently
known as Zindiq (heretics).
According to Ni~ir-iKhusraw al-RBzi derived his philosophical
views from the system of IrBnshahri, about whom we know very little and
who had explained his philosophy from the ~eligiouspoint of view. AE
M preferred his country-man to Aristotle whom he accused of having
corrupted pure philosophy and having altered many of its basic principles.
QBdI Ibn Sfisid al-Andalus? remarks that the refutations of Aristotle as
these appsar in the works of al-Ra, namely, his Kit(5b al-Saghlr fi 'nm
al-Iliihi and Spiritual Physic (a1 - Pbb aERii&l) show that he had a
liking for the views of the. Dualists insofar as polytheism is concerned;
in the matter of disbelief in prophecy he had a leaning towards the Brah-
mins i.e., the Vedas, and as regards the transmigration of souls he sided
with the Sabeans (of Harrfin). (Tabu@ al-Umam, p. 33). This in all
probability was the philosophy preached and propounded by Pythagoras,
Thales of Miletus and the Sabeans of Greece and ancient Egypt or was akin
to it and it is why al-Riz? preferred to follow and adopt the philosophical
system of the ancients rather than that of Aristotle. Al-Rfiz?, as has been
stated above, had taken a fancy for his country-man h n s h a h r ~who,
according to Nfi~ir-iKhusraw, regarded Matter as the Eternal substance
and al-Rk?, in his trun, has established that there are Five Eternal Princi-
-
ples Matter, Space, Time, Universal Soul and the Creator, the First
Cause. (cf. ZEd al-Mus(5firin, p. 73). A little further (on p. 98 of the same
work) Nfigir-i khusraw has indulged in an exposition of what he said earlier.
He, however, accuses al-Ra- of corrupting the texts of Irfinshahr?by using
atheistic expressions and interpolating wild, weird and uncanny passages
inasmuch as that one who has not read or studied the works of ancient
philosophers is likely to be misled into believing that al-Rizi was the original
author of these ideas.
Talking of space Irbshahri is quoted to have said that one of the
Eternal Principles is Space because it has been said that space is the out-
ward manifestation of Divine Power and the proof of its being a correct
assumption is that all predetermined events lie within the orbit of God's
Power and that their images appear within Space and hence these cannot
go out of Absolute Space (& s).Nilgir-i Khusraw deplores al-Ri3zT's
stand that he considered the Creator and the Created as one genre.

The assumption of the eternity of the world and of an untreated

matter in motion from all eternity, as we said before, was readily combined
with Astronomy.
 PHILOSOPHICAL AND RELIGIOUS VIEWS OF RAZl 165

Among other Muslim philosophers al-RBzi dealt at considerable

length with Plato's Timaeus which exercised a vast influence in late anti-
quity. Its Arabic translation made around 2051820 by YahyB ibn Bitriq
(d.c. 2151830) was available to Muslim thinkers and philosophers. Galen's
Compendium of ths Timaeus was put into Arabic by the well-known trans-
lator Hunayn ibn IshBq (d. 2641877) around 2461860. AI-Rzii3 was so
much impressed with this work of Plato that he even adopted its teaching
that creation of an orderly world, a Cosmos, was not ex nihilo, but from
preexisting, indeed eternal matter. The neo-Platonic tradition upon
which al-R&- relied viewed the Timaeus as Plato's most important work.
It was, in fact, considered to be of great importance for understanding
Greek philosophy and it excited great interest when it was first made
available to Muslim philosophers in its Arabic version along with Galen's
Commentary upon it, extensive parts of which had been rendered into
Arabic (cf. N. Rescher, Studies m Arabic Philosophy, University of Pitts-
burgh Press, 1967, p. 17).
Sal* al-Din Aybek al-Safadi in Nakt al-Himytin (Cairo 1910,
p. 250) quotes the following two verses of al-Rgzi which he had heard in
Damascus :

This clearly shows that al-Rgzi in clear contradiction of the teach-

ings of Islam did not believe in the Life Hereafter ('ml) or the Resurreo
tion. Paradoxically enough al-RBzi is reported to have composed a book
(Kit& al-Radd 'alii' Suhayl fi ithbiit aEMa'&f)in support of Ma'id and has
refuted the arguments of those who do not believe in the Last Day or com-
ing to life again after having remained dead for billions and billions of
years. (cf. Tabaqiit a1 Atibbi', i:315). While he does not believe in the
resurrection of the dead he did believe that the sciences of anatomy and
physiology proved that the creation of man was not the result of whim or
caprice or even chance. He was created by a very wise and intelligent
Creator. In fact there is a book by him styled Kitiib fi mna ' I - 1 . n lahu
Khiiliqun @akimwt. It is, however, strange that while admitting the
existence of a Creator he conveniently forgot that He who can Create can
also annihilate and re-create. Implicit belief in hashr wa nushr is the cor-
ner-stone of Muslim theology, and the Qur'Bn at several places speaks of
166 A.S. BAZMEE ANSARI

the dead, whose bones even have been reduced to ashes, of rising and com-
ing to life again. (IX:30. and various commentaries on the Jewish belief
that Ezra was the son of God). Being a natural philosopher and a follower
of Thales of Miletus he firmly believed in Matter and unfortunately com-
pletely ignored the clear stand of Muslim theologians on the point. It
was due to his individualistic ethics that he came to adopt a critical attitude
towards established religion. In many writings he refuted the Mu'tazila
theologians like al-Jahiz, Abii'l Qasim al-Balkhi, Ibn Akhi Zurhgn alias
Misma'iy, who attempted to introduce scientific arguments in theology.
A1-RBzi wrote a book in his refutation called Kitiib al-Radd 'alii' I-Misma'iy
al-Mutukallim fi Raridhi 'alii A?h& al-Hayllii. He also criticized and re-
futed the Shi'a and the Manicheans. Among his adversaries are included the
the Dahrite Abii Bakr Husayn al-Tammiir a1 Mutagbbib, the Sabean
Thibit ibn QurrB, the historian al-Mas'iidi and Ahmad ibn al-Tayyib
alSarakhsi, a pupil of Yabqiibibn Ishiiq al-Kindi, the philosopher of the
Arabs.
Unlike the Muslim Aristotelians like Averroes al-Riizi denies the
possibility of a reconciliation between philosophy and religion. Unfor-
tunately al-Riizi 's religious views were either heretical or in direct opposi-
tion to the teachings of orthodoxy. These have been partly dealt with by
the late Paul Kraus and S. Pines (presently of the Hebrew University of
Jerusalem) as co-authors of the artcle "al-RBzi" in the first edition of the
Encyclopaedia of Islam (vol. i :3 15 ff.).

One of the philosophical problems dealt with by al-Riki is that of

ecstasy (d) and pain ($1) or inclination and disinclination. His
theory is expounded in his Tafdil Ldhdhiit al-Nafs from which Abii
Sulayman al-ManGqi al-Sijistiini gives some extracts in his still un-pub-
lished Siwiin al-Hikma (MS. in Muhammad MurBd in Istanbul, No. 1408).
As against the generality of philosophers al-RBd has taken his own pecu-
liar stand on this problem and NB$r-i Khusraw in the Ziid aEMusiifirin
and Fakhr al- in al-Rid in his al-Mubrihith al-Mashriqiyya and Sharh
IshZriit have severely criticised him.

The gist of what al-Rki has written in this context is as follows:-

a. Both ecstasy and pain are perceptibles; therefore there is neither
pleasure nor pain when some one is in the natural state because the natural
state is not tangible.
 PHILOSOPHICAL AND RELIGIOUS VIEWS OF RAZI 167
b. B a factor puts a man or animal out of the natural state it pro-
duces both ecstasy and pain and when the object returns to the natural
state it brings pleasure in its wake.
c. This means that if a person or animal is afflicted with pain after
getting out of the natural state he or it cannot return to the original natural
state. Therefore, ecstasy in this case means to enjoy pleasure after suffer-
ing pain.
d. The effect of two intra-contradictory factors produce ecstasy
and it lasts only till such time as the effect of the first factor lasts and the
object affected returns to its natural state. If this pleasure-producing
factor itself comes to stay it is the cause of pain and sorrow because it
drives the subject out of its natural state. And to come out of the
natural state means in fact pain and suffering.

e. We may, therefore, conclude that constancy of ecstasy causes

pain and suffering in the ultimate analysis.

In order to prove his point al-Rful gives a concrete example. He

says: Suppose a man stays in a house which is neither hot nor cold then he
is in the natural state which is free from all feelings of ecstasy and pain.
If later on this house suddenly becomes hot the man will begin to feel the
heat causing uneasiness. However, if a cool breeze begins to blow slowly,
the man will begin to enjoy it. Why? Simply for the reason that he had
gone out of the natural state due to the oppressive heat and is now return-
ing to the original state because of the cool breeze. The pleasure that he
feels would only last till such time as he returns to the natural state, which
neither knows heat nor cold. On the other hand if this cold comes to
stay it will also be the cause of subsequent pain because now the person
concerned will go out of the natural state. If later the house again bec-
comes hot the subject will feel comfort and pleasure. This means that the
comfort which a person feels after suffering pain is in fact pleasure, and
pain means getting out of the natural state. The natural state in itself is
neither the cause of pain nor of pleasure.
Similarly, when a person comes out of the natural state slowly he
does not feel much pain. For instance, when one begins to feel hunger
slowly one does not feel much pain. But when hunger or thirst become
acute and one either takes food or drinks water one feels satisfaction and
pleasure. It shows that getting out of the natural state by degrees does not
168 A.S. BAZMEE ANSARI

cause perceptible pain, but returning to the natural state all of a sudden
does bring in pleasure and satisfaction. Similarly leaving the natural state
suddenly causes pain and discomfort. For instance, if a healthy person
suddenly falls ill he will feel pain and discomfort but recovering slowly will
afford him a sort of satisfaction and comfort. It clearly means that going
out of the natural state all of a sudden brings pain and likewise returning
to the natural state all of a sudden brings pleasure. Therefore, there is
no pleasure without pain. It is as the Qur'iin says (XCIV : 5):
7'y.J '31 id4 1 'jb
Or what the Arabic expression so clearly exclaims:

The exposition offered by a l - E d of ecstasy and pain is the same as

given by the modem science of psychology.
Quoting Le Bonn, (The Book of Views and Beliefs 0 1 ~ l ~ s l l j Y l ~ W )
'Abd al-Saliim Nadwi says in the Hukam8'-i IslSm (i:196) that both pain
and pleasure cannot last long, their very nature demands that these should
be ephemeral, for the simple reason that if pleasure becomes constant it
will cease to be pleasure, similarly if pain comes to stay it will cease to be
pain.
Continuing Nadwi says that pleasure remains pleasure only till
such time as it does not come to stay, and pleasure cannot be felt unless it
is contrasted with pain, and eternal pleasure, according to Plato, is meaning-
less, as against the view of certain thinkers.
The reasons which prompted al-Riizi to propound his theory of
pain and pleasure are not precisely known but it is clear that his views
reflect on the eternal pleasure of the Hereafter.
On this point Niivir-i Khusraw refuted al-R%d on the ground that
one of the fundamental beliefs of Islam is the existence of Paradise which is
a mine of pleasure for those who perform virtuous deeds, because there is
nothing like pain therein. On the other hand, for the sinners and evil-
doers there is Hell, a place of extreme misery and pain without any pleasure
worth the name. (cf. ZrSd al-Musdfirin, p. 229).
While refuting al-RM, Nii~ir-iKhusraw uses very strong language
and says that the basis of al-Rk'i 's theory is the sense of touch only, while
with regard to the other senses, i.e., the sense of smell, the sense of hearing,
 PHlLOSOPHICAL AND RELIGIOUS VIEWS OF RAZI 169
the sense of taste and the sense of seeing, his opinion is incorrect. He
likens al-Rh- to a wild uncouth man who has never seen and tasted a
fruit. By chance he gets grapes, dates, figs, melons and walnuts. He
eats the walnut along with its crust and finds it unpalatable. He therefore
hastily comes to the conclusion that all fruits are tasteless. Obviously
this conclusion was wrong. Similarly al-Rkzl holds that the pleasures
which can be felt only through the sense of touch predetermine the exis-
tence of pain. He, therefore, is inclined to bring the sense of seeing, the
sense of hearing, the sense of smelling and the sense of taste in line with
the sense of touch, which is obviously a wrong premise.

After this general refutation Nzlgir-i Khusraw refutes the arguments

of al-R&zi seriatum. Referring to the sense of sight he quotes al-Rh-
as maintaining that by looking at ugly people a person leaves his natural
state. But when he sees beautiful people he returns to his natural state and
this is what is meant by calling a thing of beauty as a joy for ever. Nggir-i
Khusraw contradicting al-RM says that supposing a person has never seen
a beautiful thing or an ugly one, he is in his natural state. If thereafter
he sees a beautiful person or thing he should feel pain because he has left
his natural state. Conversely speaking, he should feel pleasure when he
comes across an ugly looking hideous object because he has now returned
to his natural state. This is, however, against the established truth as ex-
perienced daily.
Al-Rib3 further maintains that a harsh and jarring sound disturbs
and pains a person, so when he hears the soft and sweet sound of certain
musical instruments he feels at ease and satisfied. However, Nigir-i
Khusraw contends that in his natural state a person is not supposed to
hear any voice or sound. Later if one hears the sweet and charming sound
of a guitar or a violin he slips out of his natural state and according to
a l - R e he should feel pain. It is, however, strange that instead he enjoys
the instrumental music. He should feel pleased, if al-Rm- is to be fol-
lowed at the terribly repulsive braying of a donkey because on hearing it
bray he returns to his natural state while he actually feels pain and dis-
comfort when he hears the donkey braying.
The same is the case with the sense of smelling. If a person's brain
is free from smell and odour he is considered to be in his natural state.
Now, if some one applies otto to his clothes, he would, according to the
principles laid down by al-RM, get out of his natural state and invite
170 A S . BAZMEE ANSARI

trouble and pain while the fact is that he enjoys the sweet fragrance of the
perfume. Similarly if a person is unaware of every kind of taste, both bitter
and sweet, and some one gives him honey to eat he would, according to al-
Rgz?, get out of the natural state and feel pain while actually he enjoys and
relishes the sweet and pleasant taste of honey.
Practically the same is the case with the sense of touch wherein also
al-Razi's theory stands disproved. If a person is habituated to remain
naked he is in the natural state according to al-R&j but if he is provided
with a coat of fur or some other dress he would leave the state of nature
and feel pain. But this is not the case as is our daily experience, and a
naked person would feel comfortable after wearing clothes according to
the weather.
Nii~ir-iKhusraw then proceeds to give his own definition of pain
and pleasure. In short al-RM regards pleasure as something non-per-
ceptible or the absence of pain while Na~ir-iKhusraw and other thinkers
maintain that pleasure exists all alone, is something eternal and tangible
at the same time. A person does not enjoy looking at a thing of beauty
because he has been plagued with looking at ugly and unseemly things but
because the sense of aesthetics is innate with him.
Nii~ir-iKhusraw writes :-

And he (al-Rid) also said that people derive pleasure by looking at

a beautiful woman just as by looking at an ugly woman they feel
unhappy and miserable. This remark of his is extremely absurd
and meaningless.
Even in the case of animals and reptiles this observation stands d i s
proved as for instance a snake is swayed by the melodious music of the
snakecharmer's gourd pipe.
Imam Fakhr al-Din al-Rlid has taken strong exception to these
views of his town-fellow in his a1 Mab@th al-Mmhriqiyya and has pointed
out the errors made by al-R&i. Nevertheless ImSlm al-Rad admits that
pain and misery far exceed pleasure and joy in this world. And pleasure
and joy mostly follow the disappearance of pain and misery. Therefore.
 PHILOSOPHICAL AND RELIGIOUS VIEWS OF RAZI 171
commonly speaking pleasure and joy are mostly subjective phenomena. If
logically speaking there are some pleasures which are not subject to the total
disappearance of pain and misery these are practically negligible or in the
words of Fakhr al-Din al-Ra these are like 'a drop in the ocean'. It
cannot, however, be gainsaid that practically speaking the theory of pain
and pleasure as propounded by al-Riizi is faithfully reflective of our every
day experience. May be al-RiM came round to this view due to his being
aWicted with pain and misery throughout his life or perhaps he was an
Epicurean who finds it extremely disagreeable to taste pain and bitterness
after enjoying the good and beautiful things in life and that he was seeking
undiluted and pure pleasure like the Platonic love. Alluding to this aspect
of al-Riizi's theory Dr. T. de Boer writes:-
The precepts of Muslim law, like the prohibition of wine, and so
on, gave him no concern, but his freethinking seems to have led
him into pessimism. In fact he found more evil than good in the
world, and described inclination as the absence of disinclination.
(History of Muslim Philasophy, p. 78).

Ibn Abi Uvybi'a and al-Qifli both mention a book KittSb mtS Yud'a
min 'UyEb al-Awliyii' by al-Rh- which dealt with the defects and short-
comings of pious and holymen, regarded by the Muslims as the "friends of
God." However. Ibn Abi U~aybi'ais of the opinion that this objection-
able book is the work of one of the avowed enemies of al-Ra- who has
attributed it to him in order to defame him or lower him in the eyes of the
Muslim masses as otherwise al-R&i was far above such things and it would
be unfair to imagine that he would even pen a polemical, rather heretical,
work like this one ( ~ a b q & a1 Atibbii', p. 31 5). Ibn Abi U~aybi'aeven
goes to the length of saying that those, like 'Mi ibn Ridwiin a1-Mi~ri,who
denounce or condemn al-RHzi, nay even say that he was an arch-
heretic and had gone out of the pale of Islam, name this book as Makhiiriq
al-Anbiya or Hiyal al-Mutanabbiyin. Al-Qiffl, however, does not men-
tion this book among the numerous works composed by al-Riid. This
book was very popular with the heretical circles in Islam, notably the Qar-
matis. "It seems", observe Paul Kraus and Pines, "even to have influenced
the famous theme of the De Tribus Impastoribus(ed. J. Presser, Amsterdam
1926), so dear to Western rationalists from the time of Frederick 11.

Another book by him styled fi N q d al-Adyiin, which is partly

-
prese~edin a refutation the Kit* A'liim al-Nubuwwa of the IsmB'ili
172 A.S. BAZMEE ANSARI

&'i Abii Uitim al-R&-, deals with revelation, prophecy and religion.
Its principal theme is that because all men are equal the prophets cannot
claim any intellectual or spiritual superiority. It also says that there is no
justification for privileging some men to guide all men. Further it says that
the miracles of the prophets are impostures or belong to the domain of
pious legend. This clearly reflects the Hellenistic conception of prophecy
which recognises technical prophecy or prophecy by rational conjecture.
Plato, Plutarch, Plotinus and others "admit a highest flight of the human
soul by which it gains a simple, total insight into Reality. .. They would,
therefore, not quarrel about the names by which such a man is to be called -
Prophet, Mystic or Philosopher, for at the highest point they are a11 one at
the intellectual level ; although the prophet is distinguished especially by
the Technical Revelation." (cf. Fazlur Rahman, Prophecy in Islam, London
1958, p. 35). A1-R&i while maintaining that all men are born equal in
intelligence, says that the differences are because of development and educa-
tion. But this doctrine is disproved by the modern doctrine of 1.Q (intel-
ligence quotient). Some Muslim philosophers. like Avicenna (d. 42911037)
and al-FSdbI (d. 3391950) maintain that the prophet's intellect would go
through the stages of development through which an ordinary thinking
mind passes.. . the only difference between the prophetic and the ordi-
nary person being that the former is self-taught (F. Rahman, op. cit., p. 30).
As we have already said, al-R&- was certainly misled into thinking that
the prophets and ordinary men, though biologically speaking being equal,
are nevertheless also equal in intellectual and spiritual attainments.
He was also wrong in maintaining that the miracles or thaumaturgical acts
performed by the prophets are nothing but humbug or impostures or that
they belong to the domain of pious legend.
Such heretical views, it is quite clear, can only be expressed by one
who either does not believe in the divine origin of Islam or calls into ques-
tion the very institution of prophecy of which miracles do form an impor-
tant part and ancient people right upto the times of Jesus Christ had been
demanding wondrous and thaumaturgical acts from all those who claimed
that they had been sent by God to guide the human race, improve their
ethics and raise them up morally in order to build up a refined, pious,
God-fearing and equitable society. These very persons were known as
prophets because they received revelation as also they were endowed with
such a strong power of imagination that they could recapture the intelleo
tual truth by figurisation in usual and acoustic symbols in waking life.
Miracles, it may be remembered, are always performed openly and there
 PHILOSOPHICAL AND RELIGIOUS VIEWS OF RAZI 173
is nothing secret or hidden about them. Al-Ra- here also betrays the
influence which the Hellenistic tradition exercised upon him and he, being
a natural philosopher, could not come round to the view that the laws of
nature, which are otherwise immutable, can be modified by the same Being
which originally formulated them. To him Kharq '&?a was something
belonging to the realm of impossibility. Al-Razi unfortunately forgot the
simple axiom that he who can make can also unmake, he who can do can
also undo. Had he firmly believed in the Omnipotence of God, the Crea-
tor, he would have never entertained doubts about the performance of
miracles by prophets who act directly under the command and guidance
of the Almighty who, according to the Qur'iin, has got power over every
thing (2sL& J & 2 1 dl). We may, therefore, conclude that al-Rid had
no belief in revelation and prophecy. It may be interesting to note that
Avicenna also did not subscribe to the view that all kinds of miracles are
possible because he believed that certain events are 'evidently impossible'
(F. Rahman, Prophecy in Islam, p. 45).
AI-Riizi held this strange belief that the teachings of religions are
contrary to the One Truth: the proof of this is, according to him, that they
contradict one another. If by One Truth he meant al-Haqq Wdhid he
was certainly in the wrong to hold the teachings of religions contrary to
one another as all revealed religions claim divine origin. There can be and
is, therefore, no difference or disparity in their basic teachings which centre
on the Oneness of God (+dl) and which unequivocally condemn and
denounce Shirk-polytheism. Similarly this assumption is also incorrect
that the religious teachings contradict one another. In order to prove his
stand he criticizes Judaism by means of Manichaeism, and Christianity
by means of Islam; and then criticizes the Qur'iin by means of the Bible.
It is apparent that the fundamental tenets of Judaism, Christianity and
Islam are neither conficting in nature nor do they contradict one another.
There are a number of Christian sects which roundly denounce the doctrine
of Trinity which the Qur'in clearly says had been wrongly and quite mis-
chievously attributed to Jesus, whom the Muslim Scripture, as against the
Bible, repeatedly calls Jesus the son of Mary and not Jesus the Son of God
(cf. Siira CXII). All the three revealed religions share the common belief
in Angels, Prophets, the Last Day, the Rising of the Dead, Miracles, the
Worship of One,God etc.
Al-Rid is also reported to have said that it is tradition and lazy
custom that have led men to trust their religious leaders and that religions
 174 A.S. BAZMEE ANSARI

are the sole cause of wars. (Encyclopaedia of Islam, first ed., vol. i p. 315).
If by religious leaders are meant the prophets the weakness of al-R&-'s
argument is apparent. If, however, by religious leaders are meant the
bogus pious men who trade in the name of religion then one can possibly
have no quarrel with al-Rizi. But even in their case it is not lazy custom
or tradition that leads the frustrated and suffering human beings to trust
-
the monks, sufis, saints, amulet makers, mendicants, hermits who defraud
and deceive the credulous and deprive them of their hard-earned money
or otherwise pamper themselves on their offerings and oblations. It is the
sham practitioners of religious esotericism who parade their mystical
experiences in order to make illicit gains.
In the same work in question, i.e., Naqd al-Adycin al-Rizf accuses
religion of being the sole cause of the wars, which ravage humanity and that
they are hostile to philosophical speculation and to scientific research.
AU students of world history know that these statements of al-Rfui are
farther from the truth. Can any one say that the Hundred Years' War,
the Seven Years' War, the campaigns of Alexander the Great, Tamerlane
or Babur were all the result of religious frenzy or bigotry. Of course
al-Rizi's observations are true only in the case of the Crusades, or the
battles of the Khawirij, the ghazwiit and sariiyci of early Islam or the
battles which the Christian fanatics fought against the Moors of Spain.
But these are exceptions not the rule. The Tartars under Ghengis Khan
and Hiilegu did not embark on religious campaigns. In fact the pagan
barbarians knew no religion. Similarly al-Rbi's remarks that religions
are hostile to philosophical speculation or to scientific research are base-
less and untrue. It is indeed surprising that himself being a natural scientist
and medical practitioner of note al-Rizi forgot such great names among the
Muslim thinkers and philosophers as those of Avicenna, al-Ghaziili,
al-FBribi, Averroes, al-Khdi and others, to name but a few, who made
solid contri,bution to philosophical thought and such research workers
as al-Battini, the great astronomer who was al-Rbi's contemporary, the
Shaykh al-Ra'is Avicenna, whose Canon still holds the field in medicine
a large number of others who, by their researches, enriched the storehouse
of human knowledge and expanded its horizons.

He calls the scriptures of the revealed religions as books without

value and thinks that they are all apocryphal. He adds that the scientific
writings of the ancients like Plato, Aristotle, Euclid and Hippocrates
have rendered much greater service to humanity. Here also al-Rid
 PHILOSOPHICAL AND RELIGIOUS MEWS OF RAZI 175
is on the wrong path. Either he has not been able to judge what sterling
and useful services religious leaders rendered to humanity or he deliberately
denigrates religion and regards its teachings as harmful to human society.
In fact only an atheist or one who has no faith in religion, in God and His
Messengers will say so. And to say that instead of the Old and New Tes-
taments the Qur'Bn, the Books of Abraham and Moses ( b y 3 ,.+%I -),
the writings of sages like Plato, Aristotle, Euclid and Hippocrates have
rendered much greater service, reveals a diseased mentality and a
perverted view of sciences like Philosophy, Geometry, Mathematics and
Medicine. Being himself primarily and basically a medical man he had
studied Astronomy, Mathematics, Natural Philosophy, Dialectics, Logic
and other allied sciences.

Describing the science of Medicine and the influence it exercised

during the Middle Ages, Prof. T. de Boer writes:-
The Science of Medicine, which on obvious grounds was favoured
by the ruling powers, appears to have proved somewhat more useful.
Its interests furnished one of the reasons and not the least consider-
able, which induced the Caliphs to commission so many men to
translate Greek authors. It is, therefore, not to be wondered at
that the teachings of Mathematics and Natural Science, together
with Logic, also affected Medicine intimately. The old fashioned
doctor was disposed to be. satisfied with time-honoured magical
formulae, and other empirical expedients; but modern society in the
ninth century required philosophical knowledge in the physician. He
had to know the nature of foods, stimulants or luxuries, and medi-
caments, the humours of the body, and in every case the influence of
the stars. The physician was brother to the astrologer, whose
knowledge commanded his respect, because it had a more exalted
object than medical practice. He had to attend the lectures of the
al-chemist, and to practise his art in accordance with the' methods of
Mathematics and Logic. It was not enough for the fanatics of
education in the ninth century that a man had to speak, believe
and behave in accordance with Qiycfs, - that is to say, with logical
correctness; he must, over and above, submit to be treated
medically in accordance with QiyEs. The principles of Medicines
were discussed in learned assemblies at the court of WBthik (reg.
2281842 - 2331 847) like the foundations of Doctrine and Morals.
The question in fact, was asked, prompted by a work of Galen's,
 A.S. BAZMEE ANSARl

whether medicine relies upon tradition, experience or rational

knowledge or whether on th: other hand it derives its support
from the principles of Mathematics and Natural Science by
means of logical deduction (Qiyk) (The History of Muslim
Philosophy, p. 77).

On his theological and religious views 'Abd al-Rahman al-Badawi

makes this eloquent comment: The ideas of al-Rizi were most audacious.
No other Muslim thinker was as daring as ,he (A History of Muslim Phi-
losophy, i :446).
To sum up, a person, who calls himself a Muslim, denies revela-
tion and prophecy; the miraculous nature (i'jliz) of the Qur'Bn either be-
cause of its matchless style or its contents, and affirms that it is possible
to write a better book in a better style; prefers books on medicine, geo-
metry, astronomy and logic to the Bible and the Qur'an; regards the pro-
phets as men of ordinary intelligence, not possessing any superiority in
psychic attainments. - without the power of working miracles; how far
can he be called, by any definition, a follower of Islam and its Prophet.
One of the fundamental tenets of Islam is the staunch belief in the prophetic
mission of Muhammad because imcfn without it remains incomplete.
A1-R2zi no doubt believed in the progress of scientific and philoso-
phical knowledge. He claims to have advanced beyond most of the ancient
philosophers. He even thinks himself superior to Aristotle and Plato -
a presumption which ultimately robbed him of all belief in religion. He
was an Iranian who pitted like many others against every thing Arabian -
even the religion of Islam which was born in Arabia. It was to show to
people like al-R2zi what havoc philosophy had wrought that al-Ghazlli
wrote his Tahlifut al-Falkifa (Eng. transl. S.A. Kamali) and al-Munqidh
min al-paliil. (Eng. transl. W. Montgomery Watt, Edinburgh 1962).
 177
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ibn Abi Ugaybi'a, 'Uyiin a1 AnW'fi Tabaqdt a1 AfibW' (ed. MuUer), i: 309-21;
Ibn Khallikftn, Wafaydt dl A'yan, Cairo 1948, iv: 244-6; Al-Mas'adi, Muriij a l - D M ,
1861-71, Viii: 177; Ibn Nadim, AI-Fihrist (ed. Flugel), i: 299, 302,358; Al-Qifti Ta'rikh
al HukamaIM;\Leipzig 1903, 271-77; Al-Bayhaqi, Ta'rikh @ukama-' al-IslZm, 21-22; Ibn
Kathir, ACBidriya Wa'l-Nihciya. Cairo 135111932, xi: 149; A!-YftWi, Mir'dt al-JincSn.
ii: 75-77; Hajji Khalifa, Kmhf al-ZunSn, 577, 628, 1015, 1403, 1862; Al-Khawhsh-,
R a w t al-Janmit, 165-6; Al-Dhahabi Siyar al-Nubald', ix: 232; Ibn ShSkir Al-Kutubi,
'Uyinal-TawZrikh. xii: 216; Ibn al-'Imftd, Shadhardt al-Dhahab. Cairo, 1350 A.H., ii:263;
Al-BaghGdi, Hadiyat a/-'Arifin, ii: 27-9; Abii SB'id al-Andalusi, Tabaqdt al-Umam.
Beirut 1912, 33, 61; Aba 'Ali al-Tanniikhi, -41-Faraj Ba'd aCShidda. Cairo, 1903-4, ii:
94-104; Al-Biriini Risdla fi Fihrist Kutub Mdammad ibn Zakariyyd al-Rdzi. Pans 1936;
Tftsh Kubdzfida, Mifidb al-Sa'crda, i: 268-9; T.J. de Boer History of Muslim Philosophy.
London, 1903,89-93; E.G. Browne, Arabian Medicine, Cambridge 1921,44-53; D. Camp-
bell, Arabian Medicine, 2 Vols, London 1926; C. Elgood, A Medical History ofPersia and
the Emtern Ca!iphate. Cambridge 1951; n e Legacy of Persia (ed. A.J. Arberry), Oxford
1953, ch: on Persian Science by C. Elgood; The Legacy of Islam (ed. Arnold and Guil-
laume), London 1952, ch. Science and Medicine by Max Meyerhof, and 364; Ibid., 2nd
ed. (Schacht and Bosworth), Oxford 1974 ch. on 'The Natural Sciences and Medicine'
by Martin Plessner; Nicholas Rescher, Studies in Arabic Philosophy, University of Pitts-
burgh Press, 1%8,4, 17-18, 38; A.J. Arberry, The Spiritual Physick of Rhazes (Wisdom
of the East Series); G.S.A. Ranking, The Life and Works of Rhazes, International Cong-
ress of Medicine (Historical Section) London 1913; M. Ullmann, Die Medizin im Islam.,
Leiden 1970; N5~ir-iKhusraw, Zddal-Musdfiin. Berlin 1341 A.H., 73ff., 103, 114ff.,231,
235,318ff., M. Meyerhof, nifty-three CIinicalObservatiomby Rhazes, in ISIS, Vol. xxiii,
part 2 (1935), 322 ff, G. Sarton, Introduction to the History of Science, Baltimore 1972,
1: 609-10, 586,587; Paul Kraus and Martin Plessner in Encyclopaedia of Islam (1st ed.)
art. 'Al-RM, vol. iii, 1136-7; Nigimi Ganjawi, Chahrfr Maqdla (ed. Mubarnmad Qaz-
winii, London 1910 (G.M.S.), 73ff.. 'Abd al-Muta'BI a1 Sa'idi, AI-MujaddidCnnfi'lIsl~m;
Cairo, 55, 141-4; S a l a al-Din al-Munajjid, Majallat Ma'had al-Makhfiifdt, vol. V:
298; Al-Biriini, AI-Athciral-Bdliyya (ed. Sachau), 253; C. Elgood, " A Persian Manu-
script Attributed to Rhazes", Journalof the Royal Asiatic Society (1932), 905ff.; J. Ruska,
Die Alchemie AI-Rki, in Der Islam, vol. xxii (1935). 281 IT., Abbas Eghba!, Les Nawbakht,
Teheran 1937,167,170.179; C. Brockelmann, Geschichteder arabischen Litteratur, i; 233-
35, S i: 417-21; Al+afadi, Nakt a[-Himydn, Cairo 1910, 249-50; 'Abd a l - S W Nadwi,
~ u k m - ' - i l s hA'prngarh
. 1953.1: 162-217(an exhaustive study in Urdii); 'Umar RiQB
Kabbala, Mu'jam a1 Mu'allifn, Damascus 1960, ix: 6; AlSafadi, AC Wdfl bi'l Wafaydt
( 4 . H. Ritter), iii, 75-77: Malpniid Najmftbftdi, Sharh-i Hdlu Maqdm-i M&mmad-i
Zakariyya-i h - z i Pizishk-i Ndmi-i Iran. Tehe- 1939; Abii'l Faraj Malti marhebareus),
Mukhtqar al-Duwal, Beirut 1890; Rhazes Millenary Celebrations, Paris 1930, article
*'OnArabian medicine andits History; its influenceon French Medicine." 'Abd al-wif
al-Baghdiidi, Maqdlatdn f i 'I-HawrSss wa Mmd'il Tabi'yya, Kuwait 1392/1972, 125, 130,
136, 141. M. Manzalaoui, The pseudo-Aristotelian Kitdb Sirr al-Asrdr, Facts and
Problems in Oriens (Leiden), vol. 23-24 (1975).