Classification of Knowledge

in Islam
by Osman Bakar

A Book Review

Building upon the precision given by Aristotle and his early successors to the
notion of definition, the Muslim philosophical and theological traditions devel-
oped a very sophisticated system for the classification of the sciences. It is hard
to overemphasize the importance placed by the scholars of Muslim civilization
on the problem of classification. For example, when Ibn Sı̄na pointed out that
he could not understand the Metaphysica of Aristotle even after reading it
forty times, his problem was not with the intricacies of the subject matter per
se, but rather with the proper classification of the subject matter at large,
something about which Aristotle himself was quite ambiguous. Thus Ibn Sı̄na
says he only understood the Metaphysica after reading the commentary of al-
Fārābı̄, which precisely clarified the proper divisions of metaphysics and its
subject matter.
Classification of Knowledge in Islam by Osman Bakar (Islamic Texts So-
ciety, 1998) quite fittingly starts with a study of al-Fārābı̄’s system of classifi-
cation of the sciences. In addition to the Peripatetic tradition of classification
as represented by al-Fārābı̄, Bakar also considers two other figures and tradi-
tions: that of standard Sunni theology developed by al-Ghazzālı̄, and that of
the burgeoning neo-scholasticism that evolved in the wake of the Mongol in-
vasions and represented here by Qut.buddı̄n al-Shı̄rāzı̄. Altogether, this study
constitutes a major contribution to the understanding of how the classification
of knowledge fits into the traditional cosmological scheme as well as the role
that classification played in giving coherence to the Muslim education system.
One of Bakar’s main arguments is that, in traditional Muslim civilization,
there are two threads which are common to both theological and philosophical
approaches to knowledge and its classification:

1
. The hierarchy and unity of the various branches of knowledge.

These two are set by adherence to three kinds of criteria:

A. Ontic, viz., classification of the subject matter per se of a given

science, and determining which sciences are superior to others;

B. Epistemic, viz., classification of the ways to knowing the subject

matter of a given science, and determining which method of know-
ing is superior with respect to that science;

C. Ethical, viz, the teleological place of each science with respect to

Man and his destiny;

. The distinction between religion and philosophy.

Bakar points out that, despite their radical differences in the relative
merits of the two, both al-Fārābı̄ the Aristotelian and al-Ghazzālı̄ the
apologetic theologian recognize a sharp difference between the purely
intellectual sciences and those based on revelation. Bakar’s study is es-
pecially important in his detailed comparisons and contrasts between the
systems of classification of these two scholars. He explores in detail the
struggles of al-Ghazzālı̄ to adopt the Fārābian structure of classification
to the needs of the emerging mainstream symbiosis of Sunni and Sufi
thought.

The overwhelming majority (over 200 pages) of the book deals with the clas-
sification systems of al-Fārābı̄ and al-Ghazzālı̄ in detail. In comparison, the
section on Qut.buddı̄n al-Shı̄rāzı̄ appears to be an afterthought and is not
well-integrated into the rest of this study. Only 11 pages are devoted to
al-Shı̄rāzı̄’s system. The development of the science of classification in the
neo-scholasticism of the post-Mongol era, with detailed comparisons and con-
trast with the earlier systems could have been quite interesting. Bakar does
point out al-Shı̄rāzı̄’s efforts to bridge the classificational abyss separating the
religious and rational sciences. This is a manifestation of a general trend in
Muslim neo-scholasticism and could have been explored further. On the other
hand, the detailed study of al-Fārābı̄ and al-Ghazzālı̄ alone is well worth the
price of admission.
The book design and production itself is satisfactory for the most part.
The use of Times New Roman without ligatures is unfortunate (look at the

2
‘fi’ in ‘Classification’ on the inner title pages for example). Other typograph-
ical errors include a number of widows (paragraphs ending on the first line
of a page, e.g., pages 30 and 176). On the other hand, the overall organiza-
tional structure of the book is quite clear. Useful for beginning students of
the sciences of Muslim civilization are the excellently annotated biographical
synopses of each of the three selected authors.

Dr. Idris Samawi Hamid

Department of Philosophy
Colorado State University

July 27 2002