Customer Reviews

Alfarabi and the Foundation of Islamic Political Philosophy

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

The radicalism and centrality of (philosophical) politics for the Muslim philosopher Farabi (around 900 CE) is the first thing that greets you, like the bristling edge of a row of thorn-bushes, in this amazing book; that uncomfortable impression never leaves you. Mahdi situates Farabi in the midst of neoplatonic philosophers intent upon harmonizing Plato and Aristotle. "Yet the complete absence from his [Farabi] authentic writings of the central Neoplatonic philosophic doctrines -of the One, Intellect, and Soul- should have been sufficient to suggest to students of Islamic philosophy who read him that they were in the presence of a philosopher who made use of certain elements drawn from the Neoplatonic philosophic tradition but whose Neoplatonism must remain suspect."

We are shown how Farabi denies(!) that revealed religion is in any real sense an innovation and we are also shown the underlying similarity between pagan and monotheistic religion. "Alfarabi's treatment of these subjects in his works on political philosophy and religion is not an innovation. It points to the similarity between the virtuous royal craft or art and the art of the lawgiver, between the virtuous city as envisioned by Plato and the religious community based on revelation." It seems that Mahdi is here indicating that Farabi said (of the Prophet) what Machiavelli said (of Moses in 'The Prince', chapter 6) many hundreds of years later. ...They were great political (and/or philosophical) innovators, nothing more. Now we find ourselves nervously wondering, has (political) philosophy then made everything?

But why does (political) philosophy make what it does? "The opinions expressed in these two works [Farabi's 'Virtuous City' and 'Political Regime'] not only originate in a political context (in that they are legislated) but are politically relevant, important, and even crucial. For they point to the ends (or the view of happiness) for which the actions are performed, a fundamental subject matter of political science." This suggests that happiness is the fundamental subject of political philosophy. But, as I hope we all know, philosophy itself aims to make men reasonable, not happy. These two views, it should be noted, may not be entirely compatible.

...But what of philosophy proper and its interest in the Cosmos? Is it too an artifact of political philosophy? "The question here is whether, and to what extent, the cosmos and the human body are already interpreted politically or certain conclusions of scientific inquiries are modified to make them more adequate opinions for the citizens and to present them as patterns for the construction of the city" One is tempted to say that if the founder of a religion (or political philosopher masquerading as founder) decides what can be said and not said about cosmos, body and soul then there is only political philosophy.

But the City (and its myths and opinions) cannot be entirely built on myth and opinion otherwise Science and Philosophy could not survive. ...Not any myth is good. "For it is precisely the relationship between science and the city that is at issue," Mahdi correctly reminds us. "Differently stated, the integrity of scientific knowledge should be maintained even when it is used to help form the opinions of the citizens." Can science and philosophy remain free of opinion and myth while spreading myths and opinion among the people? The problem, one suspects and fears, is that after a millennium or two, the differences between philosophy/science and opinion/myth tend to blur. ...Who, for instance, can dare say they see with utter clarity after 2000 years of the 'Platonism for the people'?

Or to perhaps state the same question in another manner: The City (opinion, myth) becomes more real the longer it survives. Its reality challenges the ancient 'realities' of Cosmos and Soul, or if you prefer, nature and individual psyche. The difficulty is twofold; nobody knows how to change nature or the human soul, or even if this can be done. But, and this is the second difficulty, we do know how to change the city, its opinions and myths. Changing religion or regime (these are both the city) is far easier than changing cosmos/nature or soul/psyche.

Thus political philosophy would seem to be doomed to only treat opinion and myth. How does philosophy, or if you prefer, political philosophy, maintain its status as science in such circumstances? Would a medical science that only treated symptoms, never causes - indeed; some of the symptoms were even caused by this so-called medical science - still be worthy of the title of Science?

We have only here scratched the surface of the issues dealt with in this book. I only give 4 stars because in the future I will want to give 5 stars to Farabi himself.

No book could be timelier: published six weeks before September 11th 2001, it is billed as the summation of the long career of the leading expert on the thought of Alfarabi, a key Muslim thinker referred to as `The Second Master' who combined Greek philosophy with Islamic religion and established Islamic political philosophy. The death of the author last year - largely unnoticed - adds a special poignancy.

Sadly, the book has numerous flaws which diminish its effect. For a start, it is not a newly-authored work distilling decades of extraordinary scholarship (as the blurb claims), but a collection of articles dating from 1963 to 1999. Mahdi's central chapter on Alfarbi's most important work, `The Virtuous City' is a piece that first appeared in 1963 as an essay on Alfarabi in the `History of Political Philosophy' edited by Mahdi's guru, Leo Strauss. It is therefore intended for students of politics rather than Arabist scholars. Other chapters are from specialist journals or publications and are detailed readings of Alfarabi's main political works, some of which have been translated by Mahdi but have a totally different focus to this brilliant chapter.

Mahdi concentrates on Alfarabi's political thought, but surely at least some account of his epistemology and ontology should have also been presented? And if Alfarabi is a political thinker, then surely a historical context of his actual political circumstances should have been presented to amplify the dense concentration on the texts? And what of Alfarbi's influence on subsequent Islamic political thought? Netton (Alfarabi and his School, Routledge 1992) talks of an "age of Alfarabism" (CE 870-1023) and a school of Alfarabi. Nothing of this emerges in Mahdi - Alfarabi lives in a vacuum. Indeed Mahdi's refusal to engage with other scholars is extraordinary, and excused by Mahdi's pupil, Charles Butterworth in his Introduction. But since 1963 when Mahdi wrote about The Virtuous City, a translation (`On The Perfect State' OUP 1985), with Arabic text, notes and introduction by Richard Walzer has appeared. Butterworth hints that Mahdi doesn't agree with Walzer and yet this is the edition anyone reading Mahdi will be consulting. Surely, the crucial chapter could have been re-written to engage with Walzer and incorporate a further four decades of research by Mahdi? Some scholars link Alfarabi to Neoplatonism. Mahdi has good grounds for dissenting from this view but needs to engage with its proponents and with scholars of Islamic philosophy such as Henry Corbin to prove his case. He doesn't.

But the book's most serious problem is this: Mahdi is so under the influence of Leo Strauss (Strauss's 1945 essay about Alfarabi is about the one secondary work quoted by Mahdi) that we have no way of knowing whether Mahdi has simply projected Straus's image onto a thinker 1000 years earlier than the sage of Chicago. Even the manner of Strauss is replicated as well as the content of the rise and disappearance of "political philosophy". He replicates Strauss's mannerism of teasing details of a thinker's works in such a way as to suggest a position, only to drag the magic carpet (Mahdi is also the editor of the definitive edition of the `Arabian Nights') from under our feet - in mid-flight. This is very irritating, because when Mahdi does come up with a definitive summation of Alfarabi's meaning he can be magically lucid and even inspiring. Could a thinker who lived 870-950 have been such an anticipation of a 20th Century thinker?

For these reasons and despite the meticulous scholarship, the work ultimately fails, though no one interested in Islamic political thought can ignore it.