HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies
ISSN: (Online) 2072-8050, (Print) 0259-9422
Page 1 of 8
Original Research
On the transmission of Greek philosophy to
medieval Muslim philosophers
Author:
Ishraq Ali1
Affiliation:
1
School of Philosophy,
Zhejiang University,
Hangzhou, China
Corresponding author:
Ishraq Ali,
ishraq.ali@zju.edu.cn
Dates:
Received: 02 Mar. 2022
Accepted: 14 May 2022
Published: 18 July 2022
How to cite this article
Ali, I., 2022, ‘On the
transmission of Greek
philosophy to medieval
Muslim philosophers’, HTS
Teologiese Studies/
Theological Studies 78(4),
a7504. https://doi.
org/10.4102/hts.v78i4.7504
Copyright:
© 2022. The Author.
Licensee: AOSIS. This work
is licensed under the
Creative Commons
Attribution License.
Read
Read online:
online:
Scan
Scan this
this QR
QR
code
code with
with your
your
smart
smart phone
phone or
or
mobile
mobile device
device
to
to read
read online.
online.
There are two dominant approaches towards understanding medieval Muslim philosophy: (1)
Greek ancestry approach and (2) religiopolitical context approach. In the Greek ancestry
approach, medieval Muslim philosophy is interpreted in terms of its relation to classical Greek
philosophy, particularly to the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle. The religiopolitical context
approach, however, views a thorough understanding of the religious and political situation of
that time as the key to the proper understanding of medieval Muslim philosophy.
Notwithstanding the immense significance of the two approaches for understanding medieval
Muslim philosophy, the question on the reason behind medieval Muslim philosophers’
preference for Plato’s Republic over Aristotle’s Politics in political philosophy is not accurately
answered. This preference is usually attributed either to the availability or unavailability of the
text or to the suitability or unsuitability of the text for Islamic theological views. However, this
article shows that neither the availability or unavailability of text nor its suitability or
unsuitability for Islamic religious and theological views can appropriately explain medieval
Muslim philosophers’ preference for Plato’s Republic over Aristotle’s Politics in their political
thought. This article proposes that the key to understand this preference lies in understanding
the transmission of Greek philosophy to medieval Muslim philosophers.
Contribution: This study highlights the significance of the thorough understanding of the
transmission of Greek philosophy to medieval Muslim world as one of the important
approaches towards proper understanding of medieval Muslim philosophy, particularly
medieval Muslim political philosophy.
Keywords: transmission; medieval Muslim philosophy; Greek philosophy; political
philosophy; Islamic theology; Plato; Aristotle.
Introduction
Broadly speaking, there are two major prevalent approaches towards understanding medieval
Muslim philosophy: (1) Greek ancestry approach and (2) religiopolitical context approach. The
Greek ancestry approach interprets medieval Muslim philosophy in terms of its relation with
classical Greek philosophy, particularly to the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle. This approach is
based on the claim that medieval Muslim philosophy is greatly influenced by Greek philosophy
and, therefore, in order to arrive at a proper understanding of medieval Muslim philosophy, one
must focus on its relation with Greek philosophy. Walzer is one of the greatest proponents of the
Greek ancestry approach towards medieval Muslim philosophy. He (Walzer 2007:108–133) views
medieval Muslim philosophy as a continuation of Greek philosophy. He argues that etymologically,
almost all medieval Muslim philosophical concepts are derived from Greek philosophy. Similarly,
Walker (2005:85–101) suggests that Greek thought has a profound influence on medieval Muslim
philosophy. Leaman (1980:525–538), another important proponent of the Greek ancestry approach,
is of the opinion that Greeks influenced medieval Muslim philosophers in all fields of knowledge.
He adds that Muslims learned novel ways of thinking from Greeks. Likewise, Rosenthal (1958:78)
believes that the dependence of medieval Muslim philosophy on Greek philosophy is so immense
that it is inappropriate to call the Muslim philosophers ‘philosophers’ in the actual sense of the
word.
The religiopolitical context approach, on the contrary, views the influence of the religiopolitical
situation of the time as the dominant factor that shaped the medieval Muslim philosophy.
Consequently, this approach views a thorough understanding of the religious and political situation
of the time as the key to the proper understanding of medieval Muslim philosophy. The prominent
scholars who analyse medieval Muslim philosophy in terms of its relation to the prevalent religious
and political situation of that time include Strauss (1945:357–393, 1989:207–226), Fairahi (2003),
Note: Special Collection: Medieval Philosophy and Theology, sub-edited by Chen Yuehua (Zhejiang University, China).
http://www.hts.org.za
Open Access
Page 2 of 8
Ali and Qin (2019:907–915), Al-Jabri (2000), Nasr (1996:27–38)
and Tabatabai (1994). It is important to point out that the two
approaches, broadly speaking, are not mutually exclusive. The
Greek ancestry approach does not utterly deny the influence
of the religiopolitical context on the medieval Muslim
philosophers but tries to tone it down in favour of the influence
of ancient Greek philosophy. Similarly, the religiopolitical
context approach tends to tone down the Greek influence on
medieval Muslim philosophy in favour of the religiopolitical
influence by highlighting the differences between medieval
Muslim philosophy and Greek philosophy.
There is a consensus of opinion among scholars that medieval
Muslim political philosophy is largely based on Plato’s
Republic. However, there is a clear disagreement among them
on providing an explanation for medieval Muslim
philosophers’ preference for Plato’s Republic over Aristotle’s
Politics in their political discussions. While Strauss and his
followers, who adhere to the religiopolitical context approach,
provide religious and theological explanation for medieval
Muslim philosophers’ preference for Plato’s Republic, others
attribute this preference to the availability or unavailability
of texts. The significance of both, Greek ancestry approach
and religiopolitical context approach, for understanding
medieval Muslim philosophy cannot be denied. There are
obvious Greek and religiopolitical elements in medieval
Muslim philosophy, which can be explained through the two
approaches. However, notwithstanding the significance of
the two approaches, the question about the reason behind
medieval Muslim philosophers’ preference for Plato’s
Republic over Aristotle’s Politics in political philosophy is not
accurately answered. This article shows that neither the
availability or unavailability of the text nor its suitability or
unsuitability for Islamic religious and theological views can
appropriately explain medieval Muslim philosophers’
preference for Plato’s Republic over Aristotle’s Politics in their
political thought. Rather, this article proposes that the key to
understand this preference lies in understanding the
transmission of Greek philosophy to medieval Muslim
philosophers. This article, therefore, is an attempt to highlight
the significance of the thorough understanding of
transmission of Greek philosophy to medieval Muslim world
as another important approach towards proper understanding
of medieval Muslim philosophy, in general, and medieval
Muslim political philosophy, in particular.
The transmission of Greek
philosophy to medieval Muslim
world
It is important to understand the events and circumstances
that resulted in the transmission of Greek philosophy to
medieval Muslim world. There are three major historical
events due to which Greek philosophy reached medieval
Muslim world: (1) Christianisation of the Roman empire, (2)
Persia becoming the new breeding ground for Greek
philosophy, and (3) Muslim conquest and Arabic translation
movement.
http://www.hts.org.za
Original Research
The eastward journey of Greek philosophy:
Christianisation of the Roman empire and the
closure of Athenian academy
The most important factor that played a role in the initiation
of the eastward journey of Greek philosophy is the
Christianisation of the Roman empire. The Christianisation
of the Roman empire led to a clash between the pagans who
had the Hellenistic world view and the Christians who had
the Christian world view. This clash ultimately culminated in
the Christian take-over, the closure of Athenian academy
which was the cradle of Greek philosophy, and the flight of
the philosophers towards Persia in the east along with the
Greek philosophical legacy.
In 313 AD, Constantine, the first Christian Roman emperor,
proclaimed the ‘Edict of Milan’ in which he granted religious
tolerance for Christianity in the Roman empire. In the year
325 AD, he summoned the first ‘General Council of Nicaea’
in the city of Nicaea. The Council aimed to discipline the
disputed Christian doctrines and canonise Christianity. In its
first meeting, the Council produced what is commonly
known as the ‘Nicene Creed’, a statement of the officially
accepted Christian beliefs. Although Constantine officially
recognised the Christian religion, it was the Roman emperor
Gratian who declared Christianity to be the state religion in
the last quarter of the fourth century.
In order to fill the gap created by the absence of any legal
authority of Christianity, the state imposed the Roman law. In
the pagan Greek culture, rhetoric was an important part of
the law as the people who wished to pursue legal profession
were trained through rhetoric. Roman law not only filled the
gap created by the lack of the legal authority of Christianity
but also replaced the Greek rhetoric. It was the first blow that
the Greek rhetoric received as a legal discipline which
initiated its gradual decline. Because law is the glue that
holds a society together and any change in its foundation
always has a grave impact on the whole structure of society,
the gradual deterioration of the Greek rhetoric shook the
legitimacy of the Greek world.
The immediate outcome of the Christianisation of the Roman
empire and the transition from pagan Hellenistic to the
Christian world view was that it was proscribed to make
apocryphal interpretation of the texts. However, the
application of the proscription was not restricted only to the
interpretation of the sacred texts. Rather, it was expanded to
the gnostic texts as well as the Platonic dialogues. The
Neoplatonists were forbidden to make interpretations of
Plato’s dialogues. There was a compulsion to accept the
official dogma, which was supposed to replace the forbidden
myths and symbols. Shayegan (1996:183) rightly puts it as a
‘divorce between creative imagination and rational thought’.
The philosophers and their works faced the same fate as that
of the Greek rhetoric. The pagan scholars were persecuted by
the state, as well as by the Christian monks and their
followers. An association, named Philiponoi, was formed,
Open Access
Page 3 of 8
which organised clashes with the pagan teachers and their
students and attacks on the pagan temples (Maspero
1914:165–171). Many pagan temples were destroyed in
Alexandria. The pagan teachers were deprived of their
salaries, and most of them were not allowed to teach. A tragic
incident took place in the year 415 AD, in which Hypatia, a
famous pagan philosopher, was lynched to death (Cameron
1966:667–669). Because of the hostility of the situation, a
number of famous pagan scholars and philosophers decided
to leave Alexandria. Among the scholars who left Alexandria,
the most prominent were Ammonius, Olympius and
Helladius.
Ammonius headed the Alexandrian school of Neoplatonism
during the last quarter of the fifth century. He was under
severe pressure from the Christian authorities because of his
pagan philosophical views. His concept of the eternity of the
world made him a victim of an assault from two Christian
scholars, Aeneas and Zacharias Scholasticus. In the last
decade of the fifth century, he was forced into an agreement
with Athanasius II according to which he was obliged to
make concessions by turning away from those Platonic
dialogues, which were deemed controversial by the
authorities and turn towards Aristotle. In return, he and his
school were granted financial support by the authorities.
After Ammonius, however, the gradual Christianisation of
the Alexandrian school took place. Although the school
somehow survived, it lost its pagan characteristics and
philosophical vitality.
Unlike the Alexandrian school, the Athenian Academy was a
private institute and its closure was abrupt. In the year 529
AD, it was closed by the Roman emperor Justinian through a
royal decree and its properties were confiscated. Because of
the tense environment, the prominent philosophers of the
academy left Athens and fled to the Persian Sassanian empire
in the east.
Persia: The new breeding ground for Greek
philosophy
After the closure of the Athenian Academy, there were seven
prominent pagan philosophers who fled to the court of
Khosrow I, the Sassanian king in Persia. These philosophers
were Simplicius of Cilicia, Isidore of Gaza, Damascius the
Syrian, Diogenes of Phoenicia, Eulamius the Phrygian,
Hermeias of Phoenicia and Priscianus the Lydian (Hadot
1990:278). They remained in Persia for around 2 years and
probably settled in Harran (Shayegan 1996:193).
It is widely acknowledged that the kings of the Sassanian
empire in Persia were tolerant and open to foreign ideas.
They showed tolerance towards both Greek paganism and
Christianity. It is this tolerance that facilitated the growth of
the Greek thought in Persia. The basic reason behind their
tolerance for the Greek paganism was that the interaction
between the Greek and the Persian culture was centuries old
and dated back to the sixth century BC, the time of Cyrus the
http://www.hts.org.za
Original Research
Great. Cyrus founded the Achaemenian empire, the ancient
Iranian empire also known as the first Persian empire. The
Greco-Persian cultural interaction further strengthened
during the Seleucid period (312–363 BC) and ‘after Alexander
the mutual influence spread to all levels’ (Shayegan 1996:195).
The Sassanians’ tolerance for foreign religions also has roots
in the sixth-century BC. Tolerance for different religions had
been the modus operandi of Persian politics since the time of
Cyrus. In the sixth-century BC, Cyrus used the assimilation
and transformation of the symbols and myths of the foreign
religions and cultures as a political tool in order to ensure the
integrity and coherence of the Achaemenian empire. The
kings of the Sassanian Persian empire emulated Cyrus and
showed tolerance towards Christianity (Shayegan 1996:199).
One of the most decisive incidents in the history of the
Church is the Christological controversy that involved a
dispute over the definition and interpretation of the basic
tenets mainly between Nestorius, the archbishop of
Constantinople, and Cyril who was an Alexandrian patriarch.
The dispute was settled by the first Council of Ephesus in the
year 431 AD and the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD. The
doctrine of Nestorius was condemned as heresy. The state
officially chose the Orthodox Church against Nestorius’
doctrine and the followers of Nestorius, who came to be
known as Nestorians, were persecuted. The school of Edessa,
in which the Nestorian doctrine was centred, was eventually
closed by the Roman emperor Zeno in 489 AD and the
Nestorian teachers and students were expelled. As a result of
the persecution, the Nestorians also migrated to the Persian
empire where they found refuge and established their own
Nestorian Church. Thus, the Christological controversy of
the fifth century resulted in a split in Christianity and the
formation of two Christologically as well as geographically
distinct centres of Christianity took place. The Orthodox
Church was based in the Byzantine empire, whereas
Nestorianism was officially acknowledged by the Sassanian
empire, and the Nestorian Church was set up in Persia.
The school of Edessa was famous not only for the theological
studies but also for the Greek studies. In fact, it was the first
Syriac and Hellenistic centre of the east (Georr 1948:6).
Initially, the interest of the school in the logic of Aristotle was
mainly for theological purposes as it had to defend and
explain Nestorianism using it. The school played a role in the
split between the two churches, and it is only after the
separation from the Orthodox Church that the Nestorians
were able to freely carry out commentaries and translations
of the Greek philosophy. The migration of the Nestorian
scholars to the Sassanian empire provided a new impetus to
the study of Greek science and philosophy in Persia. Renan
(1852:311) rightly comments that the philosophers banished
from Greece by the royal decree of Justinian and the
Nestorians victimised by the Orthodox Church found
sanctuary in Persia and brought about an impressive
movement of the Greek ideas in the sixth century.
Open Access
Page 4 of 8
Muslim conquest and Arabic translation
movement
At the beginning of the second half of the seventh-century
AD, Muslims conquered Persia and brought an end to the
Sassanian reign. In less than 100 years after the conquest of
Persia, Muslims conquered most of the area, which was
previously part of the Byzantine and the Persian empires.
The Muslim empire included the cities where the philosophers
who were banished from Greece and the Syriac Nestorians,
who were the torchbearers of the Greek philosophy, had
managed to survive. The Muslim empire provided protection
to philosophers and facilitated intellectual activities,
especially the preservation, growth and development of the
Greek legacy. The Muslim rulers became the patrons of the
sciences, the arts and the translation of works from different
cultures. They organised translation classes to ensure the
expansion and continuity of the translation of works from
other civilisations (Mehawesh 2014:687). In the eighth
century, the city of Baghdad was founded and made the
capital of the Muslim empire which became the world’s
centre of knowledge within a few decades. The prominent
scholars from all over the world gravitated to Baghdad. In
Baghdad, the Muslim ruler Harun established the House of
Wisdom, a library that was later transformed into an
institution for translation by his son, the emperor Mamun.
The House of Wisdom became the centre of what is known as
the Arabic translation movement (Al-Khalili 2012).
It is the Arabic translation movement that ensured the
availability, in Arabic, of the Greek scientific and philosophical
writings to the medieval Muslim philosophers. The
translation movement was carried out through the
collaboration between Syriac and Muslim scholars between
the 8th and the 10th centuries largely in Baghdad. During
this movement, the Greek texts were translated into Arabic
either directly or through the Persian or Syriac versions. As a
result of this translation movement, ‘the curriculum typical
of the later Greek Neoplatonic schools such as that of
Alexandria was known in Baghdad’ (O’Meara 2005:186).
Significance of the transmission of
Greek philosophy to medieval
Muslim world for understanding
medieval Muslim philosophy
The significance of understanding the transmission of Greek
philosophy to the medieval Muslim philosophers for a better
understanding of medieval Muslim philosophy can be best
seen by focusing on the medieval Muslim political thought.
Medieval Muslim political philosophy is largely based on
Plato’s Republic. It is obvious that like Plato in the Republic, all
medieval Muslim philosophers, except Ibn Bajja, argue for
social and political obligation of the philosopher. While there
is no doubt that medieval Muslim political thought is Platonic
in nature, the question that is of paramount importance here
is related to the reason behind medieval Muslim philosophers’
preference for Plato’s Republic over Aristotle’s Politics. Despite
http://www.hts.org.za
Original Research
the fact that medieval Muslim philosophers were not only
largely conversant with the philosophy of Aristotle but also
greatly influenced by it, why did they follow Plato’s Republic
in their political discussion and not Aristotle’s Politics?
The question we posed is usually answered in terms of
availability or unavailability of texts to the medieval Muslim
philosophers. It is argued that medieval Muslim philosophers
followed Plato’s Republic in their political discussion and not
Aristotle’s Politics because Plato’s Republic, in Arabic
translation, was available to the medieval Muslim
philosophers but Aristotle’s Politics, perhaps, was not.
However, there is no concrete evidence to prove that
Aristotle’s Politics was not available to medieval Muslim
philosophers. On the contrary, in his Aristotle’s Politics in
Arabic Philosophy, Pines (1975:150–160) builds an arguably
convincing case for the availability of the Arabic translation
of Aristotle’s Politics or at least its part(s) to medieval Muslim
philosophers. Strauss (1989:207–226) and other Straussian
philosophers argue that there was no problem of availability
of Aristotle’s Politics for medieval Muslim philosophers. The
book was available but they ignored it. Medieval Muslim
philosophers, they argue, based their political thought on
Plato’s Republic and not on Aristotle’s Politics not because
Politics was not available to them but because the Republic,
rather than the Politics, suited their theological view better. In
Aristotle’s Politics, unlike the Islamic tradition, there is a clear
separation between the temporal and spiritual authority. As
explained by Melamed (2003:3), Aristotle’s Politics views ‘the
political sphere as separate and independent’ sphere, which
is ‘concerned with human laws and temporal rule’. This
political sphere, Melamed adds, is clearly separated ‘from
divine law and affairs of spiritual authority’, which are
considered ‘nonpolitical or supra-political’. In Islam,
however, contrary to Aristotle’s Politics, there is no separation
between the spiritual sphere and the political sphere. Rather,
it unified the spiritual and political authority in one person,
Muhammad, the founding prophet. The founding prophet of
Islam was not only a spiritual or religious leader but also a
political leader. In addition to his spiritual role, he was the
first ruler of the city-state of Medina. Furthermore, Islam
emphasised the political character of the divine law, the
revelation. In the Islamic tradition, revelation deals with both
the spiritual and the political matters. Likewise, Plato,
particularly in the Republic, also unifies the political and
spiritual authority in one person by identifying the
philosopher as the perfect political leader of his city.
According to Strauss and his followers, because the medieval
Muslim philosophers could identify their founding prophetlawgiver with Plato’s philosopher king, they were attracted
towards Plato’s Republic and followed it in their political
discussions rather than Aristotle’s Politics.
The roots of the Straussian opinion that medieval Muslim
philosophers based their political thought on Plato’s Republic
because it suited their theological view better can be traced
to Strauss’ interpretation of Arabic philosophy. Strauss (1945:
357–393, 1989:207–226) suggests that Arabic philosophers
Open Access
Page 5 of 8
lived and worked in a hostile environment and, therefore, they
were bound to present their views ‘in conformity with Islamic
religion’. Charles Butterworth also proposes the same view,
particularly in relation to Muslim political philosophy. He
(Butterworth 1972:187) argues that ‘Islamic political philosophy
has always been pursued in a setting where great care had to
be taken to avoid violating the revelations and traditions
accepted by the Islamic community’. The claim that the
medieval Muslim philosophers worked in a hostile
environment and that they were compelled to align their views
with the prevalent Muslim religious views of the time provides
the basis for the Straussian view that these philosophers
preferred Plato’s Republic over Aristotle’s Politics in their
political discussions because it suited the Islamic religious and
theological views better.
However, the Straussian claim that medieval Muslim
philosophers worked in a hostile environment and that they
were compelled to present their views in conformity with
Islamic religion in order to avoid persecution can be criticised
and refuted on at least two major grounds: one, the absence
of any concrete evidence to prove the existence of hostile
environment for the philosophers; two, the Muslim
philosophers’ explicit expression of the views which are not
in conformity with Islamic religious and theological views.
As Gutas (2002:20) argues, the claim about the existence of a
hostile environment for the medieval Muslim philosophers
‘is contradicted by historical facts’ as ‘there is not a single
such philosopher who was ever persecuted, let alone
executed, for his philosophical views’. Yahya ibn Habash
Suhrawardi and al-Mayanaji are the two philosophers who
are usually cited as examples to prove the existence of hostile
environment for medieval Muslim philosophers. However,
both these philosophers were not executed because of their
philosophical beliefs. Yahya ibn Habash Suhrawardi was
executed ‘because he had usurped, though an outsider to
Aleppo, the position of the local “ulama” as confidant and
manipulator of the prince, al-Malik al-Zahir, Saladin’s son’,
whereas the reason behind al-Mayanaji’s execution was, as
even al-Bayhaqi reports, his enmity with ‘the vizier Abu alQasim al-Anasabadhi’ (Gutas 2002:20; Meyerhof 1948:175).
Gutas (2002:21) calls Butterworth’s statement a baseless
assumption wrongly presented as hard fact without ‘a single
reference to any source, primary or secondary’. As it is
claimed that the ‘setting’ has been ‘always’ so, it should have
been so easy to provide examples to support the claim.
However, there was not even a single example that was
furnished from more than 10 centuries during which
philosophy was practised in Islamic societies. On the
contrary, there are medieval Muslim philosophers who freely
and explicitly expressed the views which were not strictly in
conformity with the prevalent Islamic theological views and
never faced any persecution because of their philosophical
views. The prime example of such philosophers is Abu Nasr
Alfarabi. According to Alfarabi (1985:279–281), religion is the
symbolic imitation of philosophy, and ‘the knowledge of the
philosophers is undoubtedly more excellent’. He subordinates
religion to philosophy and the faculty of soul responsible for
http://www.hts.org.za
Original Research
revelation, the divine law, to the faculty of soul responsible
for philosophical knowledge. As Gutas (2002) points out:
[F]irst, he is explicitly critical of theology as a science, relegating
it to a status little more than the verbal counterpart of street
fighting, and second, with religion in general, he is equally
explicit in assigning to it a purely functional role in society,
namely to maintain the social order among the unlettered
masses. (p. 20)
Furthermore, while the Syriac logicians restricted themselves
to the first four books of Aristotelian logic owing to the
perceived threat of the study of the other parts, particularly
of the Analytica Posteriora, to the Christian religious belief,
Alfarabi was the first logician who broke with the Syriac
tradition and paraphrased or commented on the whole
Aristotelian logical corpus, the Organon (Fakhry 2002:8).
Despite Alfarabi’s non-conformity with the prevalent Islamic
religious and theological views of the time, he was never
persecuted. On the contrary, it is well known that he was
made an honourable member of the court of Sayf al-Dawla,
the prince of Aleppo, a year before his death. All of this
indicates that contrary to the Straussian view, a favourable
environment existed for the medieval Muslim philosophers
where they could freely practise philosophy, and that they
were not compelled to align their philosophical ideas to the
Islamic religious or theological views. Thus, it appears to be
very unlikely that the medieval Muslim philosophers
preferred Plato’s Republic just because it suited the prevalent
Islamic theological view and, thereby, helped them to fulfil
the claimed compulsory requirement of aligning their
philosophical views to the Islamic views.
It is obvious that neither the availability or unavailability of
the text nor its suitability or unsuitability for Islamic
theological views can accurately explain medieval Muslim
philosophers’ preference for Plato’s Republic over Aristotle’s
Politics in their political discussion. The key to understanding
this preference, most plausibly, lies in the transmission of
Greek philosophy to the medieval Muslim philosophers.
There is a gap of more than 1000 years between classical
Greek philosophers and medieval Muslim philosophers.
During this 1000 years plus journey of classical Greek
philosophy to reach medieval Muslim world, the nature,
content and interpretation of classical Greek philosophy
continuously changed because of various factors, such as
complete or partial loss of some classical Greek texts, the
complete or partial recovery of the classical Greek texts which
were previously lost, and the inability or impossibility to
translate the whole available classical Greek philosophical
corpus to other language(s) in order to ensure its complete
transmission to coming civilisation(s). Because of such
factors, classical Greek philosophy was subjected to various
interpretations at various stages of history by various schools
of thought. Now, in this context, the question that is of
paramount importance is that what was Greek philosophy
for medieval Muslim philosophers? As discussed in the
previous section, the philosophers banished from Greece by
the royal decree of Justinian and the Nestorians victimised by
Open Access
Page 6 of 8
the Orthodox Church are the major sources by which classical
Greek philosophy, particularly the philosophy of Plato and
Aristotle, reached medieval Muslim philosophers. These
philosophers banished from Greece and the Nestorians,
however, received the classical Greek philosophy from late
Hellenists. Thus, the medieval Muslim philosophers
inherited classical Greek philosophical corpus from late
Hellenists through the pagan philosophers banished from
Greece and the Nestorians. For medieval Muslim
philosophers, classical Greek philosophy was what they
inherited from late Hellenists. Here, it is important to point
out that the transmission is not restricted to the transmission
of philosophical texts only. Rather, it also includes the
transmission of attitude and approach towards the classical
Greek philosophers and their philosophical texts. Thus, in
order to understand the attitude of medieval Muslim
philosophers towards the classical Greek philosophers and
their texts, we need to understand the attitude of late
Hellenists to these philosophers and their texts.
Hellenistic period in philosophy, particularly the early and
middle Hellenistic period, is usually characterised by a
relative lack of explicit and direct engagement with the
writings and ideas of Aristotle. However, the lack of explicit
and direct engagement with Aristotle during this period was
neither absolute nor an indication of complete lack of
knowledge of Aristotle’s writings and ideas. As Falcon (2015)
points out, the first-generation Epicureans’ acquaintance
with the ideas and works of Aristotle is indicated by ‘a
fragment of a letter from a first-generation Epicurean, maybe
Epicurus himself’, ‘preserved in a Herculaneum papyrus’, in
which ‘Aristotle’s Analytics and his writings on nature’ are
mentioned. Similarly, a summary of Aristotle’s biology
produced by Aristophanes, ‘the head of the library of
Alexandria at the end of the third century BC’, is an exception
to the lack of explicit and direct engagement with the works
of Aristotle during this period. An explanation for the lack of
explicit and direct engagement with the works of Aristotle in
early and middle Hellenist period is provided by Strabo in
his work Geographica. In book XIII, chapter 1, section 1 of
Geographica, Strabo tells us that Aristotle handed over his
library to Theophrastus. After the death of Theophrastus,
Neleus succeeded to the possession of this library. Neleus
transported these books to Scepsis in the Troad, where they
were locked away. Later, Scepsians hid them in an excavation
underground where they were damaged by dampness and
worms. These books could not be recovered until the first
century BC. This narration, which need not to be pure fiction,
explains the limited fortune that the philosophy of Aristotle
enjoyed in the Hellenistic period, especially in the early and
middle Hellenistic period.
In the late Hellenistic period, however, only after the recovery
of the philosophical writings of Aristotle, a thorough return
to Aristotle took place. This return involved ‘rise of Aristotle
as a philosophical authority’ and an active engagement with
his works and ideas (Falcon). But there is no concrete
evidence of engagement with Aristotle’s political thought
http://www.hts.org.za
Original Research
even in the late Hellenistic period. There is not a single
commentary on Aristotle’s Politics dating from the late
Hellenistic period (Melamed 2003:1). It appears that although
late Hellenists acknowledged the significance of Aristotle’s
physics, metaphysics, psychology and logic, they viewed
Plato as the ultimate authority on political thought.
It is unfortunate that not much of the late Hellenistic writings,
which represent late Hellenists’ engagement with Plato’s
political thought, have survived. The most important
evidence of engagement with Plato’s political philosophy
during the late Hellenistic period comes from Cicero. Cicero
was a great admirer of Plato. He wrote two dialogues, De re
publica and De legibus, modelled on Plato’s Republic and Laws.
De re publica is written in six books, but a large part of it could
not survive. Only three books of De legibus are extant. The
extant portion of these books is sufficient to indicate the
interest of philosophers in the political thought of Plato in
late Hellenistic period. There is evidence to indicate that
interest in and engagement with the political philosophy of
Plato continued during late antiquity. Around the time when
Julian was about to become the emperor, Themistius, the
prominent philosopher of Constantinople, wrote a letter to
Julian. This letter is lost, but our knowledge of the contents of
this letter comes from Julian’s response to this letter which is
extant.1 It appears that Themistius had evoked, in his letter to
Julian, one of Plato’s most extraordinary claims in the Republic
(473c–d) that there will be no ‘cessation of evils for humanity’
until philosophers become kings or kings become
philosophers. This is not the only instance that Themistius
has employed Plato’s idea of philosopher king. He has used
the idea in Orationes (at 1, 46, 7–9 & 8, 162, 20–24) as well. In
another letter, which Libanius has addressed to Julian,
Libanius describes Julian as the king ‘whom long ago Plato
had sought and somehow found, late’.2 Similarly, Synesius in
his work, De regno, advocates the ideal of the philosopher
king for the benefit of the young emperor Arcadius and his
court. As far as commentaries on Plato’s Republic are
concerned, Proclus’ commentary is the only ancient Greek
commentary on Plato’s Republic that has survived. These
examples indicate that the political philosophy of Plato
remained influential and relevant during late antiquity.
It is clear that for late Hellenists as well as later philosophers
of antiquity, Plato was the ultimate authority on politics and
Plato’s Republic was the basic textbook on politics. This attitude
appears to continue in medieval Muslim philosophy. Like the
late Hellenists and later philosophers of antiquity, medieval
Muslim philosophers admired and followed Aristotle’s
metaphysics, psychology and logic, but did not engage with
his political thought. Similarly, like the late Hellenists and
later philosophers of antiquity, medieval Muslim philosophers
viewed and followed Plato as the ultimate authority on
politics. The most typical example of this attitude in the
medieval Muslim period is Abu Nasr Alfarabi, who is
1.Swain (2013:160–179) provides an English translation of Julian’s letter in response
to Themistius’ letter.
2.Libanius’ letter is printed as No. 97b in Bidez’s edition of Julian’s letters.
Open Access
Page 7 of 8
considered to be the founder of Islamic political philosophy.
In logic, Alfarabi is greatly influenced by Aristotle. This
influence is obvious in the extensive engagement of Alfarabi
with Aristotelian logic. He has produced a series of
commentaries and paraphrases on the great Aristotelian
works in the field of logic. Alfarabi’s important commentaries
on Aristotle’s works on logic include Commentary on the
Categories, Commentary on Analytica Priora, Commentary on
Analytica Posteriora, Commentary on Interpretation and
Commentary on Rhetorica. Among these commentaries, only
the Commentary on Interpretation (Sharh Kitab al-Ibarah) has
survived, which is translated with notes and introduction by
F. W. Zimmermann. Alfarabi’s major paraphrases on
Aristotelian logic, however, include Paraphrase of Aristotle’s
Categories and Paraphrase of Aristotle’s Prior Analytics. Similarly,
the influence of Aristotle’s psychology on Alfarabi is also
noteworthy. As Ali and Qin (2020:91-105) have discussed,
Alfarabi has adopted Aristotle’s monistic psychology. For
Alfarabi, as for Aristotle, the body–soul relationship is a
specific instance of the general doctrine of hylomorphism
where the body is matter, the potentiality, and the soul is
form, the actuality of the potentiality. As form cannot exist
without matter, the soul cannot exist by itself and perishes
with the body. Thus, for Alfarabi, as for Aristotle, the body
and the soul represent a unity, and neither the soul nor the
body but an ensouled body is the ultimate reality and actual
being. Despite the immense influence of Aristotle on Alfarabi
especially in logic and psychology, the political philosophy of
Alfarabi is largely Platonic. In Mabadi Ara Ahl al-Madina alFadhila and other political writings, Alfarabi has proposed a
theory of virtuous city, which is modelled on Plato’s theory of
virtuous city of the Republic. It is evident from the similarities
between Alfarabi’s and Plato’s theory of the virtuous city that
Alfarabi has borrowed certain Platonic elements and
incorporated them into his political philosophy. The common
premise for Plato’s and Alfarabi’s theory of the virtuous city
is their shared belief in the possibility of a rational sociopolitical arrangement that can ensure ultimate human
happiness. Alfarabi follows Plato in making the possibility of
such a rational socio-political arrangement dependent upon
the rulership by a philosopher king.
It is, thus, obvious that the most plausible explanation for
medieval Muslim philosophers’ adoption of Plato’s Republic
rather than Aristotle’s Politics in their political thought is that
they inherited the same late Hellenistic attitude towards
Plato and Aristotle via pagan philosophers of the Roman
empire and Nestorians. Like the late Hellenists and later
philosophers of antiquity, medieval Muslim philosophers
acknowledged the importance of Aristotle’s philosophy, but
viewed Plato as the ultimate authority on political thought
and followed Plato’s Republic rather than Aristotle’s Politics
as the basic textbook on politics.
Conclusion
Medieval Muslim philosophy has been extensively
investigated in relation to its Greek ancestry and the
religiopolitical situation of the time. Greek philosophy and
the religiopolitical context of the time have greatly influenced
http://www.hts.org.za
Original Research
medieval Muslim philosophy. Therefore, the Greek ancestry
approach and religiopolitical context approach are important
in order to provide explanation for those elements in
medieval Muslim philosophy, which are dictated by Greek
philosophy and the religiopolitical situation of the time.
Despite the immense significance of the two approaches for
understanding medieval Muslim philosophy, there are
certain questions about medieval Muslim philosophy which
are still unanswered. One of such questions is related to
medieval Muslim philosophers’ preference for Plato’s
Republic over Aristotle’s Politics in their political discussions.
This preference is usually attributed either to the availability
or unavailability of the text or to the suitability or unsuitability
of the text for Islamic theological views. However, this article
showed that neither the availability or unavailability of the
text nor the suitability or unsuitability of the text for Islamic
theological views can accurately explain medieval Muslim
philosophers’ preference for Plato’s Republic in political
philosophy.
This article revealed that the key to answer the question
about medieval Muslim philosophers’ preference for Plato’s
Republic in their political discussions lies in the transmission
of Greek philosophy to medieval Muslim philosophers. It is
highlighted that the philosophers banished from Greece
through the royal decree of Justinian and the Nestorians
victimised by the orthodox church are the sources through
which classical Greek philosophy reached medieval Muslim
philosophers. These philosophers who were banished from
Greece and the Nestorians received classical Greek
philosophy from late Hellenists. Thus, medieval Muslim
philosophers inherited classical Greek philosophical corpus
from late Hellenists through the philosophers who were
banished from Greece and the Nestorians. However, in
addition to the classical Greek philosophical corpus, medieval
Muslim philosophers inherited late Hellenists’ attitude
towards the classical Greek philosophers and their texts as
well. Therefore, as late Hellenists viewed Plato’s Republic
rather than Aristotle’s Politics as the basic textbook on politics,
medieval Muslim philosophers preferred Plato’s Republic
over Aristotle’s Politics in their political discussions. In light
of the discussion, it can be concluded that in addition to the
two prevalent approaches towards analysing medieval
Muslim philosophy, a thorough understanding of the
transmission of Greek philosophy to the medieval Muslim
philosophers is also significant for a better understanding of
medieval Muslim philosophy.
Acknowledgements
Competing interests
The author declares that he has no financial or personal
relationships that may have inappropriately influenced him
in writing this article.
Author’s contributions
I.A. is the sole author of this article.
Open Access
Page 8 of 8
Ethical considerations
Original Research
Fairahi, D., 2003, Power, knowledge and legitimacy in Islam, Nay Publications, Tehran.
This study followed all ethical standards for research without
direct contact with human or animal subjects.
Fakhry, M., 2002, Alfarabi, founder of Islamic Neoplatonism: His life, works and
influence, Oneworld Publications, Oxford.
Falcon, A., 2015, The reception of Aristotle in antiquity, Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
Georr, K., 1948, Les Catégories d’ Aristote aans leurs versions Syro-Arabes [The SyroArabic versions of Aristotle’s Categories], Institut Francais de Damas, Beirut.
Funding information
This research was supported by the China Postdoctoral
Science Foundation Fund project, ‘Philosophy vs Theology:
Research on Medieval Arab Thought From a Historical
Perspective’ (2022M712803).
This research was also supported by the National Social
Science Fund of China project, ‘Research on the Tradition of
the Theory of Creation’ (20BZJ032).
Data availability
Gutas, D., 2002, ‘The study of Arabic philosophy in the twentieth century: An essay on
the historiography of Arabic philosophy’, British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies
29(1), 5–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/13530190220124043
Hadot, I., 1990, ‘The life and works of Simplicius in Greek and Arabic sources’, in R.
Sorabji (ed.), Aristotle transformed: The ancient commentators and their influence,
pp. 275–303, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.
Leaman, O., 1980, ‘Does the interpretation of Islamic philosophy rest on a mistake?’,
International Journal of Middle East Studies 12(4), 525–538. https://doi.
org/10.1017/S0020743800031287
Maspero, J., 1914, ‘Horapollon et la fin du paganisme egyptien’ [Horapollo and the
end of Egyptian paganism], Bulletin de l‘Institut francais d’archeologie orientale
11, 163–195.
Mehawesh, M.I., 2014, ‘History of translation in the Arab world: An overview’, USChina Foreign Language 12(8), 684–691. https://doi.org/10.17265/15398080/2014.08.009
Melamed, A., 2003, The philosopher-king in medieval and renaissance Jewish political
thought, ed. Lenn E. Goodman, State University of New York Press, Albany, NY.
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data
were created or analysed in this study.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of
the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or
position of any affiliated agency of the author.
References
Meyerhof, M., 1948, ‘Alī al-Bayhaqī’s Tatimmat Siwān al-Hikma: A biographical work
on learned men of the Islam’, Osiris 8, 122–217. https://doi.org/10.1086/368514
Nasr, S.H., 1996, ‘The Quran and hadith as source and inspiration of Islamic
philosophy’, in S.H. Nasr & O. Leaman (eds.), History of Islamic philosophy,
pp. 27–38, Routledge, London.
O’Meara, D.J., 2005, Platonopolis: Platonic political philosophy in late antiquity,
Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Pines, S., 1975, ‘Aristotle’s politics in Arabic philosophy’, Israel Oriental Studies 5,
150–160.
Renan, E., 1852, ‘Lettre a M. Reinaud sur quelques manuscrits syriaques du Musee
Britannique’ [Letter to M. Reinaud on some Syriac manuscripts from the British
museum], Journal Asiatique 19, 293–332.
Rosenthal, E., 1958, Political thought in Medieval Islam: An introductory outline,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Alfarabi, 1985, Mabadi Ara Ahl al-Madina al-Fadhila, transl. R. Walzer, Clarendon
Press, Oxford.
Ali, I. & Qin, M., 2019, ‘Distinguishing the virtuous city of Alfarabi from that of Plato in
light of his unique historical context’, HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies
75(4), 907–915. https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v75i4.5370
Ali, I. & Qin, M., 2020, ‘City and soul in Plato and Alfarabi: An explanation for the
differences between Plato’s and Alfarabi’s theory of city in terms of their distinct
psychology’, Axiomathes 30(1), 91–105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10516-01909439-w
Al-Jabri, A., 2000, Naqd al-Aql al-Arabi 3: Arab political reason, The Center for the
Study of Arab Unity, Beirut.
Al-Khalili, J., 2012, The house of wisdom: How Arabic science saved ancient knowledge
and gave us the renaissance, Penguin Books, London.
Shayegan, Y., 1996, ‘The transmission of Greek philosophy to the Islamic world’, in S.H.
Nasr & O. Leaman (eds.), History of Islamic philosophy, pp. 180–208, Routledge,
London.
Strauss, L., 1945, ‘Farabi’s Plato’, in Louis Ginzberg: Jubilee volume on the occasion of
his seventieth birthday, pp. 357–393, American Academy for Jewish Research,
New York, NY.
Strauss, L., 1989, ‘How to begin to study medieval philosophy’, in T.L. Pangle (ed.), The
rebirth of classical political rationalism: An introduction to the thought of Leo
Strauss, pp. 207–226, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Swain, S. (ed. & transl.), 2013, ‘Julian, letter to Themistius’, Themistius, Julian, and
Greek political theory under Rome: Texts, translations, and studies of four key
works, pp. 160–179, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Tabatabai, J., 1994, Decline of political thought in Iran, Kavir Publications, Tehran.
Butterworth, C., 1972, ‘Rhetoric and Islamic political philosophy’, International Journal
of Middle East Studies 3(2), 187–198. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020743800024879
Walker, P.E., 2005, ‘Philosophy of religion in Alfarabi, Ibn Sina and Ibn Tufayl’, in T.
Lawson (ed.), Reason and inspiration in Islam: Theology, philosophy and mysticism
in Muslim thought, pp. 85–101, I. B. Tauris Publishers, London.
Cameron, A., 1966, ‘The end of the ancient universities’, Journal of World History
10(1), 653–673.
Walzer, R., 2007, ‘Islamic philosophy’, in I.R. Netton (ed.), Islamic philosophy and
theology, pp. 108–133, Routledge, London.
http://www.hts.org.za
Open Access