1

Classification of Knowledgein Islam

by Osman Bakar

A Book Review

Building upon the precision given by Aristotle and his early successors to thenotion of definition, the Muslim philosophical and theological traditions devel-oped a very sophisticated system for the classification of the sciences. It is hardto overemphasize the importance placed by the scholars of Muslim civilizationon the problem of classification. For example, when Ibn Sına pointed out thathe could not understand the Metaphysica of Aristotle even after reading itforty times, his problem was not with the intricacies of the subject matter perse, but rather with the proper classification of the subject matter at large,something about which Aristotle himself was quite ambiguous. Thus Ibn Sınasays he only understood the Metaphysica after reading the commentary of al-Farabı, which precisely clarified the proper divisions of metaphysics and itssubject matter.

Classification of Knowledge in Islam by Osman Bakar (Islamic Texts So-ciety, 1998) quite fittingly starts with a study of al-Farabı’s system of classifi-cation of the sciences. In addition to the Peripatetic tradition of classificationas represented by al-Farabı, Bakar also considers two other figures and tradi-tions: that of standard Sunni theology developed by al-Ghazzalı, and that ofthe burgeoning neo-scholasticism that evolved in the wake of the Mongol in-vasions and represented here by Qut.buddın al-Shırazı. Altogether, this studyconstitutes a major contribution to the understanding of how the classificationof knowledge fits into the traditional cosmological scheme as well as the rolethat 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 philosophicalapproaches to knowledge and its classification:

2

. 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 givenscience, and determining which sciences are superior to others;

B. Epistemic, viz., classification of the ways to knowing the subjectmatter 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 toMan and his destiny;

. The distinction between religion and philosophy.

Bakar points out that, despite their radical differences in the relativemerits of the two, both al-Farabı the Aristotelian and al-Ghazzalı theapologetic theologian recognize a sharp difference between the purelyintellectual sciences and those based on revelation. Bakar’s study is es-pecially important in his detailed comparisons and contrasts between thesystems of classification of these two scholars. He explores in detail thestruggles of al-Ghazzalı to adopt the Farabian structure of classificationto the needs of the emerging mainstream symbiosis of Sunni and Sufithought.

The overwhelming majority (over 200 pages) of the book deals with the clas-sification systems of al-Farabı and al-Ghazzalı in detail. In comparison, thesection on Qut.buddın al-Shırazı appears to be an afterthought and is notwell-integrated into the rest of this study. Only 11 pages are devoted toal-Shırazı’s system. The development of the science of classification in theneo-scholasticism of the post-Mongol era, with detailed comparisons and con-trast with the earlier systems could have been quite interesting. Bakar doespoint out al-Shırazı’s efforts to bridge the classificational abyss separating thereligious and rational sciences. This is a manifestation of a general trend inMuslim neo-scholasticism and could have been explored further. On the otherhand, the detailed study of al-Farabı and al-Ghazzalı alone is well worth theprice 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

3

‘fi’ in ‘Classification’ on the inner title pages for example). Other typograph-ical errors include a number of widows (paragraphs ending on the first lineof 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 ofthe sciences of Muslim civilization are the excellently annotated biographicalsynopses of each of the three selected authors.

Dr. Idris Samawi Hamid

Department of Philosophy

Colorado State University

July 27 2002