Talk:Avicenna

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Avicenna article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, now in the public domain.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:


Contents

[edit] Avicenna a 'Bon Viveur'?

Not having read his autobiography I have little to go by. However, a recent BBC programme about Avicenna and his thought (http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/inourtime.shtml) portrayed him as having a hearty sexual appetite and proclivity for drink. I should add that these details served to illustrate the vitality of the man rather than a lack of moral fiber. In the light of this, perhaps the sections of the article dealing with Avicenna's character need fleshing out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.106.200.247 (talk) 01:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK, Avicenna drunk alcohol for a long time before quitting. I am not sure about the rest of it. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Was Avicenna a Shi'a Muslim

Was Avicenna a Shi'a Muslim? A repetitive, persistent edit insists that he was, but the editor refuses to add a citation. I don't know whether this man was Shi'a, but I do know that adding new info to a Wikipedia article requires a citation that complies with WP:VERIFY. Can someone with more knowledge of this topic shed some light on the subject? Further, should this new addition contain a citation? Kindest regards, Verum (talk) 23:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

As Henry Corbin says in History of Islamic Philosophy from autobiography of Avicenna his father and his brother were Ismaili and invited him to this sect. Corbin guess he was Twelveres because he escaped from Mahmud of Ghazni and went to Buwayhids who were Shia. In addition Shia theologians like Nasir al-Din Tusi glorified him while Sunni theologians like al-Ghazali opposed him in Tahafat al-Falasefa.--Seyyed(t-c) 18:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Seyyed, you seem much more knowledgable about this subject than I. I added a note to the infobox which quotes the following from Kahn's book (p. 38): "Like their rulers, Avicenna's family was likely Sunni, though some later critics have said it was Shiite." If you think your source more acurately depicts our knowledge of the subject, please make changes as you see fit. The infobox currently says Avicenna was Sunni. Thanks, AlphaEta 02:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately I don't have access to English version of Corbin's book, I would be glad If somebody added it. But about this quotation :"Like their rulers, Avicenna's family was likely Sunni, though some later critics have said it was Shiite.". It's not correct. He has said in his autobiography that his father is Ismaili. [1]. --Seyyed(t-c) 02:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Aisha Khan, Avicenna (Ibn Sina): Muslim Physician And Philosopher of the Eleventh Century, p. 38:

"Like their rulers, Avicenna's family was likely Sunni, though some later critics have said it was Shiite. Avicenna studied the Hanafi school of Sunni law with the learned scholar Ismail al-Zahid. This particular scholar's works shaped Hanafi, one of the four schools of thought in the Sunni branch of Islam."

"He mentions his exposure to Shiite Ismaili philosophy, when his father entertained missionaries of the sect, but says that even at a young age he remained unconvinced."

Jorge J. E. Gracia and Timothy B. Noone, A Companion to Philosophy in the Middle Ages, p. 196:

"He was also introduced at this time to the study of Islamic law (fiqh) by a Hanafi jurist, Ismail al-Zahid (the Ascetic), so acquiring a talent for disputation that would serve him admirably in assimilating philosophical arguments."

It appears that Avicenna did not accept the invitation to the Ismaili Shia school, but was instead a student of the Hanafi Sunni school of Islamic jurispudence. It wouldn't really make sense for him to study Hanafi Sunni jurispudence if he wasn't at least a Sunni himself.

Jagged 85 (talk) 06:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean that he was Ismaili. This is your judgment that due to he learned Hanafai Fiqh so he was Sunni. Some Shia scholars like Shahid Thani even taught other school of Fiqh. I propose to use academic source like the book of Corbin. Also Corbin put him in the category of Hellenistic philosophers and not in the category of theologians including Asha'ri and Mutazili school. Also Seyyed Hossein Nasr says in his article in encyclopedia Britannica that he's famous for his contributions in the field of Aristotelian philosophy.[2] Of course as philosophers in Iran believe, I think he himself made a theological school which we called it in Iran "Cinavi or Cinayee school". [3] --Seyyed(t-c) 12:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
One way to solve this problem is to mention all of the notable ideas. This is more NPOV.--Seyyed(t-c) 12:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
i was reading a scholarly journal about this issue which basically said that his ideological leanings vis-a-vis Sunnism or Shi'ism were very much unclear, despite his father or grandfather being Ismaili. it might be an idea, as mentioned above, to mention the varying views surrounding this. by the way, al-Ghazzali's opposition to Ibn Sina in tahafut al-falasifa was due to the latter's Aristotelian theology, not necessarily his Shi'ism (hence the book title, "Incoherence of the Philosophers"). ITAQALLAH 15:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Re: Seyyed - Aisha Khan, Jorge Gracia and Timothy Noone state that his teacher was a Hanafi jurist. I am not suggesting that this makes him a Sunni by default, but that it would be unusual for a Hanafi Sunni jurist to take on a Shia as a student. Also, I was not actually directly replying to your previous post about him being a Twelver Shia, but was commenting on the quotes I gave above. Could you point to which page of Corbin's book explains why he believes Avicenna to be a Twelver? But yes, I do think it's a good idea to mention both points of view to maintain a NPOV. Jagged 85 (talk) 19:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
He wrote in page 170 Both Avicenna's father and his brother were Ismailis - He himself alludes in his autobiography to the efforts they made to win hi to the Ismaili da'wah. As in the case of al-Farabi there is undoubtedly an analogy in structure between the Avicennan universe and Ismaili cosmology, the the philosopher refused to join the brotherhood. Nevertheless, although he shied away from Ismaili Shiism, the reception he was accorded by the Shiite princes of Hamadan and Isfahan ([[[Buwayhids]]]) allows us at any rate to infer that he subscribed to Twelver shiism. [4]
I think there can be another possibility. He learned whatever he found and then made his own idea. So he didn't follow any other school of though or madhab. --Seyyed(t-c) 04:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I've just added both points of view to the article (Hanafi and Twelver). If you have another source that says he had his own theological school, then feel free to add that as well. Jagged 85 (talk) 07:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Avicennism instead of Mu'tazila

I think "Avicennism" is the technical word which we should use as his school of thought. He has built a philosophy by using Greek heritage and Islam. These are some source which support my claim.

  • Corbin has used this expression in page 167. He described the effect of this philosophy in Islamic world especially on Shia theology as well as Europe, after he described it through the chapter. book[5]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sa.vakilian (talk • contribs) 19:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Article Islam in encyclopedia Britannica:" Avicenna (flourished 10th–11th centuries), whose versatility, imagination, inventiveness, and prudence shaped philosophy into a powerful force that gradually penetrated Islamic theology and mysticism and Persian poetry in eastern Islam and gave them universality and theoretical depth."pp. 44-47
  • "The Avicennan Theory about Theories of Knowledge:Ibn Sina is the first Muslim philosopher to define knowledge as the illustration of the reality of thing for the perceiving subject and he discusses the well-known problem of the association between substance and accident. "[6]
  • "Being and Necessity: A Phenomenological Investigation of Avicenna's Metaphysics and Cosmology."[7]

--Seyyed(t-c) 18:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

I think we should make a separate section for criticism. There isn't only Ash'ari theologians who criticize him. Sufis like Attar[8] and Rumi [9] as well as later philosophers like Mulla Sadra and Suhrawardi criticize him from different viewpoint. So we should separate it from Takfir which led to leaving philosophy in some Muslim countries. As Corbin has said in Iran his philosophy never abandoned and Corbin as well as Nasr showed how these criticism led to new ideas in philosophy.

Also in west some philosophers criticize him. There is also another problem with what is written there:"Ibn Sīnā's heterodox beliefs, namely his belief that bodily resurrection is impossible but that only spiritual resurrection may be possible."

This is wrong. We should separate his belief and his philosophy. He insisted on belief in bodily resurrection as The Prophet and Quran introduce. But according to his philosophy it's impossible. This is a Persian translation of his idea

«باید بدانی که نوعی از معاد، با تکیه بر شرع، پذیرفتنی است و برای اثباتش، راهی جز شریعت و تصدیق خبر پیامبری نیست و این همان معاد بدن (‌‌‌معاد‌جسمانی) است و خیر و شر جسم بر همگان روشن است و نیازی به توضیح ندارد و شریعت بر حقی که پیامبر ما حضرت محمد(ص) آورده‌است، درباره سعادت و شقاوتی که مربوط به این بدن است، سخن گفته است و نوع دیگر معاد، معادی است که بر اساس عقل و قیاس برهانی درک می‌شود و پیامبری هم آن را تصدیق کرده‌است و آن عبارت است از سعادت و شقاوتی که بر اساس برهان برای نفوس بشری به اثبات می‌رسد.» --Seyyed(t-c) 16:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC

Nasr says:"In no branch of Islamic philosophy, is the influence of the Quran and Hadith more evident than in eschatology... The Islamic philosophers were fully aware of these crucial ideas in their philosophizing, but the earlier ones were unable to provide philosophical proofs for Islamic doctrines which many confessed to accept on the basis of faith but could not demonstrate within th context of Peripatetic philosophy(Mashshaee). We see such a situation in the case of Ibn Sina, who in several books including the Shifa(The book of healing) confesses that he can not prove bodily resurrection but accept it on faith."(Nasr, 1996 p. 35)[10] --Seyyed(t-c) 16:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Surrounding situation

This article as well as most of other biographical articles doesn't clarify the situation in which Avicenna lived. It's important to clarify for the readers that he flourished in the culmination of Islamic golden age which somebody consider it as [ http://books.google.com/books?id=RKU58ZcXAM8C&dq=%22Humanism+in+the+Renaissance+of+Islam%22 The Renaissance of Islam], [The Islamic renaissance http://books.google.com/books?id=Q2acYjrx3rEC&pg=PA68&dq=%22Islamic+renaissance%22&ei=SohPR4P5Mpr8oQK317GeBg&ie=ISO-8859-1&sig=KTvm0ENSrPZl0BHs70YdgTPvTrs#PPA68,M1], The Iranian renaissance and The Islamic-Iranian Renaissance.(see also Major periods of Muslim education and learning, ) In the situation that the knowledge of Quran and Hadith were developed. Most of the Greek, Persian and Indian knowledge was translated into Arabic. There were good commentary of Plato and Aristotle's works for example by al-Farabi. Theological schools have formed. Medicine was developed by the attempts of former physicians and scientists like al-Razi He used some of the best libraries of the world (two of them in Balkh and Ray destroyed during his life.) He was amid scholars and philosophers. As Aruzi Samarqandi describes in his four articles that before he left Khwarezm he live for a while with al-Biruni(great scientist and astronomer), Abu Nasr Iraqi(great mathematician), Abu Sahl Masihi(great philosopher) and Abu al-Khayr Khammar(great physician). He met the great Sufis of his time like Abusaeid Abolkheir. In brief, as Newton says he was sitting on the shoulder of giants. --Seyyed(t-c) 03:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] thx for this post

Oh, and did not know about it. Thanks for the information ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.4.75.114 (talk) 18:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Difference between Avicenna and Descartes's idea

It's written This argument was later refined and simplified by René Descartes in epistemic terms when he stated: "I can abstract from the supposition of all external things, but not from the supposition of my own consciousness.

As I know there is a difference between Descartes's idea and Avicenna's one.

Parsania says :

شيخ الرئيس بوعلى در موضوع معرفت نفس برهانى اقامه مى كند كه انسان محال است از راه اثر خود ـ اعم از آن كه اثر ذهنى، يا عينى و به عبارت ديگر علمى و يا عملى باشد ـ خود را بشناسد; يعنى انسان قبل از انديشه و قبل از آن كه به مفاهيم و قضاياى بيّن و اوّلى و يا مفاهيم و قضاياى مبين و برهانى و يا به رفتار و كردار خارجى خود علم پيدا كند، به حقيقت خود آگاه مى شود.

بيان بوعلى مستقيماً متوجه گفتارى است كه چند سده پس از او توسط دكارت ارائه مى شود; زيرا دكارت، انديشه و تعقل را نقطه ى ملاقات خود با واقعيت پنداشت و در اين رهگذر حركت خود را براى تبيين هستى از همان موضع آغاز كرد. وى هم چنين كوشيد تا از طريق انديشه و تعقل، وجود خود را اثبات نمايد.

برهان بوعلى اين است كه اگر شما به عنوان مثال، گمان بريد كه از راه انديشه وجود خود را اثبات مى كنيد، در مقدمه اى كه از آن براى رسيدن به نتيجه استفاده مى كنيد، يا انديشه را به خود مقيد كرده و يا اين كه آن را بدون تقيد به خود ذكر كرده ايد. اگر در مقدمه، انديشه به صورت مطلق ذكر شود، در اين حال استدلال به صورت «انديشه هست، پس من هستم» در مى آيد و اين استدلال باطل است; زيرا از انديشه ى مطلق، وجود فردى خاص اثبات نمى شود. اگر در مقدمه، انديشه مقيد به «من» باشد و گفته شود: «من مى انديشم، پس من هستم» اين استدلال نيز باطل است; زيرا در جمله ى دوم، نتيجه ى جديدى كه از انديشه پديد آمده باشد، حاصل نشده است، بلكه آنچه در جمله ى اول بوده، تكرار شده است; زيرا در جمله ى اول، «من» در كنار انديشه ذكر شده است و اگر در جمله ى اول «من» شناخته نشده باشد، از صِرف انديشه نمى توانيم وجود من را دريابيم. پس در استدلال دكارت «من» در كنار انديشه و يا قبل از آن مورد شناخت بوده است و از راه انديشه چيزى كه پيش تر مورد شك و ترديد باشد، اثبات نشده است. [11]

--Seyyed(t-c) 06:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree it seems Avicennais saying the opposite of Descartes. So I think that part about Descartes should be removed and the opposite theory be given. Do you still need the translation? --alidoostzadeh (talk) 01:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Split the article

I copied all of the philosophical information of this article in Avicennism. I didn't delete anything but I think we should do so to reduce the size of the article and make the article easier for who do not familiar with the technical terms. --Seyyed(t-c) 08:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name pronunciation

Saw this in an article I was reading last night:

One of the reasons why IBNi SiNA has been called Iranian is that the word Sina has been considered a Persian word. Because " SinA " (as its pronunciation was assumed to be) with its two long vowels, phonetically possesses the characteristics of a Persian word. However, the Kamus (34) specifies the correct pronunciation of this word; it is with short " i " and short " a ".

From Isis, Vol. 31, No. 1. (Nov., 1939), pp. 8-24.

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-1753%28193911%2931%3A1%3C8%3AWISAIO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-EMondo Libero (talk) 14:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] His ethnicity on Wikipedia

I'm a bit confused as to why on the Tajik Wikipedia page Avicenna is listed as part of the Tajik great people, and on here this article states his ethnicity as Persian? There needs to be some sort of consistency here.Mondo Libero (talk) 14:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Because Persian(Tajik) is the same thing after Islam. Large number of Persians after Islam migrated to Central Asia and Afghanistan and mixed with the easter Iranian speaking groups, giving rise to Tajiks. So if there is any problem we can say Iranic but Persian (which includes Tajik as well) is used by Encyclopedias. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 16:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tajik,Afghan,Iranian are modern names

It should be cleared that names Iranian or Tajik or Afghan are modern names for persian people.We cannot say Julius Caesar is Italian.He is Roman.So Persian is the best choice for naming him and his ethnicity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.191.122.15 (talk) 22:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Physics

 The claim that Ibn Sina postulated that momentum is equal to speed times weight, is not correct.

This idea belongs to Buridan alone. Here is the relevant part of Aydin Sayili's paper [51]:

"The clarification brought by Buridan to this issue owes much to his sagacious move of conceiving impetus quantitatively in a neat manner. He pointed out that if a heavy and a light body are hurled with the same speed, the heavier body's motion lasts longer or has a longer trajectory, showing that impetus increases with weight or quantity of matter. He also noted that the greater the initial velocity of projection the greater the duration and distance of flight. Thus he considered impetus as proportional to weight times velocity. In other words, his conception of impetus comes very close to the concept of momentum of Newtonian mechanics. This quantity was called both impetus and momentum by Galileo. Ibn Sina, as we have just seen, had touched upon the idea of impetus as something increasing with weight but had felt the need of rejecting this idea; or, rather, he vacillated between the two alternatives." Niche55 (talk) 20:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shia and Muslim

Salam Alaikom all,

With all due respect to all of you, since I believe you all are objective and well-educated, the debate of Ibn Sina being a Shia or Sunny is preposterous enough giving that we don't have a reliable reference or resource. Several articles refute each other in this matter. This article has been endorsed by WIKIProject Iran, which is fine; however, the historians agree that he was a Persian, but nothing necessarily confirms him as Shia'i.

As we might have noticed, almost no assured confirmation exists. Maybe its a good sign for us to know that such differences didn't matter at that time, or even weren't emphasized as much as we are having these days. Believe me, if Ibn Sina wanted the next generations to know, he would have proclaimed it.

Amjad, 11 May '08 ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by AmjadSafa (talk • contribs) 15:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Salaam, please cite your claims with at least one verifiable academic references and then no one can delete it. Cheers, Pejman47 (talk) 11:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Muslims! Thats what we are!

Salam Pejman,

As for your citation, "Sayyed" who has done tremendous efforts reading and elaborating what Corbin has claimed in his book, he couldn't cite any confirmation. In his entry, Sayyed 18:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC), "Corbin guess he was Twelveres because he escaped from Mahmud of Ghazni and went to Buwayhids who were Shia" and on another entry by AlphEta 02:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC), "Kahn's book (p. 38): "Like their rulers, Avicenna's family was likely Sunni, though some later critics have said it was Shiite". Maybe I'm not as historically knowledgeable as you are fellows but why shouldn't we leave it to be Muslim.

As for you Pejman, I read you profile and you have a good histroy in this encyclopedia. However, you didn't even further your citation with exploration details as these fellows did. At least in your response to me where I found it strange to start it with "Salam" and end it with a conceited "Cheers". You found a feeble sign that he was Shia'i and rather you used it. I don't have a problem with Ibn Sina to be Shia'i or Sunny; I don't have a problem with Shia at all. But when I saw that no reference was confirming enough, then we should end it and confirm him a Muslim regardless of his Maddhab. And that should be noticed by Sayyed and AlphaEta as well. You guys did a wonderful job, but lets confirm our selves to be Muslims.

Amjad -- 16 May '08 (6.45pm +3GMT)


Avicenna was a known Shi'i Muslim and until now, few people have contested this fact. Corbin is more than credible on this subject. Carticus (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


There is no confirming citation! Even your Corbin "Guesses"! Can you tell me how did you interpret his guesses to be facts? Your beliefs doesn't count here, only history. Did you Read Khan's Book referred by "Sayyed" and "AlphaEta"? Its a good resource too. As for the few people who have contested the fact, well in fact, I have never heard a Muslim converses about his Maddhab at all. Drop the attitude! Amjad -- 24 May '08 (11.10am +3GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AmjadSafa (talk • contribs) 08:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Salam Dear Amjad ! I also think it's not important at all to dig for the Mazhab of the Muslim icons.Over all there is no difference! But when you change a sentence in Wikipedia , that is pointing to a book , that's considered very wrong .You can object the source by putting a tag like this {{Verify source}}, {{Failed verification}} or {{Dubious}}after the source that seems to be wrong.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 14:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)