Aristotle and the Muslims

Submitted by LeaNder (Germany), Sep 19, 2006 at 15:11

Admittedly among others the passage puzzles me: "The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality."

Two names: and Avicenna (Ibn Sina) and Averoes (Ibn Rushd) come to mind. Is he not aware that e.g. Aristotle was translated, read and discussed much earlier in Muslim society than in the west. So why is only the Byzantine perception "shaped by Greek philosophy"? Our chancellor Merkel immediately commented that he had in fact offered a dialogue and was misunderstood. It does not feel so.

I read it once in German, I'll probably read it a couple of times again. But I think the above is the crux for me. Am I misunderstanding something? Any experts, theologians, rabbis, philosophers who can help? Is this politics? Stylistically a dialogue has got two sides. Why didn't he give voice to the addressed Muslim side too? Would this have prevented him from appearing in full Orientalist regalia? As a Catholic I am deeply puzzled. Can't we leave history intact while addressing the problems of today. And wouldn't dialogue start with confessing their own guilt too? Or am I misguided?

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".