Part VI
Another issue related to the function of the House of Wisdom is its depiction as a place of meetings and arena of debates among scholars. Primary sources and modern studies have no historiographical problem with al-Ma’mun’s support of the theology of the Mu’tazila creed on the createdness of the Qur’an. It is also established that he enjoyed debates on this subject and many others, thanks to his keen interest in other scholarly issues. However, it looks like the essential problem here is to attribute all these activities to the House of Wisdom. A clear example of this is the way Y. Eche extrapolated the meaning of certain accounts. For instance, he interprets the statement of Ibn Taghribirdi (d. 1470) that al-Ma’mun “brought closer to him the theologians” to “al-Ma’mun installed them in the House of Wisdom” and to claim that a number of them dwelled in the House of Wisdom.1 According to Eche, it was not only the theologians who were given accommodation there but there were also astrologers and other scholars.
It is clear from Sa’id al-Andalusi’s book that among al-Ma’mun’s diversified interest in intellectual matters and his keen patronage for scholars that “he provided a special audience for the scientists, listened to what they had to say, enjoyed their discussions [and debates] and showered them with favour”.2 There are several accounts supporting Sa’id al-Andalusi’s statement. But these accounts obviously do not say that these discussions took place at the House of Wisdom but in his Majlis (the lounge where guests were received, can sit and converse) at his palace. Ibn Taghribirdi, the famous Mamluk era historian, narrates that “in 209/824 al-Ma’mun brought closer the theologians (ehl al-kelam) and ordered them to debate in his presence” then he mentions the names of some scholars who were supporters of the createdness of the Qur’an including above-mentioned al-Marisi.3
The first scholar to advance the claim that these debates took place at the House of Wisdom was Y. Eche.4 He, with some prudence, tells the story of a long debate between Abd al-Aziz al-Kinani (d. 240/854), a staunch opponent to the createdness of Qur’an and Bishr al-Marisi (d. 218/833) the vocal supporter and advocate of this cause. This debate according to Y. Eche’s interpretation took place at the House of Wisdom in the presence of Caliph al-Ma’mun as Eche quotes at length from a book attributed to al-Kinani, the Kitab al-Hayda, a hitherto unpublished manuscript.5 In novelistic style, the book presents a detailed and colorful account on the voyage of al-Kinani from Mecca to Baghdad and his search for Bishr al-Marisi to challenge him and invite him for debate. Al-Kinani narrates that after arriving to Baghdad, he made a public statement against the claim of the createdness of the Qur’an after a Friday prayer in the congressional mosque. He was interrogated by al-Ma’mun’s people, and the caliph agreed to hold a debate between him and al-Marisi. Eche tells us, while referring to the Damascus manuscript of the book, that scholars from different disciplines and diverse opinions came together in the House of Wisdom where al-Ma’mun was following the debate behind a curtain. Here we find a discrepancy between what Eche quotes based on the Zahiriye manuscript and the edited text of al-Hayda book based on four manuscripts including the Zahirriyye one.6 Eche says that al-Ma’mun held weekly Majlis on Fridays in the House of Wisdom. However, the published text clearly says that there were two debates, the first was held on Monday but not specifically in the House of Wisdom but in the hall of the Palace of the Caliph (Dar Amir al-Mu’minin) and the second was on a Friday again not in the House of Wisdom, as will be explained below.
Al-Kinani describes his attendance of the first debate on a Monday and tells us that he was taken to the Palace of al-Ma’mun accompanied by officials taking charge of him. Then he describes going through corridors from one to another. Later they arrived at the courtyard which was crowded by people and arms. When he reached the door of the hall (İwan) and the curtain was removed, he started to hear the caliph’s voice saying “let him come closer … let him come closer”. Then al-Ma’mun ordered the debate to commence between him and Bishr al-Marisi where al-Ma’mun personally participated in the discussions. The opponents of al-Kinani provoked the caliph to have a second debate claiming that Kinani leaked the details of the debate to the public and put the caliph in an unfavorable situation. So, the narrative of al-Hayda book’s goes; opponents brought their concerns to al-Ma’mun in his Majlis where he would meet the scholars of jurisprudence, Arabic literature, and philosophical theology (ahl al-Nazar wa al-Kalam) in the House of Wisdom on Fridays.7
According to al-Kinani, they managed to convince the caliph to have a second debate saying that he has written a book on the subject. So, the caliph summoned him to the palace. At this point al-Kinani says that in the Palace, in a place “other than the House of Wisdom”, the second debate took place.8
It is very obvious that the two debates did not take place in the House of Wisdom. The first was at a hall (İwan), where the caliph used to have his regular Majlis and the second was at a place identified as “other than the House of Wisdom”. The debates between al-Kinani and al-Marisi are reported in many sources; however, they do not identify the place where the debates were conducted, whether they were at the House of Wisdom or not was not confirmed.
An important clue in al-Kinani’s account that the first draft of his book was a summary of the first debate occupies ten pages.9 It seems that the extant, long text was expounded by his supporters and followers later on and this might have raised the doubts of outstanding scholars such as al-Zehebi (d. 1274), al-Subki (d. 1327), and others with regard to the authenticity of the book.10 This is why indirect, roundabout references to the House of Wisdom in the text could be added later and not by the author in its first draft. Hence this sole indirect reference to the House of Wisdom should be treated carefully. One can conclude from this that the debates related to the createdness of Qur’an, did in fact take place in the presence and the participation of al-Mamun but this was not in the library called House of Wisdom, but in different parts of the Palace.
Our purpose here is not to discuss the substance of the above-mentioned debate about the createdness of the Qur’an or related philosophical and religious implications but rather about the relevance of this narrative to the functions of the House of Wisdom and to clarify if the House of Wisdom was a place where scholars engaged in debates in the presence of caliph or not. The bone of contention for us here is not the hair-splitting philosophical and religious discussions but rather to establish that the House of Wisdom was not, as has been claimed, a conference hall for such gatherings of scholars and to indicate that such activities would be in the caliph’s palace as it was the custom in his (Majlis).
The second claim related to the House of Wisdom as a place of meeting of scholars was made by Balty-Gueston.11 She quotes Hunayn Ibn Ishaq and interprets his very explicit statement on Greek philosophers erroneously. Hunayn Ibn Ishaq, who wrote the oldest surviving Arabic text comprising maxims and aphorisms of Greek philosophers, makes no mention whatsoever in this text to the Abbasid House of Wisdom. The available text is an abridgment made by a certain Mohamed Ibn Ali bin Ali bin Ibrahim bin Ahmed bin Mohamed al-Ansari, who is not a well-known author.12 This text is a book on Greek philosophers and philosophy. Besides maxims and aphorisms, it contains detailed accounts on the meetings of philosophers during Greek festivities. Hunayn gives explanations under the title of “the meetings of philosophers in the Houses of Wisdom in the festivities and their discussions about wisdom”. Hunayn, in his introductory remarks to this chapter, clearly qualifies the festivities as the Greek festivities. In these accounts he mentions different groups of philosophers, ranging from 4 to 13, held meetings to discuss issues related to philosophy and the legacy of the founders of wisdom. Hunayn in his seven accounts of these meetings clearly says that one of them was held in the House of Wisdom. As for the other meetings he mentions that one of them was in the marble temple, Haykel al-Rukham13 then he names places like the house of gold, Bayt al-Zahab,14 or the vault of the Kings Sirdab al-Muluk15 or the house of golden images Bayt al-Suwar al-Mudhahhabe.16 In one of these accounts he mentions that four philosophers; a Greek, an Indian, a Byzantine, and Persian met in the Majlis of King Luqianus where they had to answer the King’s question about what is eloquence.17 Hunayn in another context refers to a legend that the King built a House of Wisdom for his son and asked Aristotle, who was a young orphan then, to be in the service of his son who would be educated by Plato.18 It is obvious that Hunayn does not refer to the Abbasid House of Wisdom at any rate. His book is mainly on the Greek context with the exception of the meeting held in the presence of the King Luqianus which possibly did not take place in Hellenic times but the late Hellenistic era and his reference to a meeting in the presence of Sasanian King Anusharwan/Khosrow I. Abd al-Rahman Badawi, in his introduction to Hunayn’s book, reflects on the origin of this book and he favors German orientalists’ opinions that it was compiled from Greek-Byzantine sources. In our opinion this explains the reference to Anusharwan, besides other issues mentioned in the introduction.
In his reference to the House of Wisdom, Hunayn certainly refers to an institution where philosophers would meet either to teach philosophy or to have discussions or a kind of library where books of wisdom/philosophy would be available.
Since the Greek texts that Hunayn compiled his book from are not known to us, it is difficult to find out what was the Greek equivalent of the Arabic Bayt al-Hikma/House of Wisdom. What is clear for us here is that Hunayn was using the compound name of House of Wisdom which was known to him, meaning that it was a place where philosophy was taught or discussed.
Balty-Gueston in her article on the House of Wisdom refers to Hunayn’s book and its chapter on “the meeting of philosophers in the Houses of Wisdom in the festivities and their discussions about wisdom”. Despite the explicit Greek context, she erroneously considers Hunayn’s reference to Bayt al-Hikma as relating to the Abbasid institution. She concludes, referring to the discussions in Baghdad without any reasoning, saying “this function emerges closely under the reign of al-Ma’mun and it seems at this moment that Bayt al-Hikma played a role in discussions prior to the diffusion of Mu’tazilaism”.19
To conclude on these issues, we can state that the public debates like the one that took place between al-Kinani and al-Marisi – if it is really happened – were conducted in the palace wherever the caliph would convene his Majlis, consequently the House of Wisdom was not an arena of debates. Nevertheless, it was a place where the Mu’tazila scholars would meet and consult philosophy books and may have had circles of discussions among themselves.
Another claim about the House of Wisdom being a center of Shu’ubizm (Shu’ubiyya), a movement within the early Muslim society which denied any privileged position of the Arabs. This movement which started asking for equality among all Muslims, later developed as a claim of non-Arab supremacy.20
Eche, making a reference to Sahl bin Harun the director of the House of Wisdom and other senior associates of the House of Wisdom including Allan Ibn Hassan al-Warraq who was also known as Allan al-Shu’ubi, being all from Persian origin and newly convert to the Islam and known to be proponents of Shu’ubizm. He concludes saying “are these not suggestive facts which leads us to believe the Bayt al-Hikma could have been a Shu’ubiya center?”21
Fortunately, this claim did not find too much support and was not carried on in secondary literature.22
Notes
1. Y. Eche, pp. 53, 54.
2. Sa’id al-Andalusi, p. 44.
3. Ibn Tahgribirdi, al-Nujum al-zahira fi muluk Misr wa-l-Qahira, Vol. 2, Cairo, Dar al-Kulub al-Mısırriyye, 1950, p. 187.
4. Y. Eche, pp. 50, 51; for far fetching exaggerations on this aspect see for instance, Attallah’s book, pp. 182–185.
5. Kitab al-Hayda, Zahiriyye Manuscript Collection, Damascus, Tassawuf No. 129, f.67-b (quoted by Y. Eche, p. 48).
6. Abd al-Aziz al-Kinani, Kitab Al-Hayda, edited by Jamil Saliba, Damascus, Arab Academy, 1964.
7. Al-Hayda, part one and part two, J. Saliba’s edition.
8. Ibid., 3rd Part, 146–226.
9. Ibid., 146–226.
10. Ibid., the Editor’s introduction, pp. 17–23; Ibn al-Subki, Tabaqat al-Shefiyye, Cairo, 1323, Vol. I, pp. 265, 266.
11. Marie Genevieve Balty-Gueston, “Le Bayt al-Hikm de Baghdad”, Arabica Journal, Vol. 39, 1992, pp. 138, 139.
12. Hunain Ibn Ishaq, Adab al-Falasife, pp. 15–19. The published text is a careful critical edition out of four manuscripts including a detailed introduction by the editor Abd al-Rahman Badawi published in 1985.
13. Ibid., p. 57.
14. Ibid., p. 56.
15. Ibid., p. 58.
16. Ibid., p. 48.
17. Ibid., p. 56.
18. Ibid., pp. 51, 52.
19. Balty Gueston, pp. 138, 139.
20. S. Enderwitz, “Shu’ubiyya”, Encyclopedia of Islam, Vol. 9, Leiden, Brill, 1997, pp. 513, 514.
21. Y. Eche, p. 59.
22. Balty-Gueston, does not favor this claim, 1994, p. 283.