Ibn Hazms Evangelienkritik: Eine methodische Untersuchung.

• Author: Reynolds, Gabriel Said
• Position: Book Review

Ibn Hazms Evangelienkritik: Eine methodische Untersuchung. By SAMUEL-MARTIN BEHLOUL. Islamic Philosophy, Theology, and Science: Texts and Studies, vol. 50. Leiden: BRILL, 2002. p. xv + 274.

Ibn Hazms Evangelienkritik is a work that begins as one might expect it to end, and ends as one might expect it to begin. Its author, Samuel-Martin Behloul, does not open the work by discussing the biography of Ibn Hazm (d. 456/1064), the context in which he wrote the K. al-Fasl fi'l-milal [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] wa'l-nihal (Behloul rightly points out [p. 3, n. 1] that one should read Fasl, "Urteilsfallung" ["discernment"] and not Fisal), or the tradition of anti-Christian polemic that contributed to Ibn Hazm's thought. Instead, he begins with a long (96 pp.) discussion of Ibn Hazm's epistemology and its relation to Aristotelian philosophy. This decision not only makes the work less accessible, it also ultimately leaves important questions unanswered. Even such a basic question as the sources that Ibn Hazm worked with in writing his anti-Christian polemic is never seriously confronted in Ibn Hazms Evangelienkritik. Fortunately, Behloul's work has its merits. Upon reaching the end, the reader will have gained a feel for Ibn Hazm's logic, method, and rhetoric, and for this Behloul is well deserving of praise.

Behloul focuses in the opening section on Ibn Hazm's al-Taqrib li-hadd al-mantiq, yet he does not elucidate clearly enough its relationship to the Fasl (even if he points out [p. 33] that Ibn Hazm refers to the Taqrib in the latter work). It is not clear why he is paying so much attention to the Taqrib. It should also be pointed out that Behloul is following R. Arnaldez closely in this section, even bringing up (pp. 60ff.) the same historically unrelated incident that Arnaldez discusses ("Ibn Hazm" in the EI2), a debate described by Abu Hayyan al-Tawhidi between Abu [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] al-Sirafi and Matta b. Yunus on language and logic.

Behloul does give, however, a worthwhile and convincing argument for the importance of the science of logic to Ibn Hazm's thought. Indeed, if Ibn Hazm emphasizes the literal (zahiri) sense of [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] and hadith, he is thereby forced to rely on logic to reconcile the literal conflicts that appear within, or between, these two bodies of scripture. Thus the science of logic, while absolutely incapable of contributing original insights, is nevertheless an essential handmaiden...