Apology of al-Kindy (book)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article or section needs sources or references that appear in reliable, third-party publications. Primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of the article are generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article. Please include more appropriate citations from reliable sources, or discuss the issue on the talk page. This article has been tagged since March 2008. |
Apology of al-Kindy (also spelled al-Kindi) is a medieval theological polemic tract attributed to an Arab Christian known as Al Kindi. It became available in English through William Muir's translation of 1880. Muir notes that the book was quoted by Abu-Rayhan Biruni around the year 1000 as the Epistle of "Abd al Masîh ibn Ishâc, Al Kindy",[1] and that a translation had been made into "the vernacular of India".[2]
Contents |
[edit] Publishing history in the West prior to Muir
In the West, the book first became known as early as the twelfth century through the translation into Latin by Peter of Toledo. This occurred on behalf of Peter the Venerable, who aimed at converting Muslims to Christianity and also commissioned translations of other Arabic texts including the Qur'an.[3] After circulating in manuscript, the collection was published in print in the sixteenth century with a preface by Martin Luther.
[edit] Contents
The Apology (or Risāla) purports to be a record of a dialogue between a Muslim and a Christian. In fact, the book contains two apologies: The Muslim first invites the Christian to embrace Islam. The Christian declines this and in turn invites the Muslim to embrace Christianity. The Christian's answer comprises some six sevenths of the text.
The two participants are referred to by pseudonyms, according to the text to secure their safety.[4] The Muslim participant, called "Abd-Allah ibn Ismail al-Hashimy" (which translates as "Servant of Allah, son of Ishmael, from the clan Banu Hashim), is described as a cousin of the unnamed Caliph, living in the Caliph's castle and being well versed in Christian theology. He is also described as having a close and trusted Christian friend called "Abd al-Masih ibn Ishaq al-Kindi" (which translates as "Servant of the Messiah, son of Isaac, from the clan Banu Kindah").
In his preface, Muir identifies the Caliph, who remains unnamed in the epistles, as Al-Ma'mun, who reigned from 813 to 833, arguing that
- "the manner in which the Caliph is throughout referred to in both, accords entirely with the assumption that they were written at his court. He is spoken of as the paternal cousin of the Moslem writer; his just and tolerant sway is repeatedly acknowledged by Al Kindy; the descent of the dynasty from the family of Mahomet is over and again referred to, and our Author prays that the Empire may long be perpetuated in his Patron's line. All this is, perfectly natural, and in entire consistency with the ascription of the work to a courtier in the reign of Al Mâmûn."[5]
Muir also argues that the "political allusions" contained in the book
- ".. are, in the strictest affinity, not only with the traditions of an Abbasside dynasty, but of a court which had become partisan of the Alyite faction, which freely admitted Motázelite or latitudinarian sentiments, and which had shortly before declared the Coran to be created and not eternal. The Omeyyad race are spoken of with virulent reprobation; the time of Yezîd is named the "reign of terror"; and Hajjâj, with his tyranny and the imputation of his having corrupted the Coran, is referred to just in the bitter terms current at the time. Abu Bekr, Omar, and Othmân are treated as usurpers of the Divine right of succession which (it is implied) vested in Ali. I need hardly point out how naturally all this accords with the sentiments predominating at the Court of Al Mâmûn; but which certainly would not have been tolerated some forty or fifty years later."[6]
Muir also argues that the "freedom of our Author's treatment of Islam would have been permitted at none but the most latitudinarian court. ... It is difficult to conceive how such plain-speaking was tolerated even at the court of Al Mâmûn; at any other, the Apology would have had small chance of seeing the light, or the writer of escaping with his head upon his shoulders. That the work did (as we know) gain currency can only have been due to its appearance at this particular era."[7]
The al-Kindi of the book is clearly different from the Muslim philosopher Abu Yûsuf ibn Ishâc al-Kindī, who also flourished at the Court of Ma'mûn.[8]
[edit] Controversy
After the publication by Muir, scholars have argued that the letters do not derive from actual persons but have been forged by a single Christian author to invest the book with greater celebrity and weight. This criticism has been taken up by Georg Graf and other recent European scholars, who estimated that the letters were written a century or more after the proposed date. It has been pointed out that Al-Hashimy's letter only briefly mentions the Qur'anic criticisms of the doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation, as well as the "worship" of the cross. Also, it contains a virtually complete list of the books of the Bible although it is unlikely that a Muslim in the early ninth century would have had such a list.
