George Saliba

ISLAMIC ASTRONOMY IN CONTEXT:

ATTACKS ON ASTROLOGY AND
THE RISE OF THE HAY'A TRADITION

The early Islamic period witnessed the appearance of a new astronomical disci-
pline, 'ilm al-hay'a ('science of the configuration' of the universe), which had no
Greek equivalent per se. In an effort to determine the conditions underlying this
development, the paper argues that its main impetus was a rejection of the disci-
pline ofastrology, which was conceived to be an integral part of the imported
Greek astronomical tradition and which was opposed by social forces sufjiciently
influential to compel the principal intellectuals of the day to dissociate t h s e l v e s
from it. Astrology's opponents were not only religions figures, but included,
among others, physicians and even astronomers who, in the end, created a new
discipline that wasfree ofthe stigma attached to Greek astronomy. The evidence
for these developments comes from the work of a contemporay author named
Abn Ma'shar ul-Balkhi (AD 787-886), whose famous astrological work, Al-
Madkhal ilZ 'ilm aWZm al-nujm (Introduction to the science of the judgements
of the stars), devotes afull chapter to the opponents of astrology, which included
most sectors of society, even those considered the discipline's natural allies. In
order to corroborate Abn Ma'shar's assessment, recourse is made to the well-
known, but relatively later Mu'tazilite author, 'Abd al-JabbEr (d. AD 1025/26),
whosefimous work, Tathbit dalz'il al-nubuwwa (Confirmation of the signs of
prophecy), contains afull attack upon astrology and all those associated with the
foreign sciences in Islam. The paper concludes by asserting that the ident$cation
of astrology with Greek astronomy and its consequent denigrution in the newly-
emerging Islamic environment left practicing Islamic astronomers with no option
but to dissociate themselvesfrom both disciplines and to create a nau astronomy
that may be called Islamic. In order to distinguish this n m astronomyfrom its
Greek antecedents, it was given a new name: 'ilm al-hay'a.

IN A DIFFERENI. CONTEXT, I have tried to trace the development of a new

branch of Arabic mathematical astronomy known as 'ilm al-hay'a.' I

Bulletin Royal Instihrte for firer-Feith Shrdies 4, no. 1 (SpringISummer 2002) : 25-46
26 George Saliba

noted then that the term hay'a had no exact equivalent in the pre-Islamic
civilizations that constituted the main sources of Islamic science and that
this new discipline thus had to be seen as a creation of Islamic civiliza-
tion for reasons to be sought within that civilization itself.2On that occa-
sion, I attributed the birth of 'ilm al-hay'a to the intense competition that
took place toward the end of the first hijra century and that came on the
heels of the most innovative transformation in the history of Islamic
rule; namely, the Arabization of the administration that took place dur-
ing the Caliphate of 'Abd al-Malik ibn M a r - % (AD 685-705). In sum,
what I proposed then was that the rise of 'ilm al-hay'a was a response to
attacks being waged by Muslim religious scholars against the incoming
'foreign sciences,' which included, among other things, a rational basis
for a science of astronomy that was almost indistinguishable from astrol-
ogy, in theory as well as in practice. Within the receiving Islamic civi-
lization, the creators of 'ilm al-ha@ were forced, in the face of immense
social pressure, to create a new astronomical discipline that would not be
confused with the astrology being rigorously attacked by religious schol-
ars and generally perceived as the Achilles' heel of Greek philosophy."
My conclusion then was that the environment in which 'ilm al-hay'a
was born was one of tension and, at times, deadly competition between
two groups. The first of these groups was the religiously-minded sector
of early Islamic society that was in the process of transforming itself into
a political elite. This group derived its authority from the language of
the Qur'% which, after 'Abd al-Malik's reforms, also became the lan-
guage of the political administration. In opposition to this group were
advocates for the importation of the foreign sciences, who derived their
own authority from the languages of these same sciences-languages
which they alone mastered-and from the evident need in the ever-
expanding empire of the time for disciplines drawn from these sciences,
such as the ability to survey land and resurvey it for distribution among
heirs, to keep accounts of revenues and expenditures, to manage public
health, and to plan and construct public projects for civil and agricul-
tural use (for example, bridges and canals).
As for the intellectual alignments among the diverse sectors of early
Islamic society and the varied stances taken vis-a-vis the competing fac-
tions, the general received wisdom, mainly inspired by Orientalist stud-
ies of early Islamic intellectual history conducted during the last two
centuries or so, identifies the religious sector with those who later
became known as ahl al-sunna wal-hadith, whose champions were people
like Ibn Hanbal and his followers. The advocates of the foreign sciences
were at first supported by the philosophically inclined, but later by the
ill-defined group known as the Mu'tazilites. For a while, the political
and intellectual ideology of the Mu'tazilites was officially sanctioned
by the political authority of the Caliphate, as in the time of al-Ma'mtin
(r. 813-833)and others.
Broadly speaking, in most Orientalist studies, the Mu'tazilites are pro-
jected as advocates of the new foreign sciences whose mainstay was, in
the final analysis, best articulated by Aristotelian or Neo-Platonist phi-
losophy, while ah1 al-sunna wal-hadith are presented as advocates of the
traditional Islamic sciences centred upon the corpus of Qur'anic studies.
What I intend to do in this paper is try to dissect, as clearly as possi-
ble, the inrellectualcurrents of the time in order to locate the exact points
of contention that led to the birth of a discipline such as 'ilm al-hay'a. I
will continue to hold that 'ilm al-hay'a was, in essence, a particular
response to the attacks against astrology-a discipline that was, in the
Greek tradition, very poorly distinguished from astronomy-that came
from religious quarters. But I will go further here to assert that even the
Mu'tazilites, anointed by Orientalists as the champions of the foreign sci-
ences, could ill afford to defend astrology per se and, indeed, were dri-
ven to attack it for reasons of their own that differed from those of such
traditional opponents as ah1 al-sunna wal-hdith. What I contend is that,
while ah1 al-sunna wal-kdith could simply reject astrology as being of
foreign origin, inspired by foreign philosophy and ultimately produced
by a philosophical framework that had no affinity with the religion
advocated in the Qur'zn, the Mu'tazilites had to attack it from within, so
to speak, by demonstrating, on the one hand, that it was discordant with
the foreign sciences that they were championing and, on the other, that
it was in itself ill-founded as a discipline.
In order to sketch the anatomy of this early Islamic struggle over the
fate of astrology, which gave rise to the creation of the new hay'a astron-
omy, I will refer mostly to primary sources and will further confine
myself to those sources directly concerned with the Mu'tazilite position
on the subject. I will not repeat, for example, the attacks against astrol-
ogy levelled by the Ash'arites, for I have done that el~ewhere.~ I will also
avoid a re-articulation of the general argument that distinguished
astronomy from astrology, for that was the subject of a separate article
written a few years ago.' Lastly, I will avoid outlining the role of the
astrologer in medieval Islamic society, which has some bearing upon the
subject, for that, too, was done in a relatively general survey completed
almost ten years ago.'

Abii Ma'shar al-Balkhi and the importance of his AI-Madkhal i1Z

'ilm ahkiim dl-nujiim (Introduction to the science of the
judgements of the stars)
In my opinion, the best approach to an analysis of the debate between
the astrologers and the Mu'tazilites is to focus upon the complaints of
28 George Saliba

the former in order to try to determine their exact points of sensitivity.

Moreover, for reasons mentioned above, it would seem most instructive
to learn how a Mu'tazilite, in particular, differentiated the discipline of
astrology, which he was suddenly obliged to attack, from the Aristote-
lian philosophy that served as the foundation of Mu'tazilite doctrine.
In this context, we are especially fortunate to have an advocate for
astrology who was by far the best of all Muslim astrologers and, indeed,
lived at an early enough date to be perceived as the virtual founder of
the discipline. He was certainly the astrologer best-versed in Greek phi-
losophy and fully aware of the relationship between philosophy and
astrology. His name was Ja'far ibn Muhammad ibn 'Umar al-Balkhi:
better known by his kunya, Abii Ma'shar al-Balkhi. He was born in Balkh
in the year AD 787 and died in Baghdad in the year AD 886. His origi-
nal intellectual career was in hadith scholarship and, thus, his movement
to astrology resulted from a 'conversion' to the subject when he was
already more than forty years old. Needless to say, no one is more zeal-
ous than the convert.
The story of his conversion is of some interest at this point and is
worth repeating.' Abii Ma'shar's residence in Baghdad happened to be
in the vicinity of the one maintained by al-Kindi. We are told that he
used to speak ill of al-Kindi on account of the latter's interest in the
philosophical sciences and his criticisms led to some discord between
the two, to say the least. This discord was an obvious reflection of the
enmity referred to above between the religiously-oriented sector of soci-
ety and the advocates of the foreign sciences. In order to protect himself
from Abii Ma'shar's perfidiousness, al-Kindi sent an emissary to him to
endear him to the disciplines of arithmetic and geometry, apparently
under the pretext that these two disciplines were useful to the religious
sciences. The sources report that Abii Ma'shar acquiesced to this argu-
ment and undertook to study the two disciplines. But through that small
portal to the foreign sciences, the story goes, Abii Ma'shar, who was not
quite up to the task that he had set for himself, turned his attention away
from arithmetic and geometry and toward the other foreign sciences,
continuing to study them until he reached astrology. Thereafter, he
became an atheist (hatta alhada).
Anecdotal as it is, the story raises many important issues. First, it
points to the inner coherence of the foreign sciences, for the study of one
discipline seem to have led quite naturally to the others; thus, the per-
ception, at least, was that they formed a unified whole. It is not surpris-
ing, therefore, that their opponents also saw them as representing an
approach to life or even, in modern terms, an ideology, and as being
more than a collection of disciplines that might separately be accepted or
discarded. In a way, the early Islamic image of the foreign sciences is not
too different from the current image of Western science in the develop-
ing world, particularly in relation to the ongoing debate over whether a
society may pick and choose from Western scientific and technological
disciplines or is obliged to take them all as one unified package, perhaps
endangering the continuation of local traditions in the process.
Second, the anecdote also points to astrology as one discipline among
many in the foreign sciences and to the fact that the sheer inner coher-
ence of the latter led scholars quite naturally to progress from one dis-
cipline to another; thus, an individual delving into the foreign sciences
would unavoidably be drawn to astrology, even if the original goal was
familiarity with such benign subjects as arithmetic or geometry. A clear
distinction between those subjects that were benign and those that were
not would have to wait until the time of Abu HHmid al-GhazHli (d. 1111)
before it was articulated. Even then, al-Ghazali had to exercise the
greatest care in order to dissuade Muslims from becoming a danger to
Islam by summarily rejecting all of the foreign sciences, as he would
have put it.9
Third, the anecdote also stresses the theoretical foundations of astrol-
ogy, which were perceived, at least at that time, to have lain well within
the domain of philosophy, especially the philosophy of Aristotle, who
was also seen as the undisputed spokesman of the foreign sciences.
Abu Ma'shar's espousal of the cause of astrology is very clearly artic-
ulated in his most important work upon the subject, namely, his Al-
Madkhal ild 'ilm ahkdm al-nujum (Introduction to the science of the
judgements of the stars). The work is composed of eight books (maqalat)
of varying length, each of which is divided into several chapters, also of
varying length. Chapter five of the first maqdla is appropriately titled:
"Regarding the evidence for the proof of astrology and the rebuttal to
anyone who claims that the planets' motion has no power nor indication
regarding that which comes to be in this world." Chapter six is also
devoted to a defense of astrology, this time as a useful science. The rest
of the book comprises a comprehensive theoretical exposition of, rather
than a practical guide to, the discipline of astrology.
What concerns us here is his defense of astrology against all detrac-
tors, a subject elaborated upon in chapter five, as its title makes clear.
The reason why this particular chapter is especially interesting is that it
includes Aba Ma'shar's rebuttal to attacks levelled against astrology by
various sectors of society, thus giving us, all at once, a good panoramic
view of both the discipline and its status across society, as well as in
intellectual circles at the time.
In his own systematic fashion, Abii Ma'shar classifies his opponents
into ten groups, giving in each instance the arguments proffered by the
group and then his own response. The groups are almost always
30 George Saliba

referred to in terms of their negative perceptions of astrology, rather

than by name, and it is only very rarely that they are otherwise charac-
terized. They include: 1) those who believed that the planets had no
influence at all; 2) those who believed that the planets had a general
influence, but not a particular one; 3) those described as the 'group of
reflection and disputation' (ah1 al-nazar wal-jadal)? most probably the
Mu'tazilites, as I shall soon argue; 4) those who believed that the planets
indicated very long-term cyclical changes, but had no indications for
animals, plants and the like; 5) those who believed in the more general
science (of the stars), but refuted astrology as an experiential science; 6)
those interested in applied mathematics; 7) those who were merely envi-
ous of astrologers; 8) those who were physicians, but ignorant of astrol-
ogy; 9) those of the common folk who were enamoured only of riches
and had no time for science and serious inquiry; and 10) those of the
common folk who had witnessed enough mistakes by the astrologers.
What is most interesting about this classification of astrology's
opponents is the fact that it makes no mention of traditional religious
scholars. There is no reference, for example, to the people of tradition,
ah1 al-hadith," who were very well-represented in Abu Ma'shar's time
by the most famous traditionalist, Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d. 855). There is
also no reference to others, such as linguists, literary figures, historians,
or commentators on the Qur'sn, as if to say they were just members of
the general population and, thus, among those included in groups nine
and ten, or that they had expressed no opinion upon the matter.
However, we know that this was not the case, since we have several
hadith collections that explicitly mention the Prophet's disapproval of
a~trology.'~Moreover, we know of at least one poet, AbC Tammam,
who condemned the astrologers in his most famous verse: "Al-Sayfu
agdaqu anba'an min al-kutubi. . . . "I3
To my mind, there are only two possible explanations for this state of
affairs. Either Abu Ma'shar believed that the groups he mentioned were
the only ones presenting serious objections to astrology that were wor-
thy of response or he believed that these same groups should be siding
with astrology, but were failing to do so-in which case, they had to be
herded back into the fold by means of convincing arguments couched in
their own language. This second reading strikes me as being the most
likely since I can find no argument anywhere in the chapter that addres-
ses the religious scholars per se, while I can detect a concession to them
in several places, where Abti Ma'shar says that the planets have such
and such an effect owing to the will of God. Such remarks would seem
to indicate that he believed that he had made his peace with the religious
scholars (by subsuming the planetary influences under the will of God)
and had only to deal with the proponents of the foreign sciences. Once
astrological theory had been subsumed under the religious doctrine of
God's omnipotence, the planets entered the category of God's signs and
their only utility became their ability to help us better understand God's
design.
In a technical sense, the type of astrology that Abii Ma'shar seems to
have advocated was a kind of soft astrology, to use A. A. Long's cate-
gories, and not the hard astrology that has no need to subsume planetary
influences under God's will." Even St. Augustine would have had no
argument with the proposition that the planets are under the command
of God and are indications of divine will. The difficulty only arises with
the very complex question of interpreting that will correctly.
In essence, then, Abn Ma'shar seems to be disputing the doctrines of
those who belong in his own camp-or so he believes-but are unwill-
ing to be identified with it, fearing recrimination from the undiscerning,
who might count them as hard astrologer^.'^ This same social pressure
had forced Abn Ma'shar to soften up his astrology, so to speak, and
frightened his colleagues into articulating positions against astrology
even when they were actually sympathetic. The existence of such pres-
sure is an indicator of the power of religious ideas that permitted hard
astrology with no opportunity to flourish.
In Abii Ma'shar's anatomy of the groups attacking astrology, groups
four, five and six are of particular interest. Group four includes those
who studied universal science, that is, what Abii Ma'shar calls "the sci-
ence of the conditions of the celestial spheres (qawm nazars f i al-'ilm al-
kulli, a'nifi 'ilm al-aflak wa-halEtiha)," and who said that "the planets have
no indications for the things that come to be in this world, such as peo-
ple, animals, plants and minerals, and indicate only the secular changes
(taghyir al-azmina)."
I suspect that these were the people who, together with those men-
tioned in group five, created the then new type of astronomy, 'ilm al-haga.
This new astronomy did indeed restrict itself to a descriptive statement
of the conditions and behaviour of the celestial bodies without venturing
to say whether those bodies had any influence upon the sublunar world
or not.
In fact, it was very clever of Abii Ma'shar to corner these people, who
were supposed to be the astrologers' natural allies owing to the comple-
mentary nature of their fields, and to demand that they be true to their
discipline's classical term. Thus, although he represented the field of
astrology, which both he and the early Islamic world had only recently
acquired, along with the foreign sciences, he was also acting as a reac-
tionary force against the proponents of a newly-emergent science that
was trying to free itself of its classical association with astrology, an
association that was well-embedded in the foreign sciences. In his
32 George Saliba

response to these people, Abii Ma'shar constantly invokes the opinions

of the philosophers (al-fallisfa), whomever they may have been during
this period. The implication is that, if these 'latter-day astronomers,' that
is, the innovators who went ahead to create 'ilm al-hay'a, are actually
good astronomers, they ought to follow the foundations of their own
discipline, namely, philosophy, and therefore hold, along with the
philosophers, that events occur in this world owing to the actions of the
celestial bodies, as Aristotle believed.I6
But at this point, even Abii Ma'shar has to add that, although the
philosophers (here meaning Aristotle) asserted that "things come to be
and decay in this world by the power of motions [of the celestial bod-
ies]," they do so "by the permission of God, the Almighty (bi-idhn Allah
ta'lilli)." He goes on to say that the astronomers ought to listen to the
philosophers, who would urge them to follow the discipline of astron-
omy to its logical end, thus reaping the fruits of what they already knew
of the conditions of the planets. They might then deploy their knowl-
edge in order to investigate the influence of the planets upon this world.
Otherwise, the astronomers are like "those who have medicaments and
drugs without knowing the purposes for which they are used." Abo
Ma'shar then remarks that "these people rejected this discipline [mean-
ing astrology] because they themselves did not practice it; thus, they
discarded it for fear of being blamed by people for neglecting it once
they had proven its validity." In other words, if the astronomers admit-
ted that astrology was valid, as the philosophers urged them to do, then
they would be obliged to practice it in order to claim competence in
their own field of astronomy. If they did not, people would pay them no
heed or would criticize them for delving into disciplines that they did
not master.
Arguments such as these compelled the new hay'a astronomers to
move even further away from astrological doctrines and to underline
the differences between their newly-created discipline and astrology. As
they would have put it, the basic difference was that one discipline-
namely, astronomy-was mathematically demonstrable and, hence, ver-
ifiable, while the other-namely, astrology-possessed foundations that
were essentially experiential in nature.
This was apparently the formulation advanced by those astronomers
designated by Abii Ma'shar as belonging to group five, which included
experts in the theoretical universal aspects of science ('ilm al-kull).
Members of this group assigned no validity to astrology as an experien-
tial science. In other words, they did not agree that something that
depended, for its validation, upon infrequent experiences could be
trusted or put on an equal footing with something that could be proven
mathematically.
 The fundamental argument of this group seems to have been that the
experience that provided the only possible basis for astrology was
indeed defined by the recurring positions of the planets, which consti-
tuted the influence in the first place. But since these planets did not
return to the same positions in one lifetime, or even in generations, then
that experience did not recur with sufficient frequency to be verified.
Hence, astrology was invalid.
In response, Abii Ma'shar deliberately confuses the issue somewhat
by saying that astrologers approach recurring incidents in exactly the
same way as mathematical astronomers-the very same people making
up group five-who had to depend upon observations made by the
ancients in order to determine the positions of the planets and, thus,
ascertain mean motions and the like. Astrologers also depended upon
observations by the ancients to constitute the requisite continuity of
experience and to ascertain the indications of planetary influence. Thus,
like the astronomers, they did not have to wait until the planets came
back to the same positions, which usually took many years-far beyond
the lifetime of a single person-since they had the benefit of what might
be termed the historical record.
The misreprese~~tation in both Abii Ma'shar's argument and the
attack against astrology that it was meant to answer has its roots in
antiquity. Even in antiquity, however, those who attacked astrology did
not say that a planet would take an incredible length of time to return to
the same position; they knew very well that the longest period of a
known planet was only 30 years. Rather, they said that the combinations
of planetary positions upon which astrologers depended for their fore-
casts almost never repeated themselves; hence, it was impossible to
draw any conclusions from celestial configurations. Even when a com-
bination of positions did recur, the number of years that passed before it
happened was 'astronomical,' in the vulgar sense of the word. The
Mahayuga in Indian astronomy,'7 for example, calculated the number of
years that it would take for the seven planets to return to the same posi-
tions they had occupied once before and concluded that the answer
would, in the words of Biriini, be in the billions." And no human records
extend that far into the past.
Finally, the last group of particular interest is group six, which was
composed of those who were only capable of computing planetary posi-
tions with the assistance of ephemeris-like handbooks (zijat),that is, Abu
Ma'shar's fellow astrologers (since every astrologer had to know that
much, at least). Members of this group would renounce astrology as
soon as they obtained different results from the various ephemeredes at
their disposal, for they had no way of determining which ones were cor-
rect. In addressing this group, Abii Ma'shar again avoids the real issue,
34 George Saliba

saying that it is not the fault of astrology if those who make the calcula-
tions fail to do their job properly-yet, without speclfyiig how to deter-
mine the correct answer. Instead, he refers back to the knowledge of the
general, obtainable from a knowledge of the universals of astrology (and
explicitly mentioning the Almagest as the source of such knowledge), but
again without clarifying how the astrologer might derive the particular
computation needed from such a general source. Indeed, he concludes
by saying that a knowledge of particulars is unimportant.
This last statement by Abii Ma'shar is quite reminiscent of one by
Ptolemy himself in his own astrological book, the Tetrabiblos, in which he
discusses the difficulty of ascertaining the astrologer's most fundamen-
tal calculation; namely, determining the precise point of ascension over
the eastern horizon at the time of birth, known as the horoscope. Unable
to recommend an instrument accurate enough to make such an observa-
tion, Ptolemy resorts to a bookish calculation and selects a point that can
be determined with much greater precision using his own tables in the
Almagest. The point he selects is the point of conjunction or opposition
between sun and moon just preceding birth.'' He does not tell the reader
that the Almagest's tables were themselves dependent upon observations
made with the same unreliable instruments. Ptolemy's procedure had
one saving grace, however, for these observations did allow for some
degree of certainty by virtue of the fact that one could compare them
with other observations taken centuries earlier, thus reducing the scope
for error arising from one single observation.
At this stage, the most interesting point to note is how, under some
degree of popular pressure, one group of astronomers after another had
dissociated itself from the discipline of astrology, so much so that Abii
Ma'shar has to attack each group separately. Taking that environment
into consideration-and we may assume that it did indeed prevail dur-
ing the first half of the ninth century, when Abu Ma'shar was writing-it
becomes easy to understand why astronomers felt that they had to
accommodate themselves to it by disdaining any connection to astrology
whatsoever and inventing a new discipline, under a new rubric, called
'ilm al-hay'rr, which had nothing to do with astrology. Moreover, if we are
to believe Abn Ma'shar's words, these same astronomers also joined in
the attack against astrology as a discipline.
The problem, then, lies in identifying just who was exerting such
great pressure at that time. Needless to say, the traditionalists, the
Qur'anic scholars, the various groups mentioned above2' and their allies
in the Islamic sciences are all excellent candidates. But these groups are
not the ones attacked by Abii Ma'shar. So far as we can tell, he did not
believe that any of these groups might be won over except, perhaps,
through ruses similar to the one that al-Kindi had used upon him when
he was still a haditk scholar or, better yet, by subsuming astrology under
the will of God, as he tried to do.
But there were other enemies to fight as well. Aside from the astrono-
mers just mentioned, Abu Ma'shar seems to have thought of his nine
groups as falling into two main categories.
One category was made up of the common people and it included
three subgroups. The first of these was composed of those mentioned in
group seven, the ones who envied and shunned the astrologers because
they themselves lacked a thorough understanding of astrology. Abii
Ma'shar has nothing to say to these people and barely mentions them in
a complete sentence. The second subgroup was made up of the ignorant,
Abii Ma'shar's ninth group. In addressing them, he really has no argu-
ment to offer, except to say that they ought to know better than to
admire wealth without realizing that its possession is unrelated to
knowledge; indeed, the ignorant might become wealthy by the grace of
God alone. The final subgroup was composed of those who rejected
astrology because of the errors made by practicing astrologers. Abu
Ma'shar's response to this group is that it is not the fault of astrology if
astrologers make mistakes. Here, it is the astrologers who ought to know
better.
The second broad category comprised those groups that Abii Ma'shar
believed should be sympathetic to astrology, but were not. By this, he
means people associated with the foreign sciences, such as the philoso-
phers-ill-defined as they were at this time-making up groups one and
two, who either did not believe that the planets had any influence, as in
the case of group one, or considered their influence to be limited, as in
the case of the second group. Abii Ma'shar also includes the physicians,
who formed group eight, and criticizes them for not wishing to under-
stand the foundations of their own discipline better, arguing that they
practiced their profession solely for monetary gain.
The group that remains is the most interesting one and the subject of
the greatest part of this chapter; namely, group three, whom Abu
Ma'shar calls ah1 al-nazar wal-jadal (people of speculation and disputa-
tion). The amount of discussion devoted to this group indicates, in an
indirect manner, the serious challenge that their argument must have
represented.

Ah1 al-nazav wal-jadal (The Mu'tazilites)

Although the terms na?ar and jadal were theoretically applicable to any
group of people engaged in speculation, disputation, or serious study,
the technical use of these terms most commonly indicates the Mu'tazil-
ites." In discussing ah1 al-nazar wal-jadal, Abii Ma'shar asserts that they
denied the action of the planets upon the possible (al-mumkin),meaning
36 George Saliba

that they admitted that the planets had an effect upon the necessary and
the impossible, but not upon the possible. We are also told by Aba
Ma'shar that the same group denied the very existence of the possible in
the first place.
The main thrust of his argument against them is to attempt to estab-
lish the existence of the 'possible' and then to assert that the planets do
indeed influence it. As a n example of the possible versus the impossible,
he includes the actions of human beings, saying that it is possible for a
man to become a writer or not, but impossible for him to fly. Once he
chooses to become a writer, then a writing man becomes necessary and
is no longer merely possible. But no matter what happens, a man cannot
fly, so the act of flying remains impossible. He goes on to assert that
astrology concerns itself with determining whether the possible act of
writing would indeed take place (in the future) and not the impossible
act of flying.
This argument helps us to understand Abii Ma'shar's probable point
of contention with the Mu'tazilites. For, if the possible is to be under-
stood in the fashion just described, there can be no question that the
Mu'tazilites would deny any planetary influence and reserve such
actions and choices to the will of the individual performing them; this is
in line with their belief in free will (qadar). Becoming a writer in the
future or not is like becoming a criminal, or a sinner, or what have you;
all such choices are made by the agent himself and not by any outside
agency. Only then is the agent empowered to commit his own sin, for
instance, without being able to shift responsibility to another agency, be
that the planets or even God.
Here, too, Abi?. Ma'shar manipulates the argument, for he fails to
demonstrate how actions that might be actualized in the future may be
categorized as already existent, that is, necessary in the mode of having
previously been actualized. What he really means-and here lies the
artifice-is that such actions may be necessary in the future, when they
would fall under the influence of the planets, as the Mu'tazilites could
agree. But for the astrologer to predict actions that might become neces-
sary, he would have to have some knowledge of the future, thus tres-
passing into a domain reserved only to God; namely, the domain of 'ilm
al-ghayb (knowledge of the unknown) that even prophets were not per-
mitted to have.
Moreover, Mu'tazilites may well have agreed with Aristotle about the
action of the planets upon the things that come into being-that is, that
actualize or do not actualize-in speaking about objects ready to receive
such actions and, thus, to actualize under the influence of the planets,
and objects that were not. They may have concurred that a seed was
ready to receive the action of the sun in the spring and sprout into a tree,
for instance, while the same sun could not influence a stone to sprout into
anything, for the stone was not receptive. But Aristotle nowhere asserts
that such conditions apply to the actions of human beings and certainly
not those that are only possible and have not yet been actualized.
It is immaterial whether Abii Ma'shar might have won such an argu-
ment against the Mu'tazilites or not. I only cite it here in some detail to
indicate the level of discord that astrologers faced during the first half of
the ninth century and to indicate, as well, the alienation that those same
astrologers must have felt, even from groups that might have been
expected to support them. In my opinion, Abii Ma'shar's diatribe against
all of these groups indicates, first and foremost, how the various groups
of philosophers, physicians, mathematicians, mutakalliman (such as the
Mu'tazilites) and, most importantly, astronomers found themselves
pressured into a reorientation toward astrology, which had apparently
emerged as the focus of assaults against the foreign sciences.
It is not surprising that the Mu'tazilites argued against astrology for
the specific reason given by Abii Ma'shar since, as was just demon-
strated, the issue of qudra (empowerment) to commit one's own acts
was a sensitive point for them. But the fact that they also attacked it on
other grounds and demonstrated a negative attitude toward propo-
nents of the foreign sciences in general is somewhat unexpected, given
that their main doctrines have usually been associated with a reliance
upon these same foreign sciences. In order to illustrate the range of
arguments that were espoused by the Mu'tazilites in this regard and in
the interest of space, I will restrict myself to the attacks that were lev-
elled by one of the most important Mu'tazilite figures, namely, the
tenth/eleventh-ce~~tq judge, 'Abd al-JabbZribn Alynad al-Hamadhdhani
al-AsadHbBdi (d. AD 1025/6)." Even then, I will choose illustrative exam-
ples and will focus in particular upon those that do not admit of much
equivocation.

'Abd al-Jabba and the foreign sciences

The most interesting aspect of 'Abd al-JabbSr's attack against astrology
is that it forms an essential part of his overall view of the foreign sci-
ences. Indeed, if one did not know beforehand that he was a distin-
guished Mu'tazilite in his own right, one might believe that he was one
of the most vehement enemies of the foreign sciences, especially the
Greek ones. His opposition to the foreign sciences was mitigated, how-
ever, by the fact that he had to use Greek philosophical and logical
arguments to support his own kalnm doctrines against his detractors,
presumably the traditionalists. Consequently, he had to position him-
self as a critic of the foreign sciences, sifting through the received Greek
corpus to accept some aspects of it, while rejecting others.
38 George Saliba

As I have suggested above, the same position characterized the activ-

ities of many others, particularly the astronomers, who also had to
accept or reject some aspects of the Greek astronomical tradition in order
to produce an alternative astronomy that was capable of being embraced
by Islamic society. Needless to say, the main features of this alternative
astronomy resulted in the production of the new 'dm al-hay'a, which ulti-
mately led to the reformulation of Greek planetary theories-the most
brilliant achievement of medieval Arabic astronomy.
A cursory look at a sample of 'Abd al-JabbHr's works, even if it con-
sists solely of his Tafhbifdalli'il al-nubuwwau and Sharh al-u~ulal-khamsa,
immediately reveals his role in a wide-ranging debate concerning vari-
ous aspects of Greek thought. For the purposes of this paper, however,
the discussion that follows will focus upon those aspects of 'Abd al-
JabbZr's arguments that bear directly upon the issue of distinguishing
astronomy from astrology and that were an integral part of the intellec-
tual environment that facilitated the creation of 'ilm al-hay'a and pre-
pared the grounds for its eventual acceptance by society at large.
Just like Abu Ma'shar before him, 'Abd al-JabbZr was quite aware of
the fact that astrologers defended the doctrines of their discipline by
relying heavily upon Aristotelian thought and even, at times, stretched
its interpretation somewhat to fit their own purposes. (For example, as
we have already seen, Abii Ma'shar used this very technique in his
response to the Mu'tazilites.)
In a remarkable passage that touches the very core of Aristotelian
thought on the planets, 'Abd al-JabbZr makes these observations:

As for Aristotle, no one should pay heed to what he says. His followers
may have accepted his doctrines, but he was not endowed with complete
intellect (ghyr kzmil al-'aql), for they reported him as saying that the
celestial bodies, such as the sun, the moon and the rest of the planets,
could not be divided, nor split into parts, nor cleft into pieces; that the
sun is not hot and that it is impossible for it to be hot, since such [celes-
tial] bodies could not possibly be hot or cold, humid or dry, heavy or
light, subtle or rough; that it is impossible for these planets to be more
than they are by one planet or less by one; and that it is impossible for the
sun to be more than what it is, or less, or to have colour, smell, or taste.
All of the impossibilities that this man enumerated are quite possible
to the mind, known to anyone who has reason, whether that person be
learned ('lilim)or ignorant, sighted or not. And if he [Aristotle] was ratio-
nal and could yet attain such arrogance and denial in matters that are at
the very foundation of natural intellects @tar al-'uqnl), who would then
pay heed to him or to what he says, or even mention him in his dispu-
tations or follow his defects ('awrzt), since he himself is a defect from
beginning to end? If he had no other indication of ignorance or lack of
 reason except this [meaning the statements just cited], then that in itself
would suffice. Nay, if this ignorance were to be distributed amongst the
people of the earth, from beginning to end, they would all be so greatly
diminished in rank and stature that no one would consider [any of]
them worthy of a response. How much more so, when you can also find
that he [Aristotle]held other trivial denigrating opinions such as these,
which might easily be located by anyone who cares to seek them.
Such was his ignorance that he believed that the heavens, the sun, the
moon and the planets, were rational, discerning, hearing, seeing, harm-
ful and beneficent, and could bestow life and cause death, and that all
that comes to be in this world is due to their action and influence."

Although one may not be able to attribute these exact statements to

Aristotle himself, one can deduce their conceptual foundations from
various of his writings; thus, 'Abd al-JabbSr was not misinterpreting
Aristotle as such. In fact, one may easily document doctrines holding
that the planets are rational, discerning and so on in the statements of
the Aristotelian philosophers and astrologers who were Abii Ma'shar's
contemporaries, such as al-Kindi, for instance, and against whom 'Abd
al-Jabbiir seems to be arguing." It cannot be doubted that 'Abd al-JabbHr
was fully convinced that such doctrines were held by astrologers, like
Abii Ma'shar, who followed Aristotle, since he systematically attributes
such doctrines to them in more than one of his works and in more than
one place in them."
What is of great significance for us here is not whether Aristotle
indeed made such enunciations, but that such doctrines were attributed
to him and were the subject of disputation in early Islamic society. More
importantly, astronomers, whose discipline was also part of the Greek
philosophical tradition, were supposed to hold the same opinions.
Considering the intellectual environment, it is not difficult to sympa-
thize with the theoretical astronomers who would eventually create 'ilm
al-hay'a in an attempt to dissociate themselves from such beliefs.
As for folk astrology, the kind that did not articulate its philosophi-
cal connections with Aristotelian foundations-and had no intellectual
pretensions in any case-that, too, was attacked by 'Abd al-Jabbiir in
several places in his works. But his attacks against it are on virtually the
same level: dogmatic, unsophisticated and rhetorically folksy in nature.
In the Tathbif, for example, he relates that

a book attributed to the astrologer of Chosrau, the king of Persia,

included statements about a prophet who would appear among the
Arabs and whose reign would last so many years. And, in it, there was
mention of the days of the Prophet, may peace and prayers be upon
him, as well as those of Abti Bakr, 'Umar, 'UthmZn and 'Ali, may God
40 George Saliba

be pleased with them, but none of them are mentioned by name,

although the book specified much about their lives and circumstances.
As a result, the astrologers were enchanted by it and thought that their
profession was indeed validated and that it could lead to some sure
knowledge ('ilm).And they, in turn, enchanted the ignorant from among
the princes, the viziers and the various classes of functionaries (kuttcib),
and took it as evidencefor the validity of the craft of astrology that gave
it currency (naffa~pha).'~

In a similar vein, he relates, in the same work, that the astrologers

rarely make correct judgements and that, when they do, people remem-
ber it on account of its rarity, for the truth is not expected from them.
Indeed, people usually forget the thousands of cases in which the
astrologers fail to foretell the f ~ t u r e . ~
In another context," 'Abd al-Jabbsr uses a two-pronged argument to
attempt to rebut both the astrologers and the Shi'ites simultaneously. In
it, he invites the astrologer to tell of past events, saying that it is surely
an easier task than foretelling the future. He asks the astrologer to tell
him what is hidden in a closet or what has taken place in Baghdad or
Basra the night before, to prove that they really have a special kind of
knowledge. Not only do the astrologers fail to do so, he continues, but
the Shi'ite imcims are unable to tell of forthcoming events despite the
claims of their followers. In this last instance, 'Abd al-Jabba uses evi-
dence taken from history to demonstrate that even 'Ali himself did not
know what was going to befall him.
He offers a stronger argument against astrology upon the authority of
AbB al-Fad1 Ja'far ibn Harb,30who purportedly asked the astrologers
why, if they really knew the location of hidden treasures and what the
future will bring, they failed to take the money themselves or use their
knowledge to advance their own lots, instead of deceiving and begging
for their living."
At the same time, 'Abd al-JabbSr is unwilling to deny that miraculous
signs might indeed presage signihcant future events, such as the revela-
tion of a new religion, but argues that such s i p are created by God for
everyone to see and not astrologers alone. He believed, for example, that
the skies were filled with shooting stars on the night that the Qur'sn was
revealed to the Prophet and that the event was one of the s i p indicat-
ing the truth of the prophetic mission, as was the splitting of the moon
and many other examples given in the Tathbit.32In the case of the moon's
cleavage, he even argues against the opinion of fellow Mu'tazilites, such
as al-Nazzsrn (d. AD 847), who is reported to have disputed it.
From all of these citations, it is clear that this distinguished Mu'tazilite
rejected the doctrines of the astrologers completely, although his rebuttals,
being rhetorical in nature and addressing popular folklore, were not as
sophisticated as those of the Ash'arites, for example.%However, as shall
be seen below, his attitude and style of writing were probably more effec-
tive in alienating the astrologers owing, in particular, to his credibility as
a Mu'tazilite who was at least popularly perceived to be an ally.
In his appeals to popular sentiment, 'Abd al-JabbSr even goes so far as
to accuse the translators of Greek philosophical and scientific books of
being unbelievers and enemies of Islam. Although he levels this accusa-
tion against them in several places in the Tathbit," one example suffices.
It accompanies his discussion of the astrologers' practice of inventing
books attributed to their predecessors into which they have inserted
information about historical events, 'proving' that these events had been
foreseen and, thus, the validity of their discipline. After making this
charge, 'Abd al-JabbZr goes on to say that

[tlhis method is followed in the books that are attributed to the Greeks,
such as Plato, Aristotle and others, which were translated in Islamic
times and whose translators, as well as those who teach them, are com-
pletely unknown, singly and collectively. Nay, they are, moreover,
vehement enemies of the Prophet, peace and prayers be upon him, and
meticulous in raising doubts against Islam and making it unattractive,
even to those who believe in it. They take cover in Christianity, although
the Christians themselves disapprove of them and accuse them of athe-
ism (ilhad), denying religion (ta'til al-skarii'i') and raising doubts against
the Godhead (al-ta'nfi al-rubllbiyya) and all of the prophecies. They [the
Christians] have anathematized them and forbidden contact with them-
meaning those like QustH ibn LiiqH," Hunayn ibn IshHq and his son
I s h ~ q Quwayri38
y and YahyH ibn 'Adi." These [men], despite their mod-
est number, were never all contemporaries.And the priest, John," who
used to teach Euclid and the Almagest, as well as others, used to say:
"Those who translated these books have already omitted many of their
follies and plain errors-all in order to protect them, on account of their
zeal for them-and have attributed to them a great many Islamic con-
cepts." Since one cannot trust a religious enemy, how might one then
trust someone who does not believe in a hereafter, nor anticipates a
judgement, nor fears punishment?P'

Conclusion
Now that we have seen how a Mu'tazilite, such as 'Abd al-JabbSr, eval-
uated the Greek tradition of the foreign sciences, sifting it so carefully in
order to make it fit into an Islamic environment, it is clear that attacks
upon astrology played a very important role in this strategy. Indeed,
most other Mu'tazilites also seem to have seen astrological doctrines as
the Achilles' heel of Greek philosophy.
42 George Salibn

To my knowledge, the only Mu'tazilite who supposedly made correct

astrological appraisals and predictions, which were then used to accuse
him of belief in astrology, was Abii 'Ali al-JubbH'i (d. AD 915/6):2 who
is quoted three times by Ibn THwiis in this context.43In each and every
one of these citations, we find Abii 'Ali adding the caveat, "if the
astrologers are right" such and such a thing will result; clearly, he is
attempting to demonstrate that even he, a reputed master of the art of
astrological predictions, is not entirely certain that the discipline is
defensible.
To return to Abii Macshar and the various groups against which he
defended astrology, it is difficult to escape the impression that, on
purely intellectual grounds, the astrologers had an uphill battle to fight.
The fact that they were rejected by the religious scholars goes without
saying and Abii Ma'shar's defense makes it clear that they were also
alienated from those intellectual groups in society that might have been
expected to defend them. Finally, the common folk had very little
respect for astrologers, evidently because the former was the group most
influenced by religious scholars.
This generally negative opinion of astrologers-apparently so wide-
spread during the ninth century, when Islamic civilization was con-
sciously confronting the foreign sciences-constituted a real danger to
all of those perceived to be in the astrologers' camp. Without a doubt,
the astronomers were the ones most directly involved and facing the
greatest loss if they continued the association. It was in this hostile envi-
ronment, I surmise, that astronomers proper succeeded in taking the
courageous step of reorienting their discipline and redefining it in such
a way as to remove it as far as possible from astrology. It was this newly-
demarcated discipline that came to be known as 'ilm al-hay'a.
This construction of the cultural environment at the time when 'ilm al-
hay'a was born is premised upon the hypothesis that the new science was
set apart specifically to counter the association between astronomy and
astrology, which was so deeply embedded in the Greek intellectual tra-
dition. It follows, therefore, that 'ilm al-hay'a did not have a discrete
antecedent in the Greek tradition. Indeed, it must be perceived as a
rebellion against that very same tradition. It is no wonder, then, that the
most vehement attacks against Greek astronomy and the eventual cre-
ation of an alternative astronomy were the work of the very same peo-
ple responsible for the revolutionaq creation of 'ilm ul-hay'a.

The best way to translate 'ilm al-hay'a into English is to think of the term 'cos-
mography' in the literal sense. This is because hay'a, in this context, simply meant the
attempt to describe the apparent behaviour of the cosmos, the arrangement of its
parts, the* separate and collective motions, and the mechanisms by which one might
explain observable phenomena as resulting from naturally moving bodies, in this
instance, celestial spheres interpreted and understood in the same sense as in
Aristotelian works UDOn the subiect.
- I .,r thr l.strcl arr;culation ul ;he lhr.t,, ir.r.Grur&c.i.jltba, .4l-t!h?al I I I I I ~.,I-.A,.,lii
. I . t i , . . . u 1 a n n J 1 h i . Ualarn.lnJ U111vr.rsirvCentc~for
Cl1ri~r1,~n-hlu4inj 5 1 u J i ~ ~ ~ / ~ l , 21-dimsat
w k ~ , . a l - h l ~ ~ ~ ~al-l.l~m~!,sd,
l ~ i ~ v a ~YY>,,1%
162.21.74.97 and aassim

tlte GGlden Age of Islam (New ~ o r k~: e ; $ark University ~Gess,1994): 51-65.
See George Saliba, "The Ash'arites and the Science of the Stars," in Religion and
Culture in Medimal Isiam, eds. Richard Hovannisian and Georges Sabagh (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1999), 79-92.
See George Saliba, "Astronomy and Astrology in Medieval Arabic Thought," in
Les doctrines de la science de I'antiquiti d rage classique, eds. Roshdi Rashed and Joel
Biard (Louvain: Peeters, 1999), 131-164.
See George Saliba, "The Role of the Astrologer in Medieval Islamic Society,"
Blrllefin fitrides Olient?les: Sciences Occultes et Islam 44 (1992) : 45-68.
For a modem biography of this astrologer, see David Pingree, "Abu Ma'shar," in
Dictionary of Scientific Biography, ed. Charles Gillispie (New York: Charles Scribner's
Sons, 1970). 1: 32-39.
A full version of the story is reported by Muhammad ibn Ishaq al-Nadim, Kitib
al-fihrist, ed. Yusuf 'Ali Tawil (Beirut: Dar al-kutub al-'ilmiyya, 1996), 44142 and,
later, in Jamcll al-Din al-Qifti, Tdrikk al-hnkam8, ed. J. Lippert (Leipzig: Dietrichsche
Verlagsbuchhandiung, 1903), 152-154, as well as in YZqat al-Hamwi, Mu'jam ai-
udabz', 5 vols., Gibb Memorial Series (London: Luzac, 1908-1927), 5467.
Abu H-d al-Ghazzli, Al-Munqidk min al-Dalil, ed. and trans. Farid Jabr, 2d ed.
(Beirut: Al-Lajna al-Lubnaniyya li-tajamat al-rawa'i: 1969), 21-22.
lo in one of the manuscripts of this text, namely, Garullah 1058 (Istanbul), which is
a verv old manuSCriDt dated AD 939. the word iadal is reolaced bv kadith and the
phra;c 85 r',t?.l<,reJ. I < .q/d .11-1,~ /111> ?J.,~-vA:.IY rljat i>, #hel~.~J,tionalis~s and rhv p+,t-
I f c l ~ i i ' Ihl< ) ~rubvi>uily an t v l $ > r , .12 inlv c>asllyhr -rcn from the :un-
tents of the cha~ter.The alternative manuscri~tused-for the uresent studv is Halet
541 (Istanbul), dated AD 1729, which is noted ~ u aSezgin, t Gkschichte des krabiscken
Schrifitums (Leiden: Brill, 1979), Bd. 7, 141. It has the more correct reading adopted
here, although it is a later manuscript. The Latin translation, completed by John of
Seville fc. AD 11401 and noted bv Richard Lemav in Liber Introductorii Maioris ad
j;~,vz~i.,>;r~ ~ . l l r t ) t t ~ ? ~ l ' l \ . ~ r r ~ ~Ir~z ~a, p
~ tl c ,I sI I ~ ~ ~ ~r;~vr.rsitaric
~ ~ I C O <7rlmtcjlr..1995;. vol 2
[rornc, I, 2Gmc p.wric], 83, h.13 . l ~ y i . i ~ ~ t i , k , , !i, h ~ .onftr~nmg , 111~c~rre<.L re:1~11ngol
ll<,l,,t511.
' lhlr Acipitr. thc ernlneclus wading of the, ~Grrull~~h n u n u . rlpt rncnoonr.il in th.,
prr.\ iuu, nc,c+ The rr.ax,n br lhl. 15 tltat the :ontcnt.s~f lllr. chap121rn.lh~.n,, rnet~rmn
whatsoever of the haditionalists proper or of any of their arguments.
" See. for examole. , the inclusion of astroloeers c> with diviners in the kaditlz of the
~ ~

Propn~r,! v h ~h I; clearly discu,.+tI in tl~cchaprcran k.hi,i.; 1 1 ) ibn llaiar al-'A<.l,ll;lni

(,I AD 1.1.19, l'urlc .<l-l~.i~i l?~-~liorlt ,.tlrdl ~l-lhkl~.ifi tCa~cwJ l ~ h t , $ l ual-Kulli""a
t 31.
,\zhar~y\,.$, 1'178). \Yt, nltl.it .II,,) rr.mr.mbr,r 1h.11AhG Jla'41ar him\t,lf w.1, a /io.lir,t
>.Itolaran.] w.r< + n ~ q , e d in .Icfamlng dl-K~ndion ~;iounco t his assuaatlun \\,ltl? the
furc.~gv~ziencc,j,\vhl:h wcrc per:ei\'c.i I., h+ Llc,;clv .~ssuci;ltt..ls r , ~ t ~strol.,gv. l~ .\bu
~ a ' s 6 a rwas only won over to astrology through ihe benign subjects of arithmetic
and geometry.
44 George Saliba

'"abib ibn Aws al-TB'i, Diwrin Abi TammZm, introduction by 'Abd al-Hamid
Yunus and 'Abd al-Fattah Mustafa (Cairo: Maktabat Muhammad 'Ali Subayh, 1942),
.
7.1 1
" See the distinction between soft and hard astrology made by A. A. Long,
"Astrology: Arguments pro and contra," in Science and Speculation: Studies in
Hellenistic lheoy and Practice, eds. Jonathan Barnes, Jacques Brunschwig, Myles
Bumyeat and Malcolm Schofield (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press and Paris:
Editions de la Maison des Sciences de l'Homme., 19821.165-1 ~- ,, - - - - 93.. esoeciallv
,n.-~
19.
In fact, Ab!i Ma'shar himself made reference to such recriminations from the
general public in connection with his arguments against groups nine and ten; his aim
was to indicate the uouular distaste for astrolow ", and how easilv one might " be deni-
grated for its practi&elmuchas he had libelled al-Kindi.
l6 The following passages in the Aristotelian works should suffice to make this
point: Generation and Corruption, II,10,336a 15 to 336b 25, De Caelo, II.286a 3 to 286b
10, and Generation of Animals, IV, 10,777k 16 to 778a 10. See also Saliba, "The Role of
the Astrologer."
l7 See the description of such cycles in D. M. Bose, S. N. Sen and B. V.
Subbarayappa, eds., A Concise Histoy of Science in India (New D e w Indian National
Science Academy, 1971), 88f.
Biriini may be a member of the group here attacked by Abii Ma'shar, for the for-
mer argues against the latter quite vehemently in his Chronology of Ancient Nations,
trans. E. Sachan (London: Williams Allen, 1879), 29-31, especially 30, where he says:
. . . further, suppose that we knew their [the planets'] distances and
places at a certain time, and the measure of the distance over which each
of them travels in one Nvchthemeron. Ifvou then ask the mathematicians
x i 1,) lhr length .,I timc, .!tl,,r whtch thsy svaulci 11,s-tcl.l:h otlwr in 3 ccr-
t ~ l point.
n \ ) I l'17jrc,wIllLhi h q had tncl ~ ~ a corlwr l i in tli.lt idmtical polnt,
nu blarn+ drta:h?r n, hlm, if lhr. .r,.,aks af t,lllnm, of yt..tr. lirali:~ in tht
original translation]
l9 Claudius Ptolemy, Tetrabiblos, trans. F. E. Robbins, Loeb Series, no. 435
(Cambridge, hlA:Harvard University Press, 1940), 229f.
"See those erouos
, . s u ~ e v e din the references e<. v e n in notes 4.5 and 6 above.
-' 5 ' ~for, cx~~nplt,, .dl1 flI-~t.(:.<rin E~i:y.lop.~z.ira01l:l.tru, 2d ?.I., 1266, anrl ,121 .I/-
1o~l.11
as used h y ' A l l ion l<!nA'~l2l-Aslt.$rlin .tla.lil.;, .I/ ijlaari!ryi~l,cd. Helrnut Kirtcr
~\Vicsbxlr.n Stelncr. 1980~.29 I. wltc~.~, the erour, .lcalnsr u hl<.h~ h l ~ l - l t ~;~nl-:lriln.l
lill~
h l not dispute matters related to free w i i (qa&rjare called nkl al-jadal, which obvi-
ously means the Mu'tarilites.
"For a relatively complete introduction to 'Abd al-Jabba's life and work, see 'Abd
al-fabbar al-Hamadhw, Skarh al-ugPl al-khamsa, ed. 'Abd al-Karim 'Uthman (Cairo:
Maktabat Wahba, 1965). 13f.
'Abd al-Jabba al-HamadhZni, Tatkbit daldil al-nubuwwa, ed. 'Abd al-Karim
'Uthman (Beirut, Dar al-'Arabiyya, 1966).
2Ql-Hamadhani, Tatkbit, 78-79.
25 For reference to such statements by al-Kindi, see Saliba, A History of Arabic
" .
Astronomy, 55.
See, for example, Skarh al-usPI al-khamsa, 121, where he speaks of the astrologers
in the following fashion:
As for the astrologers (asfiub al-nujam) who have attributed these things
that come to be ful-kawtdith)
, . to the influences of the olanets.. thev, have
v,,>nctoo f d r 1h r rcasotl Iwng that rln,<c,stars 11nc.lningpl~nctrlarc n.,t
live, let nlonc :.~pal>lr(.pi iun) And the ! \ . i l l ~ ~ i ,ig,cnt
~: dll-F~l ~I-m~.kl,lir)
!la\ nr b ~ , a l i \and
s :apaolc [I" or.lcr to L,r . ~ nc,iriacnt :,>usr,].
Afi"!". in tlis T~tl~bit (4311,. lie ,.I\., " I'll? Iprran:saf Ar~,totlcaorl h~ ilk 11'19 w.1~heS
n. far as Cayng that the vun, the Irrocm and the plnnets 2re .~l~vc, knoi\.lr.lgtubls,
endowed with hearing and sight, capable of creating, giving life and causing death.
. . . " Later, in the same work, he associates astronomers more explicitly with
astrologers (Tatkbit, 64041):
.
And so said Abii 'Ali lal-TubbS'iI
astrologers (d-,rrr.~~r,ll~s,i~~)
. . , ,, , and
to the astronomers fal-falakiuvin>
who I lalrncd th.a plants Ipn,spr.r] owing I.?
thc cffrL:tof thr sun, for w e ice that s,ncr. tllc sun rtscs ovrr thr land the
plants fl,,urish, to M . I I B ~ I I hc r~ymnde.3by asking. ''And why ,hc,uld this
ronsrquence hr. ducttu the action i)r effect of the sun? I lr went on to-A)'.
\VC i+r the sun rlse or:r msnv rt,gaons and over mountain, \%,here noth-
rnn floun<lles.Morr.>r,r.r,the sin also 9~,1.1b+yon.i th+ land just A. n~uch
asTt rises over it, so why should its effects be due to its rising, rather than
its setting?"
" Ibid., 72. A similar attack against the same sort of astrologers appears elsewhere
(175f)in the Tathbit as well:
The astrologers tell falsehoods and attribute [accurate] predictions to
their predecessors, saying, " J a n a pronounced for Chosrau upon the
duration of nations and the births of kings and did not err in a single
case, and so did Kanka, the astrologer of India, for the Indian kings, and
so did Dorotheus for the Roman kings, and Ptolemy for the Coptic
kings." Perhaps they [meaning the astrologers] compose such books and
eather information about nations and kinedoms. about which much is
L o w n of their past events and the ages 2 their kings, and report that
summarily, without mentioning the names of the kinxs, so that their
mendaci6 will not be discoverea. Thus, the imorant, ., wfio are not wearv
.
u f the tncki of rhc harlx.~ni. trill rexl w c l ~buoki ar>ilthink tl1.11 tnc
an. lent astn>ltogershad in;ler.d h~rr~nlil man\ of the r\.ent< that came ro
vass ~ n willd th+rcforL,thlnk that thr raft of astrol.>in. -. is v n l d and thdt
its practitioners know of what they are speaking.
'Abd al-Jabbar recommends that astrologers be tested with questions rooted in the
present, such as asking them to guess the number of folios in a book, or the number
of lines or words in it, auestions over which thev must certainlv falter. He even rec-
ornmrnd. that the:\, be iskrd to prcdic~<r,rncthing,It, ice if it ic,;ncr rrut 1115cdn:lu-
ailm was th,~l,if [he a.lr.?logcrs' pr?di:rion, ever :am? true, it !\'auld l,r' merc.1~.idznt
and could not possibly be the result of any science.
" Althoueh. , the m"m e n t at this ooint is about the debate between Muslims and
)cwi, '.\b~lrl-labbar uws the f,~lsrhoo.lsul the astrulot;crs in a pnrrnthetiz3l f.1~hlon
to say illat rh~tlrr,rr.dirt~s,nof tnc futurr., which rarely juccreils an,{, lJv<r~tllr.n, du+r
so bJ sheer accihnt, is in no way similar to the predictions of prophets, which were
performed by virtue of their mission. See Ibid., 412-413.
29 Ibid., 540f.
30 This Ja'far ibn Harb (d. AD 850) is a fellow Mdtazilite as well; see al-Nadim, Kitlfb
al-fihrist, 297, and Ibn Hajar alJAsqalZini, Lisrin al-mizlfn, sub. Ja'far (entry no. 1995)and
Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2d ed., 2373, where he is mentioned as one of the chiefs
Mu'tazilites of his time. It is interesting to note that al-Nadim attributes a work to him
entitled Af-Rudd 'aft aguib al-tablf'i' (Refutation of those who believed in natures), the
theme of which is closely connected with astrology and later repeated by the
Ash'arite, al-Baqill3mi (d. AD 1012), in a chapter immediately preceding his attack
against astrologers. See al-Qadi Abii Bakr al-BSqillZini, Kitib tamhid al-awrt'il ma-talkhi?
al-dalrt'il, ed. 'Imad al-Din Ahmad Haydar (Beirut: Mu'assasat al-kutub al-thaqafiyya,
1993), 53-66, for arguments against those who believed in the natures and 66f, for
arguments against the astrologers.
" Al-Hamadh-, Tathbit, 539.
" On the miracle of the shooting stars, see Ibid., 64f; on the splitting of the moon,
see Ibid., 55f.
46 George Saliba

3"ee Saliba, "The Ash'arites and the Science of the Stars" and Saliba, "Astronomy
and Astrology in Medieval Arabic Thought."
Al-HamadhZni, Tatl~bit,75-76,192.193 and 623.
35 See al-Nadim, Kitrib al-jhrist, 464.
3G Ibid., 463f.
37 Ibid., 478.
" Ibid., 422.
39 Ibid., 424.
" 'Uthman, the editor of the Tathbit, thinks that this John is the famous Ytihma
ibn MasHwayh, who is indeed mentioned in al-Nadim, Kitbb "1-jhrist, 465, and in al-
Qifti, Ta'rikh al-kukaml?: 380, but is nowhere said to have taught the works of Euclid,
although he was a deacon in the Church (and yet had four wives) and obviously
taught medicine. I believe, however, that the person intended by 'Abd al-JahbEris the
priest, YiihannH ibn Yiisuf ibn al-HarrZth ibn al-Bi-q; see Fihrist, 448, where it is
explicitly said "that people used to study the book of Euclid and other books an
geometry [with this Y*ann;l] and that he was a translator from Greek." The date of
his death is missing in the manuscript copies of the Filzrist, but al-Nadim puts him at
the top of the list of people referred to as muhdathcn, that is, those who lived most
recently, where the third person on the list is someone who died in the year AD 916.
Thus, this YiihannH the priest most likely lived at the end of the ninth and the begin-
ning of the tenth century.
" Al-Hamadhsni, Tathbit, 75-86.
"" Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2d ed., 2569.
See.. IbnTSds.
. RZdi &Din Abii al-OSsim'Ali ibnMBa ibn Ta'far ibn Muhammad.
~ ~ ~~

Faraj al-mahmzim jtririkh 'ulama" al-nujtm (Al-Najaf: ~l-Matba'aa l - ~ a y d a r i ~AH

~a,
1368 [AD 1948]), 154-157.