Qutb al-Din al-Shirazi

Qutb  al-Din  Shirazi wrote several huge works not only on
mathematical sciences and philosophy, but also on medicine: a
commentary  on  volume  1  of  Ibn  Sina’s al-Qanun  fi al-Tibb
entitled al-Tuhfa  al-Sa'diya in nine volumes. This is not
surprising because Qutb al-Din came from a family of physicians
and he received medical education in his youth by reading Ibn
Sina’s Qanun.  This  enormous  commentary  ought  to  give  us
comprehensive  information  about  books  on  medicine  and  its
allied disciplines available to Qutb al-Din. In this article, I will
elucidate how he utilized these books when composing such a
huge work. Particularly, I will focus on how Qutb al-Din used
Ibn Rushd’s medical work in his al-Tuhfa al-Sa'diya, and rethink
the importance of Ibn Rushd in the East.

Quṭb al-Din Shīrāzī (1236-1311 AD), the Persian polymath had great contributions to the fields of philosophy, mathematics, medicine, astronomy, music, literature, and Islamic studies. He lived during the Ilkhanid kingdom in Iran. He wrote an autobiography in the preface of his medical manuscript, al-Tuḥfa al-Sa'dīya. He discussed his views on science and then, he explained his life story, in particular his education and contribution to science. He mentioned the reasons that led him to write al-Tuḥfa al-Sa'dīya, his main medical work. As a great polymath, he traveled to many countries, and his words cleared the scientific atmosphere of the 14th century AD. Also, he directly introduced his teachers and their abilities and works. Furthermore, scientists who worked on the Canon of Medicine had commentaries on this book, which were comprehensively introduced in this autobiography.

It is extremely difficult to establish cases of plagiarism within Islamic scientific texts. Is a scholar who quotes a scientific work without referencing it engaged in plagiarism, or merely influenced by another author’s thought? The focus of this paper is Quṭb al-Dīn al-Shīrāzī (d. 1311), a pupil-colleague of Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī (d. 1274). Shīrāzī says in the introduction of one his major astronomical works Nihāya al-idrāk that he will follow the linguistic style of Ṭūsī’s major work al-Tadhkira fīʿilm al‐hayʾa, and that he will “incorporate it in the course of the exposition if it is clear, and expound upon it if something in it is obscure.” My investigation of the third book of the Nihāya revealed that Shīrāzī incorporated almost the entire text of the third book of the Tadhkira, most often verbatim or slightly paraphrased. On the other hand, in his later work Faʿalta fa‐lā talum (You’ve done it so don’t blame [me]), Shīrāzī makes an allegation of plagiarism against a certain al-Ḥimādhī, a commentator of the Tadhkira who apparently criticized Shīrāzī.
Based on these two works, it is not my intention to establish a case of plagiarism against Shīrāzī, nor to prove his allegation of plagiarism against al-Ḥimādhī, but rather this paper aims to describe Shīrāzī’s conception of plagiarism and his attitude towards it contextually.
Keyword: Quṭb al-Dīn al-Shīrāzī, scientific plagiarism, Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī Nihāya al-idrāk, al-Ḥimādhī, Faʿalta fa‐lā talum

Kutbüddin eş-Şîrâzî'nin (ö. 710/1311) bir el-Keşşâf şerhi bulunup bulun-madığı meselesi tartışılagelmiştir. Bu konudaki mevcut verileri değerlendir-mek üzere yakın zamanda kaleme aldığımız "Kutbüddin eş-Şîrâzî'ye el-Keşşâf Şerhi Nispeti Meselesi" 1 adlı makalede mevcut yazma nüshalar, biyografik kaynaklar ve bu konuda açıklamaların yer aldığı birincil ve ikincil kaynaklar incelenerek bir sonuca ulaşmaya çalışılmıştı. O makalede, mevcut kaynak-ların ve biri hariç kütüphane kayıtlarındaki yazma nüshaların Şîrâzî'ye bir el-Keşşâf şerhi nispetini mümkün kılmadığı ortaya konulurken, Şîrâzî'ye nis-peti muhtemel tek nüshanın içeriğine dair incelemenin sonucunda, bunun Şîrâzî'ye ait el-Keşşâf şerhi olduğu güçlü bir ihtimal olarak değerlendirilmiş-ti. Fakat makalenin yazımından sonra elde edilen veriler, bu değerlendir-menin gözden geçirilmesi gerektiğini ortaya koymuştur. Ayrıca bu veriler, Yemenî'nin Dürerü'l-asdâf fî halli 'ukadi'l-Keşşâf adlı el-Keşşâf şerhiyle ilgili önemli bilgiler sunmaktadır. Bu yazıda, sözü edilen makaledeki tespitler ve iddialar hatırlatıldıktan sonra, orada Şîrâzî'ye ait olduğu değerlendirilen yazma nüshanın gerçekte ona ait olmadığı ve hâlihazırda Şîrâzî'ye el-Keşşâf şerhi nispetinin geçerli bir dayanağı bulunmadığı ortaya konulacak, bunun yanı sıra Yemenî'nin sözü edilen eserine dair yeni veriler paylaşılacaktır.

On the Authorship of Sharh al-Kashshāf Attributed to Qutb al-Dīn al-Shīrāzī

It remains unknown whether Qutb al-Dīn al-Shīrāzī has a commentary (sharh/hāshiya) on al-Kashshāf among his more than twenty books. Library records related to this issue are far from reliable. The information provided by the classical sources do not produce a definitive opinion on the attribution of the book to Qutb al-Dīn. Contemporary researchers’ claims have only made the issue more intractable. While some have argued that al-Shīrāzī does not have such a work, others mistakenly attributed Hāshiya ‘ala’l-Kashshāf of Qutb al-Dīn al-Rāzī to al-Shīrāzī. This article will attempt to reach a definitive conclusion to this matter by examining library records, primary sources and the content of the single manuscript which very probably belongs to al-Shīrāzī. It will also analyze the book’s references, citations and sources.

Key words: Qutb al-Dīn al-Shīrāzī, Qutb al-Dīn al-Fālī, Qutb al-Dīn al-Rāzī, Sharh al-Kashhāf, Hāshiya on al-Kashshāf, Intisāf: Sharh al-Kashshāf, Nawāhid al-abkār.

Kutbüddin eş-Şîrâzî'nin (ö. 710/1311) bir el-Keşşâf şerhi bulunup bulunmadığı meselesi tartışılagelmiştir. Bu konudaki mevcut verileri değerlendirmek üzere yakın zamanda kaleme aldığımız "Kutbüddin eş-Şîrâzî'ye el-Keşşâf Şerhi Nispeti Meselesi" 1 adlı makalede mevcut yazma nüshalar, biyografik kaynaklar ve bu konuda açıklamaların yer aldığı birincil ve ikincil kaynaklar incelenerek bir sonuca ulaşmaya çalışılmıştı. O makalede, mevcut kaynakların ve biri hariç kütüphane kayıtlarındaki yazma nüshaların Şîrâzî'ye bir el-Keşşâf şerhi nispetini mümkün kılmadığı ortaya konulurken, Şîrâzî'ye nispeti muhtemel tek nüshanın içeriğine dair incelemenin sonucunda, bunun Şîrâzî'ye ait el-Keşşâf şerhi olduğu güçlü bir ihtimal olarak değerlendirilmişti. Fakat makalenin yazımından sonra elde edilen veriler, bu değerlendirmenin gözden geçirilmesi gerektiğini ortaya koymuştur. Ayrıca bu veriler, Yemenî'nin Dürerü'l-asdâf fî halli 'ukadi'l-Keşşâf adlı el-Keşşâf şerhiyle ilgili önemli bilgiler sunmaktadır.

ممّا لا ريب فيه أنّ العلّامة قطب¬الدين الشيرازي يعتبر من أعظم العلماء الذين برز نجمهم في عدّة علوم مختلفة خلال تاريخ الحضارة الإسلامية. فهو إلی جانب کونه فیلسوفا إشراقيا، کان فقیها أريبا وأديبا بليغا، وإلی جانب اشتهاره في الفلسفة المشائية کان طبيبا حاذقا، وإلی جانب مساهماته الجمّة في فروع الرياضيات والفلك عُرف کمتصوّف وعالم أخلاق. ويکاد هذا الجمع بين مختلف العلوم يميّزه عن سائر أقرانه بل ويمکّنه في حلّ مسائل لم يستطع غيره الخوض فيها ببراعة، لکونها بحاجة إلی الانشغال في أکثر فرع من الفروع العلمية. تُعدّ مسئلة الحواس الباطنة أو القوی النفسانية المدرِکة الباطنة من الأبحاث العالقة بين عدّة علوم مختلفة حيث يُبحث عنه في علم النفس من جهة وفي علم الحيوان وعلم الطب من جهة أخری، کما أنّ لها لوازم وتداعيات في العلوم النظرية الأخری من الفلسفة والتصوّف وغير ذلك. ولعلّ هذه المسئلة کمثيلاتها الإبستمولوجية الأخری بحاجة إلی دراسات بينية لإلقاء ضوء واستيعاب أحسن لجوانب المسئلة الأنطولوجية الوجودية والمعرفية الوجدانية والطبيعية الجسدانية.
في هذا الإطار، تسعی هذه الورقة إلی إبراز دور قطب¬الدين الشيرازي المعرفي ومساهماته المنهجية ذات توجّه قريب من الدراسات البينية في معالجة هذه القضية، عبر دراسة تحليلية لآثاره الطبية من قبيل التحفة السعدية، وهو شرحه علی کتاب القانون في الطب لابن سينا، وکتاباته الفلسفية من قبيل شرحه علی حکمة الإشراق للسهروردي و موسوعته الفارسية درّة التاج لغرّة الديباج. في هذا المقال وبعد تقديم تحليل للنصوص الواردة في الکتب أعلاه، توصّلنا إلی أنّ فيلسوفنا الطبيب یتعرّض في دراسته لظاهرة الحواس الباطنة إلی عدّة استدلالات فلسفية إلی جانب نماذج من تجارب طبية مختبرية وذلك لإثبات وجود کلّ واحد من هذه القوی الإدراکية الباطنية ومکان تواجدها في تجاويف الدماغ البشري. وفي الوقت نفسه الذي يعرض قطب الدين الشيرازي البراهين الفلسفية في کتاباته الطبّية، يقدّم أوصافا تجريبية وطبية في کتبه الفلسفية ممّا يدّل بوضوح علی تشابك النظريات الفلسفية النظرية والمشاهدات الطبية التجربية عنده واستخدامه المناهج العلمية المتنوعة في دراسة وتفسير هذه الظاهرة.

The main problem of Ptolemaic model of the superior planets was about "equant point". It is a geometrical point relating to which the motion of the deferent sphere is uniform. But it cannot be real on the basis of Aristotle's philosophy on the motions of celestial spheres. Astronomers of Maragha School devised some new models to avoid this problem, while they were in accordance with Ptolemy's observations. Qutb al-Din Shirazi (d. 1311 AD) has provided his own model for superior planets in his works: "Nihayat al-idrak fi dirayat al-aflak", "al-Tuhfa al-Shahia" in Arabic and "Ikhtiarat-i Muzaffari" in Persian. His model in Ikhtiarat has not been studied yet and is different from the one that Saliba (1979) and Kennedy (1966) have introduced. Here, I introduce Qutb al-Din's model for superior planets provided in eighth chapter of the second book of "Ikhtiarat-i Muzaffari", and also about a conflict between observations and the theory which this model involves.