I'm reading through a lexicon written in 976 AH. Its section on medicine includes a definition for (al-māniyā), which sounds an awful lot like "mania." I thought it was cool to find. And it made me wonder: Did "mania" appear in Arabic or English first?
According to The Oxford English Dictionary (OED):
"The earliest known use of the noun mania is in the Middle English period (1150–1500). OED's earliest evidence for mania is from before 1398, in a translation by John Trevisa, translator."
The earliest mentions in Arabic that I could find in searchable Arabic sources are Muḥammad Zakariyā al-Rāzīn's Al-Ḥāwī fi-l-ṭibb, which has
(ابْن سراببون قَالَ هَاهُنَا وجع يشبه قرانطيس فِي أَكثر أَحْوَاله يُسمى ألمانيا وَتَفْسِيره الْجُنُون الهايج وَيحدث من صفراء محترقة أَو سَوْدَاء محترقة تصير سخونته حارة بعد.
(En: Ibn Sarabion said: Here is a pain resembling cranitis in most of its states, called "mania," which means "raging madness," and it occurs from burning yellow bile or burning black bile, its heat becoming hot afterward.)
Then Ibn ʿAbd al-Rabbihi' Al-ʿIqd al-farīd, which has a verse which includes
قال الحسن بن هانيء: لقيت مانيا الموسوس، فأنشدني
(En: Al-Hasan ibn Hani said: I met Mania the Madman, and he recited to me...)
And then Ibn Sīnā's Al-Qānūn, which has a section dedicated to it, wherein he defines it as
المانيا هُوَ الْجُنُون السبعي
(En: Mania is the madness of beasts.)
Their dates of death were 303 AH/915 CE, 328/939, and 428/1038 (respectively).
So, it was used in Arabic a century before the first possible use in English and 483 years before the first proven use.
Translations of Arabic texts—especially medicine—were the standard for centuries, so it should not be that much of a shock that Arabic had a bunch of technical terms originating from Greek and Latin centuries before those terms made their way into European languages.
According to The Oxford English Dictionary (OED):
"The earliest known use of the noun mania is in the Middle English period (1150–1500). OED's earliest evidence for mania is from before 1398, in a translation by John Trevisa, translator."
The earliest mentions in Arabic that I could find in searchable Arabic sources are Muḥammad Zakariyā al-Rāzīn's Al-Ḥāwī fi-l-ṭibb, which has
(ابْن سراببون قَالَ هَاهُنَا وجع يشبه قرانطيس فِي أَكثر أَحْوَاله يُسمى ألمانيا وَتَفْسِيره الْجُنُون الهايج وَيحدث من صفراء محترقة أَو سَوْدَاء محترقة تصير سخونته حارة بعد.
(En: Ibn Sarabion said: Here is a pain resembling cranitis in most of its states, called "mania," which means "raging madness," and it occurs from burning yellow bile or burning black bile, its heat becoming hot afterward.)
Then Ibn ʿAbd al-Rabbihi' Al-ʿIqd al-farīd, which has a verse which includes
قال الحسن بن هانيء: لقيت مانيا الموسوس، فأنشدني
(En: Al-Hasan ibn Hani said: I met Mania the Madman, and he recited to me...)
And then Ibn Sīnā's Al-Qānūn, which has a section dedicated to it, wherein he defines it as
المانيا هُوَ الْجُنُون السبعي
(En: Mania is the madness of beasts.)
Their dates of death were 303 AH/915 CE, 328/939, and 428/1038 (respectively).
So, it was used in Arabic a century before the first possible use in English and 483 years before the first proven use.
Translations of Arabic texts—especially medicine—were the standard for centuries, so it should not be that much of a shock that Arabic had a bunch of technical terms originating from Greek and Latin centuries before those terms made their way into European languages.
That which can only be endeavoured to be explained through vigorous arm-waving probably isn’t [yet] worthy of others investing the effort to try to understand it.
“Virtue turns into vice in a corrupt soul, just as wholesome food turns into corruption in a diseased body.”
—Plato, as quoted in Kashf al-ẓunūn
—Plato, as quoted in Kashf al-ẓunūn
More from Ḥāji Khalifah’s Kashf al-ẓunūn, this time on the decline of knowledge after its explosion under ʿAbd Allāh al-Maʾmūn:
”…Then people began to lose interest in knowledge and became distracted from it, sometimes due to the clashing of tribulations and other times by efforts to unite the community, until knowledge nearly disappeared altogether. This is also the case with other crafts and states: they begin gradually, continue to grow until they reach a peak, and then they start to decline, ultimately fading away into the depths of forgetfulness.
The truth is that the most significant factors in the flourishing or decline of knowledge are the interest or lack of interest of the rulers in each era. Indeed, to Allah, we belong, and to Him, we shall return.”
While political rulers were the most significant factor in the past, I think it is fair to expand it beyond those who wield political power and include those who wield financial and social power, thus including media moguls, venture capitalists, technologists, celebrities, role models, and influencers.
”…Then people began to lose interest in knowledge and became distracted from it, sometimes due to the clashing of tribulations and other times by efforts to unite the community, until knowledge nearly disappeared altogether. This is also the case with other crafts and states: they begin gradually, continue to grow until they reach a peak, and then they start to decline, ultimately fading away into the depths of forgetfulness.
The truth is that the most significant factors in the flourishing or decline of knowledge are the interest or lack of interest of the rulers in each era. Indeed, to Allah, we belong, and to Him, we shall return.”
While political rulers were the most significant factor in the past, I think it is fair to expand it beyond those who wield political power and include those who wield financial and social power, thus including media moguls, venture capitalists, technologists, celebrities, role models, and influencers.
“A person remains in the comfort of his mind and safe from the criticisms of others as long as he has not published a book or composed poetry.”
—Ḥājī Khalīfah, Kashf al-ẓunūn
—Ḥājī Khalīfah, Kashf al-ẓunūn
Heads up: The electronic edition of (Kashf al-ẓunūn) has some tragic typos. Al-Hamdu li-Llah for the obvious ones, as one of them led to discovering there's a newer edition of the book, and there's no need for me to keep cross-referencing other books.
See if you can spot the typo.
* * *
Electronic editions have typos. So do many commercial prints and purported critical editions. While boycotting editions and publishers might be sound advice for a novice who isn't yet in a position to recognise errors or verify, it's not very useful when the typo-filled editions are unique in some aspect, such as being the only edition ever or being searchable and editable. Also, there's a point where actively looking for typos is one way to ensure that one is reading the material and not just passing eyes over the page.
See if you can spot the typo.
* * *
Electronic editions have typos. So do many commercial prints and purported critical editions. While boycotting editions and publishers might be sound advice for a novice who isn't yet in a position to recognise errors or verify, it's not very useful when the typo-filled editions are unique in some aspect, such as being the only edition ever or being searchable and editable. Also, there's a point where actively looking for typos is one way to ensure that one is reading the material and not just passing eyes over the page.
Forwarded from Musa's Workshop (musa furber)
From the explanation of the most beautiful names al-Marʿashī (aka Saçiqli-Zadeh) gives in Nashr al-ṭawāliʿ, relaying what is mentioned in some commentaries on the hadith:
«الكريم» هو الذي إذا قدر عفى وإذا وعد وفى، وإذا أعطى زاد على منتهى الرجاء، ولا يبالي كم أعطى ولمن أعطى، وإن رفعت حاجة إلى غيره لا يرضى، وإذا جفي عاتب وما استقصى، ولا يضيع من لاذ به والتجى، ويغنيه عن الوسائل والشفعاء، فمن اجتمع له جميع ذلك لا بالتكلف فهو الكريم المطلق، وذلك له تعالى فقط.
The generous one (al-karīm) is the one who forgives when able, fulfils his promises, gives beyond all expectations, and does not concern himself with how much he provides or to whom. If a need is raised to someone else, He is displeased. If treated with neglect, He reproaches but does not exact a full account. He does not forsake anyone who seeks refuge in Him, and He dispenses with intermediaries and intercessors. The one who possesses all these qualities without effort is the absolute generous (al-karīm al-muṭlaq), which applies solely to Allah (Exalted is He).
* * *
One of the great things about al-Marʿahsī’s book is that it includes important matters from Al-Mawāqif and Al-Maqāsid and their supporting literature that are missing in Ṭawāliʿ and its supporting literature. This section on Allah’s names is one of them.
[Edited to include more info on the author and book.]
«الكريم» هو الذي إذا قدر عفى وإذا وعد وفى، وإذا أعطى زاد على منتهى الرجاء، ولا يبالي كم أعطى ولمن أعطى، وإن رفعت حاجة إلى غيره لا يرضى، وإذا جفي عاتب وما استقصى، ولا يضيع من لاذ به والتجى، ويغنيه عن الوسائل والشفعاء، فمن اجتمع له جميع ذلك لا بالتكلف فهو الكريم المطلق، وذلك له تعالى فقط.
The generous one (al-karīm) is the one who forgives when able, fulfils his promises, gives beyond all expectations, and does not concern himself with how much he provides or to whom. If a need is raised to someone else, He is displeased. If treated with neglect, He reproaches but does not exact a full account. He does not forsake anyone who seeks refuge in Him, and He dispenses with intermediaries and intercessors. The one who possesses all these qualities without effort is the absolute generous (al-karīm al-muṭlaq), which applies solely to Allah (Exalted is He).
* * *
One of the great things about al-Marʿahsī’s book is that it includes important matters from Al-Mawāqif and Al-Maqāsid and their supporting literature that are missing in Ṭawāliʿ and its supporting literature. This section on Allah’s names is one of them.
[Edited to include more info on the author and book.]
One objection philosophers raise against the rational possibility of bodily resurrection is that restoring the body leads to an absurdity. Imagine that one person consumes another. In that case, the body of the eaten becomes part of the eater’s body; that part must either be restored in the eater or the eaten. In either scenario, neither individual can return in their entirety.
One response to this objection is that resurrection only involves restoring the essential original parts—those that remain from the beginning of life to the end—not all parts that may have changed or been assimilated into others. The argument holds that the original parts of the eaten person would have already been transformed into waste in the eater and expelled. Thus, they can be returned to the original individual.
This objection and response are pretty standard, but I had yet to check which specific body parts might be considered original. According to ChatGPT (so: caveat emptor!), these original parts could include most neurons in the brain, eye lens cells, some heart muscle cells, and, in women, the oocytes (egg cells).
One response to this objection is that resurrection only involves restoring the essential original parts—those that remain from the beginning of life to the end—not all parts that may have changed or been assimilated into others. The argument holds that the original parts of the eaten person would have already been transformed into waste in the eater and expelled. Thus, they can be returned to the original individual.
This objection and response are pretty standard, but I had yet to check which specific body parts might be considered original. According to ChatGPT (so: caveat emptor!), these original parts could include most neurons in the brain, eye lens cells, some heart muscle cells, and, in women, the oocytes (egg cells).
Learning feels a lot like taking a picture with your thumb smashing an infinite zoom-out button.
From Shaykh Aḥmad al-Dardīr’s commentary on Al-Kharīdah al-bahiyyah:
والعلم من حيث إنه علم لا ينجي من عذاب اللَّه ما لم يعمل به، والعبادة المطلوبة شرط صحتها العلم، فينبغي للعاقل أن يقتصر من العلم على ما به العمل، وهو العلم الشرعي، وهو ثلاثة أنواع: علم أصول الدين، وعلم الفقه، وعلمالتفسير، وما يتصل بذلك من آلاتها كعلم النحو والمعاني والبيان، بخلاف علوم الفلاسفة فإنها باطلة إن سلم صاحبها من الضلال، وإلا فهي عين الوبال.
نعم علم الطب وما يوصل إلى معرفة الوقت والجهات من علم النجوم فذلك جائز، على أنا لا نسلم أن هذا من علم الفلاسفة، بل هو من الشرعي، بدليل ﴿وَهُوَ الَّذِي جَعَلَ لَكُمُ النُّجُومَ لِتَهْتَدُوا بِها فِي ظُلُماتِ الْبَرِّ وَالْبَحْرِ﴾ [الأنعام: الآية ٩٧]، والإذن بالطب مشهور في السنة.
Knowledge, insofar as it is merely knowledge, does not save from Allah’s punishment unless it is acted upon. The validity of the required worship depends on knowledge, so it is appropriate for the intelligent person to limit themselves to the amount of knowledge that leads to action—namely, religious knowledge (ʿilm sharʿī). This encompasses three types: knowledge of the foundations of religion (ʿilm uṣūl al-dīn), knowledge of jurisprudence (fiqh), and knowledge of exegesis (tafsīr), along with the necessary tools for these fields, such as knowledge of grammar (naḥw), semantics (maʿānī), and rhetoric (bayān). This is in contrast to the sciences of the philosophers, which are invalid, even if their practitioners are free from misguidance; otherwise, they are the essence of ruin.
However, the science of medicine (ṭibb) and knowledge that leads to determining time and directions based on astronomy (ʿilm al-nujūm) are permitted. Yet we do not concede that these belong to the philosophers' sciences; rather, they are part of the religious sciences, as indicated by the verse, “And it is He who made the stars for you to guide you through the darknesses of land and sea” [Al-Anʿām, 6:97]. Permission for practicing medicine is also well-established in the Prophetic traditions.
—
n.b. To keep things simple: Shaykh al-Dardir is addressing Muslims living in a fairly ideal state. He is not addressing Muslims living in a state where their understanding of the world is already corrupted by ideas foreign to and incompatible with sound Islamic beliefs. We live in the latter. Sound philosophy starts with sound aqidah and sound aqidah is a personal duty. So sound aqidah needs to be learned before delving into philosophy as a whole—an aqidah that covers philosophical issues that are common today.
والعلم من حيث إنه علم لا ينجي من عذاب اللَّه ما لم يعمل به، والعبادة المطلوبة شرط صحتها العلم، فينبغي للعاقل أن يقتصر من العلم على ما به العمل، وهو العلم الشرعي، وهو ثلاثة أنواع: علم أصول الدين، وعلم الفقه، وعلمالتفسير، وما يتصل بذلك من آلاتها كعلم النحو والمعاني والبيان، بخلاف علوم الفلاسفة فإنها باطلة إن سلم صاحبها من الضلال، وإلا فهي عين الوبال.
نعم علم الطب وما يوصل إلى معرفة الوقت والجهات من علم النجوم فذلك جائز، على أنا لا نسلم أن هذا من علم الفلاسفة، بل هو من الشرعي، بدليل ﴿وَهُوَ الَّذِي جَعَلَ لَكُمُ النُّجُومَ لِتَهْتَدُوا بِها فِي ظُلُماتِ الْبَرِّ وَالْبَحْرِ﴾ [الأنعام: الآية ٩٧]، والإذن بالطب مشهور في السنة.
Knowledge, insofar as it is merely knowledge, does not save from Allah’s punishment unless it is acted upon. The validity of the required worship depends on knowledge, so it is appropriate for the intelligent person to limit themselves to the amount of knowledge that leads to action—namely, religious knowledge (ʿilm sharʿī). This encompasses three types: knowledge of the foundations of religion (ʿilm uṣūl al-dīn), knowledge of jurisprudence (fiqh), and knowledge of exegesis (tafsīr), along with the necessary tools for these fields, such as knowledge of grammar (naḥw), semantics (maʿānī), and rhetoric (bayān). This is in contrast to the sciences of the philosophers, which are invalid, even if their practitioners are free from misguidance; otherwise, they are the essence of ruin.
However, the science of medicine (ṭibb) and knowledge that leads to determining time and directions based on astronomy (ʿilm al-nujūm) are permitted. Yet we do not concede that these belong to the philosophers' sciences; rather, they are part of the religious sciences, as indicated by the verse, “And it is He who made the stars for you to guide you through the darknesses of land and sea” [Al-Anʿām, 6:97]. Permission for practicing medicine is also well-established in the Prophetic traditions.
—
n.b. To keep things simple: Shaykh al-Dardir is addressing Muslims living in a fairly ideal state. He is not addressing Muslims living in a state where their understanding of the world is already corrupted by ideas foreign to and incompatible with sound Islamic beliefs. We live in the latter. Sound philosophy starts with sound aqidah and sound aqidah is a personal duty. So sound aqidah needs to be learned before delving into philosophy as a whole—an aqidah that covers philosophical issues that are common today.
Dear Nafs: If all authorities in the discipline before, after, and concurrent to your fave authority say X, but they must all be wrong because your fave says otherwise—maybe all that time you spend proving them wrong would be better spent in taking an honest and penetrating look at your own motives and where they are likely to lead, namely are you in it for Allah, or for your own nafs.
[Among the branches of faith related to iḥsān is:]
Despising disbelief, immorality, and disobedience, and rejecting the distressing things that Shayṭān hurls at humans through whisperings.
It branches off into feeling joy for good deeds and sorrow for bad deeds and not willingly giving up any part of one’s religion (al-shuḥḥ bi-l-dīn).
—Turjamān shuʿab al-īmān, Sirāj al-Dīn Abū Ḥafṣ ʿUmar bin Ruslān al-Bulqīnī (d805AH).
Despising disbelief, immorality, and disobedience, and rejecting the distressing things that Shayṭān hurls at humans through whisperings.
It branches off into feeling joy for good deeds and sorrow for bad deeds and not willingly giving up any part of one’s religion (al-shuḥḥ bi-l-dīn).
—Turjamān shuʿab al-īmān, Sirāj al-Dīn Abū Ḥafṣ ʿUmar bin Ruslān al-Bulqīnī (d805AH).
Dear Nafs: Take a moment to thank Allah for the individuals who fulfil all those communal obligations that, if not for them, would fall within your responsibilities. And then express your immense gratitude for Him placing you in such a community with other believers.
Forwarded from Musa's Workshop (musa furber)
Public Post (shouldn’t require membership)
Dealing with Intrusive Thoughts, from Imām al-Nawawī's Adhkār
Link: https://www.patreon.com/posts/dealing-with-al-117333883
Dealing with Intrusive Thoughts, from Imām al-Nawawī's Adhkār
Link: https://www.patreon.com/posts/dealing-with-al-117333883
Patreon
Dealing with Intrusive Thoughts, from Imām al-Nawawī's Adhkār | Musa Furber
Get more from Musa Furber on Patreon
The highest branch of faith (shuʿab al-īmān) is belief in Allah. The lowest is removing annoyances from the path.
Some ʿulamāʾ mention that one can easily combine the highest and the lowest branches by saying (لا إله إلا اللَّه) when removing annoyances from the path. Some of the righteous forebears would voluntarily sweep the streets and clean them of trash, litter, and pebbles to engage in this branch—something that has since been lost.
A practical takeaway here is that you can upgrade every good act simply by adding (لا إله إلا اللَّه). The goal, though, is to make it constant in your heart, mind, and tongue.
Some ʿulamāʾ mention that one can easily combine the highest and the lowest branches by saying (لا إله إلا اللَّه) when removing annoyances from the path. Some of the righteous forebears would voluntarily sweep the streets and clean them of trash, litter, and pebbles to engage in this branch—something that has since been lost.
A practical takeaway here is that you can upgrade every good act simply by adding (لا إله إلا اللَّه). The goal, though, is to make it constant in your heart, mind, and tongue.
It's very difficult to help people who, when asked a direct question starting with "who," "what," "when," "where," "how," or "why," cannot give an answer that aligns with the question.
When asked "what," make sure you answer it and that it's the first thing you provide. Don't spend hundreds of words answering the unrequested "why," "how", and "who", and then leave out the "what."
And don't bring the others unless they are relevant. Especially when the answer is time-sensitive.
When asked "what," make sure you answer it and that it's the first thing you provide. Don't spend hundreds of words answering the unrequested "why," "how", and "who", and then leave out the "what."
And don't bring the others unless they are relevant. Especially when the answer is time-sensitive.
Apropos some really misinformed comments related to things mentioned in the books:
(1) There is a common cognitive bias known as the anchoring effect, in which prior knowledge is an anchor for subsequent knowledge. This commonly happens when Muslims learn about something from non-Islamic sources and then impose what they know upon what is in the Islamic sources. It is also common with converts and those learning Islam from English sources. It is especially dangerous when the source is an academic—Muslim or otherwise—since authority and halo biases come into play within you, and their own institutional biases come into play in their work.[1]
Here is a really basic rule of thumb to consider: If no actual ʿālim prior to the past three centuries ever arrived at your conclusion, and neither would a hypothetical one untainted by non-Islamic thought, you’re probably reading something into it that isn’t there.
(2a) It's best to ignore any disagreement related to Islamic matters where neither side defines terms or cites sources.
(2b) I see no need for me to comment directly if (a) the conditions for commanding the right and forbidding the wrong have not been met, (b) it's not a farḍ al-ʿayn for me to do so, (c) I have sufficient reason to expect zero good from speaking, and (d) the conditions for removing harm at the expense of incurring harm to myself have not been met.
(3) Yes, I realise that my attention is best spent elsewhere. So that is where I will direct it.
===
[1] No, I am not concerned with the institutional biases of ʿulamāʾ as those biases are part of what makes their conclusion Islamic.
(1) There is a common cognitive bias known as the anchoring effect, in which prior knowledge is an anchor for subsequent knowledge. This commonly happens when Muslims learn about something from non-Islamic sources and then impose what they know upon what is in the Islamic sources. It is also common with converts and those learning Islam from English sources. It is especially dangerous when the source is an academic—Muslim or otherwise—since authority and halo biases come into play within you, and their own institutional biases come into play in their work.[1]
Here is a really basic rule of thumb to consider: If no actual ʿālim prior to the past three centuries ever arrived at your conclusion, and neither would a hypothetical one untainted by non-Islamic thought, you’re probably reading something into it that isn’t there.
(2a) It's best to ignore any disagreement related to Islamic matters where neither side defines terms or cites sources.
(2b) I see no need for me to comment directly if (a) the conditions for commanding the right and forbidding the wrong have not been met, (b) it's not a farḍ al-ʿayn for me to do so, (c) I have sufficient reason to expect zero good from speaking, and (d) the conditions for removing harm at the expense of incurring harm to myself have not been met.
(3) Yes, I realise that my attention is best spent elsewhere. So that is where I will direct it.
===
[1] No, I am not concerned with the institutional biases of ʿulamāʾ as those biases are part of what makes their conclusion Islamic.
Musa’s Social Media Musings pinned «Apropos some really misinformed comments related to things mentioned in the books: (1) There is a common cognitive bias known as the anchoring effect, in which prior knowledge is an anchor for subsequent knowledge. This commonly happens when Muslims learn…»
Firefox logged me out of everything and now I am locked out of my X/Twitter account. I won't be back there unless their support unlocks it for me.