I’m not a politician, I’m not an entrepreneur, I’m not an activist. I don’t really act on the world. I mostly look at it through the books I’m reading. They provide a window into a far greater world than I have access to. That is why I’m particularly picky when it comes to what I read. I don’t want to waste my time reading crap. I want to go straight to the best possible sources available. I can spend hours looking into a book just to be certain it is worth reading. Sometimes, though, I just lack the right key. I don’t know enough to even ask the proper question. It’s infuriating to hit walls after walls. I see the door, but it just never opens, or when it does, there is another wall behind it. But when I finally get it right, it feels like heaven.
This is what happened when I came across Greer’s attempt at a World Canon. I love contemporary science books, history books, etc. but in the past few years, I’ve come to believe that traditions are underrated and I had been trying to find a way to read more classic works, especially outside the west, and outside of philosophy. I know western classics, I’ve read some of them, but I wanted to broaden my horizons. I just didn’t have the key to open that door. When I read that post, everything fell into place, and the door opened.
That being said, the more I’ve come to know the works Greer’s mentioned, the more I came to see the flaws in his list. I don’t really have qualms with his East-Asian canon. I would probably change a few things on his Western canon but not that many. I’m more uncomfortable with his Indic and Islamicate canons. First of all these lists aren’t complete. Second, by Greer’s own admission, he is less familiar with these traditions. I also feel his lists, especially the Indic one, to be a bit heavy on philosophy and religion. As a result, for the past few months, I’ve been trying to come up with my own versions of the Indic and Islamicate canon. In this post, I will first offer my version of an Islamicate canon and then give the rationale behind my choices.
An attempt at an Islamicate Canon
Mu’allaqat
Quran
Al Tabari
Ferdowsi
Ibn Sina (Avicenna)
Al Ghazali
Ibn Tufayl
Ibn Rushd (Averroes)
Ganjavi
1001 Nights
Rumi
Saadi
Yunus Emre
Hafez
Ibn Khaldun
Babur
Mulla Sadra
Mir Taqi Mir
Mirza Ghalib
Muhammad Iqbal
The Rationale
Instead of starting from scratch, I used Tanner’s list and his constraints as a starting point. First of all the Islamicate canon can only have 20 spots. This tradition is a thousand years younger than the other three, and if I want the full canon to only have a hundred authors, I need to cut somewhere.
Second, this is the canon for the civilization brought about by the advent of Islam. Whereas the other three traditions are geographically bound, this one can’t be. It’s bound by religion. Just because a Muslim author was born in what would be Spain or India today, doesn’t mean they belong to the Western or Indic canon. Al-Andalus, The Delhi Sultanate, and the Mughal Empire all belong to the Islamic tradition. It doesn’t mean that all authors born under the Mughal rule have to be considered part of that tradition. A tradition is a dialogue across space and time. Who one chooses to dialogue with is an indication of what tradition one belongs with. When one looks at it that way, it should be quite clear that someone like Amir Khusrau should count as part of the Islamic tradition, whereas Kabir should count as part of the Indic tradition.
The last constraint I gave myself, which was implicit in Greer’s list, was to keep the last spot on the canon for a modern writer. Somebody of great literary merit who lived part of his life in the 20th century and who grappled with the great political and philosophical questions of his time.
In order to build my version of the Islamicate canon, I started with what was obvious to me on Greer’s list: the Quran and the One Thousand and One Nights. I then moved on to what I know best: philosophy. There is no question that Farabi, Ghazali, Rushd, and Khaldun rank among the most important philosophers and thinkers in history. I hadn’t heard of Tufayl before but a quick look online was enough. Peter Adamson devotes a chapter to him in his Philosophy in the Muslim World. The Makers of the Arab World book series has a full-length monograph about him. And it’s supposed to be the most translated Arabic text after the Quran and the Arabian Nights.
It was fairly easy to ascertain the importance of the Persian poets. I knew enough about Sa’adi, Hafez, and Rumi to know they deserved a spot on the list. I hadn’t heard of Ferdowsi and Ganjavi but a simple online search was enough.
I knew nothing of Ibn Ishaq, Al-Tabari, and Babur. I had to look deeper to get a proper understanding of their importance.
I don’t think Ishaq deserves a spot on the list. My main argument is that the version we have of his book is a modern reconstruction taken from two sources. First, Tabari’s History and second, an abridged version of his text that was made by Ibn Hisham. This is not to deny that Ishaq and his book could be highly influential, but the text we have is not the book proper. It’s also kind of redundant to have both him and Tabari on the list since most of what Ishaq wrote is also found in Tabari’s History.
I’ve had trouble ascertaining whether or not Tabari deserves a spot. I’ve consulted a few histories of Arab literature, and Tabari’s place in it is hard to grasp. He clearly is an important historian, as were Herodotus, Thucydides and Sima Qian. But does he have the same influence on Muslim thought? It’s hard to tell. He seems to be an important thinker of fiqh, but my understanding of this topic and the hadith literature is not good enough. The books I’ve looked at so far haven’t really been helpful. But because he seems to be regarded as typical of early Islamic historiography and a good source of information on many important aspects of Muslim thought, I’ve decided to keep him on the list.
I haven’t looked nearly enough into Babur to defend my choice to keep him on the list. So far, I’ve only come across reasons to believe his autobiography to be one of the finest pieces of literature produced during the Mughal period. This seems reason enough to grant him a spot on the Islamicate canon but I confess that this might be a reflection of my lack of general knowledge about that period.
Out of Greer’s original list I kept 14 names, and have now 6 empty spots. In order to fill these spots, I looked for glaring omissions, writers, and thinkers that should obviously have been on the list. The first two that came to mind were philosophers. First, there was Ibn Sina who’s the single most important thinker of the Muslim world and not having him in the Islamicate canon would be like not having Aristotle in the Western canon. Second, there was Mulla Sadra. According to every source on Islamic philosophy I’ve read, he ranks as the second most influential Muslim philosopher after Ibn Sina and the most important Muslim philosopher of the past 400 years.
In order to fill the next 4 spots, I looked at books about the Islamic literary tradition. I decided to restrict myself to what could be considered the five great languages in that tradition, Arab, Persian, Turkish, and Urdu. For each of these languages I made a list of frequent authors or books I came across.
- Arab literature : The Mu’allaqat, Mufaddaliyat and Abu Nuwas, Kalila wa Dimna, Al Bukhari, Al-Mutanabbi.
- Persian literature : Omar Khayyam, Sanaï, Fari ud din Attar, Amir Khusrow
- Turkish literature : Yunus Emre, Namik Kemal
- Urdu literature : Mir Taqi Mir, Mirza Ghalib, Muhammad Iqbal, and Faiz Ahmed Faiz
I’ve decided to not add any more Persian poets. The ones already on the list are to the best of my knowledge more important than the four I found. It’s fairly obvious in the case of Khayyam whose claim to fame rest solely on a late western rediscovery. It could be argued that Sanaï is more important than Ganjavi, but this is debatable, and probably mostly a question of aesthetical taste. Khusrow could have been a good addition to the list, because he’s one of the most important persian poets coming from India. But it seems to me that the list would be better if it gave space to a greater diversity of language. I also think that the Urdu poets Mirza Ghalib and Mir Taqi Mir are far more influential than Khusrow.
Should I only add one of them, or the two? There is a debate raging about which one is greater than the other, and I don’t think just one spot on the canon does justice to the influence of Urdu language on the Islamic tradition. It only seems fair, then, to keep them both. Faiz Ahmed Faiz could claim the modernist spot, but he’s too recent to count, and there is a better option.
In the case of Turkish, Yunus Emre deserves the spot, he’s the most frequently cited writer in every books on Turkish literature I’ve looked at. Namik Kemal could have the modernist spot, but I think there is a better option.
This leaves me with only one spot, but I have 2 names to add. I think classical Arab poetry deserves a spot on the canon, and I also need a spot for a modernist. Out of the 18 names already on the list, the only one I can think to drop is Al-Farabi. My version of the canon so far already has a lot of philosophy and I think he is the lesser of the seven thinkers already on the list. His books are, for the most part, commentaries on Aristotle and Plato, and his system is less developed and original than the ones from those who followed.
Before I turn to the modernist, let’s look at Arab literature. The Kalila was Dimna is overshadowed by the Arabian nights, so I don’t think it should be on the list. The Mufaddaliyat has been less influential than the Mu’allaqat. The debate then is between the Mu’allaqat, Abu Nuwas, and Al-Mutanabbi. These three names all represent the best of what Arab poetry has to offer. I would lean toward giving the spot to the Mu’allaqat for two reasons. First, I find it aesthetically very distinct from the other two, and also more interesting. Second, because it was written in pre-islamic times, it adds greater diversity to the canon then the other two. I know it supposed to be an Islamicate canon, but because the Mu’allaquat has been so influential, it can, in a way, claim to be part of the conversation that constitute this tradition.
So what to do with the last available spot? I know I said it should go to a modernist, but before I go into that, I need to say a few words about another option I debated and rejected. In his original post, Greer mentioned he felt one or two spot should be reserved for the fiqh and hadith literature. I decided to not follow this path for 2 reasons. First, I think Tabari does a good job at representing these two traditions. There might be authors more important than him in them, Al Bukhari being one, but I think overall they are less important when looking at things framed in terms of “humanity’s greatest writers”. I also think, that the philosophers in the list already offer a great diversity of political thinking.
For a long time, I didn’t know who to add on the modernist spot. I debated leaving it blank. Who could be compared to Soseki, Lu Xun, or Tagore (my choice, instead of Ghandi, for the modernist spot on the Indic canon)? On Greer’s forum, someone suggested someone like Sayyid Qtub or a Wahabbi theologian. Qtub is too recent to deserve the spot, I would also object to his whole outlook on life, but that is a different matter entirely. I only found who to give that spot fairly recently. Muhammad Iqbal, is both a respected philosopher, one of the most influential recent poet in the Islamic tradition, being widely read in India, but also in Iran and other Muslim countries. Most importantly he has played an important political role in recent history as a thinker of Muslim identity and has greatly influence Muhammad Jinnah and the creation of Pakistan.
This is how I came to create my version of an Islamicate canon. What do you think ? Anything you disagree with ? Anything you would have done differently ?