The Mawqif of Aud al-Dn al-j in India

Asad Q. Ahmed

University of California, Berkeley

For about two hundred years after the death of Aud al-Dn al-j (d. 756/1355), the text of his
monumental Kitb al-mawqif f ilm al-kalm had a very limited readership in Muslim South
Asia. This state of affairs continued to some degree into part of the late tenth/sixteenth
century despiteas I have explained elsewhere1the enormous and quick influence the
commentaries of al-Sayyid al-Sharf al-Jurjn (d. 816/1413) and Jall al-Dn al-Dawn (d.
907/1501) on various other texts enjoyed in this region. This is rather surprising, as the
former had penned a commentary that ultimately came to define the interpretive lens of the
tradition of the Mawaqif and the latter had written a gloss on this same commentary, in
addition to a first order commentary. 2 Indeed the general output of al-Jurjn and al-Dawn
had already captured the attention of South Asian scholars within a hundred years of al-
Dawns death.3

The first two cases of engagement with the Mawqif from scholars associated with the
intellectual lineage of South Asia occur sometime in the second half of the tenth/sixteenth
century. One of these was a gloss on al-Jurjns commentary on the Mawqif by Wajh al-Dn b.
Narallh al-Gujart (d. 998/1590), who was a student of Imd al-Dn al-rim (d. 941/1534);

1
Asad Q. Ahmed, Logic in the Khayrbd School of India: A Preliminary Exploration, in Law and
Tradition in Classical Islamic Thought, ed. Michael Cook, Najam Haider, Intisar Rabb, and Asma Sayeed
(New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013), 227-243.
2
Robert Wisnovsky, The Nature and Scope of Arabic Philosophical Commentary in Post-Classical (ca.
1100-1900 AD) Islamic Intellectual History: Some Preliminary Observations, in Philosophy, Science, and
Exegesis in Greek, Arabic, and Latin Commentaries, ed. Peter Adamson, H. Baltussen, and M.W.F. Stone
(London: Institute of Classical Studies, 2004), 177-8. See also Alnoor Dhanani, Al-Mawqif f ilm al-
kalm by Aud al-Dn al-j (d. 1355), and Its Commentaries, in The Oxford Handbook of Islamic Philosophy,
ed. Khaled El-Rouayheb and Sabine Schmidtke (New York: Oxford University Press, 2017), 375-96, for
an overview of the work and an investigation of some representative topics.
3
The influence of al-Dawn, for example, reached India via the scholarly networks that centered on
Fatallh al-Shrz (d. 997/1589). The latter was a student of Ghiyth al-Dn al-Dashtak (d. 949/1542)
and enjoyed the patronage of the Mughal emperor Akbar (r. 963/1556-1014/1605). Al-Dawns texts
may also have been taught earlier by some of his students who had settled in India. See Ahmed,
Logic, 228-29.
the latter was himself a student of al-Dawn. This gloss seems to have had practically no
traction in the Indian milieu.4 The second interpretive lens came in the form of a supergloss
by Mirz Jn al-Shrz (d. 994/1586)again, an intellectual grandchild of al-Dawnon the
gloss of Q Shh al-Samarqand on the commentary of al-Jurjn. This gloss also seems to
have had no direct impact on the absorption of the Mawqif into South Asia.5 Like the work of
Wajh al-Dn, it garnered no glosses itself and is only infrequently mentioned in the later South
Asian glosses on the text before the adoption of the lithograph and the publications of gloss
majmt.6 Yet Mirz Jn may well have had something to do with the sudden and immense
presence of the text in the next century.

4
A number of Wajh al-Dns students are mentioned in the sources, many associated with Gujart and
quite a few who were Sh. I have not been able to find reference to any in this intellectual lineage who
wrote on the Mawqif. The entry in al-Lakhnaws Nuzha for Khushhl b. Qsim b. Miskn (fl. 10th-
11th/16th-17th) mentions that Wajh al-Dn was also a teacher of Mirz Jn al-Shrz (on whom see
below); but this claim seems unsubstantiated and appears unlikely given that both scholars belonged to
the same generation and died within four years of each other. Abd al-ayy b. Fakhr al-Dn al-
Lakhnaw, Nuzhat al-khawir (Multn: Idrat-i Talft-i Ashrafiyya, 1993), 5: 155-6.
5
See Wisnovsky, Nature, 177. The sources mention but a couple of Indian scholars of the
tenth/sixteenth century who are said to have taught or debated aspects of the Mawqif, very likely via
the commentary of al-Jurjn. These include al-Q Abd al-Sam al-anaf (fl. 10th/16th century) and
Ab al-Qsim Abd al-Azz al-Gujart, the grand vizier of Gujart, known by the title of af Khn (fl.
10th/16th century). This latter scholar is reported to have studied under Ab al-Fal al-Astarbd, who
studied under al-Dawn. af Khn was sent to Mecca in 942/1535 by the emperor Humyn (d.
963/1556); during his long stay, he debated the finer points of the Mawqif via its commentaries and
glosses with the scholars in the region. Lakhnaw, Nuzha, 4: 160, 165ff.; Ahmed, Logic, 228. One other
tenth/sixteenth century scholar, Ynus b. Ab Ynus al-Samarqand al-Sindh (d. 951/1544), is reported
to have taught al-Jurjns commentary on the Mawqif. The sources also mention some additional
scholars from Gujart who taught, studied, and wrote on the Mawqif. These include an
eleventh/seventeenth century scholar Amad b. Sulaymn al-Gujart (d. 1092/1681), who studied al-
Jurjns commentary on the Mawqif, and ibatallh b. Aaallh al-Shrz al-Gujart (d. late ninth-
early tenth/late fifteenth-early sixteenth centuries), who is reported to have written a gloss on al-
Jurjns commentary on the Mawqif. These few early scholars from Gujart who studied and wrote on
the Mawqif via the lens of al-Jurjn generally do not fit into the patterns of scholarly networks that
will emerge in the course of this article. Yet they demonstrate the importance of Gujart as an
intellectual hub into the eleventh/seventeenth century, one that needs further scholarly exploration.
See al-Lakhnaw, Nuzha, 4: 346, 355, 5: 44; Ahmed, Logic, 228.
6
See, e.g., the margins of the lithograph of the gloss of Muammad Fal-i aqq Rmpr (d. 1358/1940)
on Mr Zhid al-Haraw (d. 1101/1689) on al-Jurjn on the Mawqif, printed by al-Maba al-Amad of
Rmpr (no date), passim. See al-Lakhnaw, Nuzha, 8: 383-4; Wisnovsky, Nature, 177.
For one, the earliest notable flurry of South Asian scholars who produced glosses on al-
Jurjns commentary belonged in the lineage of Mirz Jn, passing through the common link
Abd al-Salm al-Dw of Awadh (d. 1040/1630), first to Abd al-akm al-Siylkt (d.
1067/1656) and alternatively, one generation later, to the fountainhead of the famous Farang
Maall tradition, Qub al-Dn al-Sihlaw (d. 1102/1691).7 Both these scholars wrote glosses on
al-Jurjns commentary, though not on the gloss of Miz Jn.8 Qub al-Dn al-Sihlaws
student, Amnallh al-Banras (d. 1132 or 1133/1720 or 1721), also wrote a gloss on al-Jurjns
commentary.9 This eleventh/seventeenth century flowering of engagement is symptomatic of
more global trends in the study of the Mawqif that emerged with the publication of the gloss
of Mr Zhid al-Haraw (d. 1101/1689) on al-Jurjns commentary; and this scholar was himself
a student of Mull Muammad Ysuf, who, in turn, had studied with Mirz Jn al-Shrz.10 It is
this textone of the four eleventh/seventeenth century South Asian glosses on al-Jurjn of
which I am awarethat defined the subsequent South Asian interest in the Mawqif.
From this point on, virtually every single work on the Mawqif written in South Asia was a
supergloss on Mr Zhid al-Haraw. According to my count, the number of glosses on al-
Haraw comes to 22; this is out of a total of 29 South Asian engagements with the Mawqif that I
have been able to track down. Of the commentaries not mediated by al-Haraw, all were
written before al-Haraws work or were contemporaneous with the author. In other words,
after the publication of al-Haraws gloss, not a single South Asian commentary on the Mawqif
appears to have bypassed it.11

7
On the Farang Maall tradition, see Francis Robinson, The Ulama of Farangi Mahall and Islamic Culture in
South Asia (London: C. Hurst, 2001) and Jamal Malik, Islamische Gelehrtenkultur in Nordindien (Leiden:
Brill, 1997).
8
Abd al-Salm Khn, Barr-i aghr k ulam-yi maqlt awr un k tanft (Patna: Khud Bakhsh Oriental
Public Library, 1996), 20-4.
9
Id., 20; Ahmed, Logic, 230.
10
Wisnovsky, Nature, 177; Ahmed, Logic, 229ff.; Reza Pourjavady, Philosophy in Early Safavid Iran
(Leiden: Brill, 2011), 52, n. 33. It should be noted that the more direct and influential line of scholarly
networks and texts that travelled between the Subcontinent and Shrz passes through Fatallh al-
Shrz (mentioned above). Like Mirz Jn al-Shrz, Fatallh was also trained by Jaml al-Dn
Mamd, who, in turn, was a student of al-Dawn and Ghiyth al-Dn al-Dashtak (mentioned above).
Fatallh al-Shrz taught Abd al-Salm al-Lhr (d. 1037/1628), who precedes the common link to
one line of the Haraw gloss tradition by one generation. Al-Haraw himself was trained by Mull
Muammad Ysuf, a student of Mir Jn. See the first stemma below.
11
The various authors on the Mawqif tradition in South Asia are indicated in the stemmata provided in
this article.
So why should this be so? Surely, the other aforementioned glosses on al-Jurjn, including the
complex treatment by al-Siylkt, could have served as the commentarial base texts for the
subsequent tradition. In my assessment, the answer to this question may be pursued from two
related angles, one that highlights the nature of scholarly networks sustaining a particular set
of curricular and reading practices, and the second involving the content of al-Haraws work
and its place within the ambit of philosophical and theological topics that exercised South
Asian scholars. As I began this paper with a dive into networks, it may be suitable to continue
with that thread before I turn briefly to the question of the contents of al-Haraws gloss as a
way to explain the phenomenon of its monopoly.

Networks
Mr Zhid al-Haraw is reported in some sources as a student of Mirz Jn al-Shrz. This is
highly unlikely, if not impossible, given that more than a century passed between their deaths.
What is more likely is that he was trained by a student of Mirz Jn, the aforementioned Mull
Muammad Ysuf, who is mentioned in one instance as a peer of Khushhl b. Qsim (another
student of Mirz Jn mentioned above).12 Mirz Jn was himself trained by two scholars who,
in turn, had been trained by al-Dawn or by one of his students. These are Wajh al-Dn b.
Narallh al-Gujart (mentioned above),13 a student of Imd al-Dn al-rim, and Jaml al-Dn
Mamd (both mentioned above). In addition to al-Dawn, the latter was trained by Ghiyth
al-Dn al-Dashtak. Jaml al-Dn and al-Dashtak both also trained the celebrated Fatallh al-
Shrz, who, in turn, is reported to have popularized in India the works of al-Dawn and
Mirz Jn.14

12
Ahmed, Logic, 228ff., 240, n. 15; Akhtar Rh Tadhkira yi-muannifn-i dars- i nim, 234-35; al-
Lakhnaw, Nuzha, 5: 155-6.
13
Al-Lakhnaw, Nuzha, 4: 343.
14
See Pourjavady, 52, n. 33; al-Lakhnaw, Nuzha, 4: 227; Ahmed, Logic, 228ff. See Tree 1 below.
 Tree 1: al-Haraw and Earlier

al-Dawn */***

Ghiyth al-Dn al-Dashtak

Jaml al-Dn Mamd Imd al-Dn al-rim

Wajh al-Dn al-Gujart*

Fatallh al-Shrz Mirz Jn al-Shrz**

Abd al-Salm al-Lhr Mull Muammad Ysuf

Abd al-Salm al-Dw Mr Zhid al-Haraw*

Al-Siylkt* Abd al-Qdir al-Frq

Qub al-Dn al-Sihlaw*

Amnallh al-Banras*

Key
* = commented on al-Jurjn; ** = commented on a commentary on al-Jurjn
*** = commented directly on the Mawqif; **** = commented on al-Haraw on al-Jurjn on the Mawqif
Immediate disciple
This means that the intellectual heritage of glossing al-Jurjn that had been sustained by
Mirz Jn had passed directly to al-Haraw; but it was also shared indirectly, via the agency of
Fatallh al-Shrz, by Abd al-akm al-Siylkt and Qub al-Dn al-Sihlaw. From this point
on, two relatively distinct networks carried on the task of engaging the Mawqif, both via the
gloss of al-Haraw. The first saw its emergence with the system of training instituted by Nim
al-Dn al-Sihlaw; and the second network flourished in al-Haraws own direct legacy, some
members of which were absorbed into the tradition of Shh Walallh (d. 1176/1762).15

15
See Trees 2 and 3 below. The information for these trees is extracted from the following sources.
Amad Al b. Fat Muammad (d. 1200/1786): Lakhnaw, Nuzha, 6: 33; Q Mbrak (d. 1162/1749):
Lakhnaw, Nuzha, 6: 255, Wisnovsky, Nature, 177; Muammad Barakat b. Abd al-Ramn (late 10th-
early 11th/late 16th-early 17th): Lakhnawi, Nuzha, 6: 299; Bashr al-Dn b. Karm al-Dn (d. 1296/1879):
Lakhnaw, Nuzha, 7: 113; Abd al-Al b. Abd al-Al (d. 1207/1793), Lakhnaw, Nuzha, 7:257ff.; Al b.
Amad b. Muaf (d. 1270/1854): Lakhnaw, Nuzha, 7: 358ff.; Walallh b. abballh (d. 1270/1854):
Lakhnaw, Nuzha, 7: 578f.; Abd al-ayy b. Abd al-alm (d. 1304/1887): Lakhnawi, Nuzha, 8: 250ff. The
following scholars are mentioned in Khn, Barr-i aghr, 20-27: Amnallh al-Banras (d. 1133/1721);
Mull asan (d. 1199/1785); Khn, Barr-i aghr, 27-31: Mr Zhid al-Haraw (d. 1101/1690); Muammad
Am b. Kifyatallh (fl. 12th/18th); Muammad Qim b. Shh Amr; Bashr al-Dn b. Karm al-Dn (d.
1296/1879): Khn, Barr-i aghr, 36; Khall al-Ramn b. Mull Irfn (fl. 12th/18th): Khn, Barr-i aghr,
40; Zuhrallh b. Muammad Wal (d. 1256/1840): Khn, Barr-i aghr, 44; Abd al-Al b. Nim al-Dn (d.
1225/1810): Khn, Barr-i aghr, 47; Mull Mubn (d. 1225/1810): Khn, Barr-i aghr, 51; Abd al-aqq al-
Khayrbd (d. 1318/1900): Khn, Barr-i aghr, 67-9; Abd al-aqq b. Muammad Aam al-Kbul (d.
1321/1903): Khn, Barr-i aghr, 69; Fal-i aqq b. Abd al-aqq al-Rmpr (d. 1358/1939): Khn, Barr-i
aghr, 76; Wad al-Zamn b. Ma al-Zamn (d. 1338/1920): Khn, Barr-i aghr, 83; Muammad Qim
b. Shh Mr (fl. 12th/18th): Khn, Barr-i aghr, 28; Amnallh b. Salmallh (d. 1233/1818): Khn, Barr-i
aghr, 34; al-Lakhnaw, Nuzha, 7:96-7; Raf al-Dn b. Shh Walallh (d. 1233/1818): Khn, Barr-i aghr,
41; al-Lakhnaw, Nuzha, 7: 204ff; Shh Abd al-Azz b. Shh Walallh (d. 1239/1824): Khn, Barr-i aghr,
47; al-Lakhnaw, Nuzha, 7: 297ff. See Rh, Tadhkira, 234ff., regarding Shh Abd al-Rams studies with
al-Haraw.
 Tree 2: al-Haraws Line

al-Haraw

Muammad Qim**** Shh Abd al-Ram

Shh Walallh

Shh Abd al-Azz****

Amnallh**** Raf al-Dn****

Key: **** = commented on al-Haraw on al-Jurjn on the Mawqif

Immediate disciple few generations removed
 Tree 3: Farang Maall after al-Haraw

Qub al-Dn al-Sihlaw*

ifatallh al-Khayrbd Nim al-Dn al-Sihlaw

Muammad Q Mubrak**** Mull asan**** Abd al-Al****Kaml al-Dn Fatipr amdallh

Am****

Abd al-Al****

Amad Al****

Mull Mubn**** Allhdd Rmpr uhrallh**** Khall al-Ramn*** Muammad Barakat**** aydar

Nimatallh

Walallh b. abballh**** Bashr al-Dn**** Al b. Amad****

Abd al-ayy****

Wad al-Zamn**** Abd al-aqq al-Khayrbd****

Fal-i aqq al-Rmpr**** Abd al-aqq al-Kbul****

Key: **** = commented on al-Haraw on al-Jurjn on the Mawqif

Immediate disciple few generations removed
The details are somewhat sparse, but the synthesis offered above suggests that the layer of
intellectual networks across the distinct lineages of the late eleventh/seventeenth centuries
must have been thick; likewise, the fluidity of textual transmission and influence must have
been loose. Otherwise, there is little that can explain how al-Haraw came to dominate the
Mawqif scene. I might add that the hypothesis of cross-network ties gains further strength
from the fact that, in the context of South Asia, al-Haraw also became the major window into
the Risla f al-taawwur wa-t-tadq of al-Tatn (d. 766/1364) and the commentary of al-
Dawn on the Tahdhb al-maniq of al-Taftzn (d. 791 or 793/1388 or 1390). His glosses on
these two works and on al-Jurjn on al-j came to be referred to as the zawhid thaltha, on
whichif I may posit another hypothesis on the basis of repeated observation and passing
reportsstudents seem to have been required to write superglosses.16 In other words, the
influence of al-Haraw, who appears rather isolated from the dense network that grew out of
Sihla and Lucknow, must have been heavy via his and his lineages direct and indirect
association with a number of scholars.

If we are to posit this hypothesis of a thick eleventh/seventeenth century network, then the
rest of the career of the Mawqif in South Asia becomes rather self-explanatory. Every single
one of the 22 superglosses on al-Haraws gloss on al-Jurjn is written either by a scholar
associated with Qub al-Dn al-Sihlaws famous intellectual lineage of Farang Maall or by
someone falling directly under al-Harawis legacy.17 And these superglosses are clearly a north
Indian phenomenon, penned in cities such as Delhi, Lucknow, Rampur, Kolkatta, Allahabad,
Gpmaw, and Jawnpr.

Thus, to sum up the observations, we may say that the bio-bibliographical information reveals
that the engagement with al-Jurjn was a product of developments in the late tenth/sixteenth
and eleventh/seventeenth centuries. These developments were specific to the curricular
orientations and reading practices of a diachronic series of scholarly networks that ultimately
emptied into the scholarly family of Qub al-Dn al-Sihlaw and the lineage of al-Haraw.18 The
former family, known as the Farang Maall, and its offshoots into the Khayrbds, largely

16
See, for example, Rahi, Tadhkira, 237 et passim.
17
The only exception appears to be Muammad Qim b. Shh Mr (fl. 12th/18th), but it is worth noting
that two of his students mentioned in the sources both also studied with Shh Walallh, who falls
within al-Haraws network. See Tree 2 above.
18
Only four glosses on al-Haraw were written outside of the tight network of the Farang Maall and
Khayrbd. See Trees 2and 3 above.
sustained the study of the Mawqif in India; scholars in al-Haraws own line also sustained
some interest in the text. Both subnetworks wrote on the work via the gloss of al-Haraw, two
of whose other commentaries, as noted above, were also highly valuable in this milieu.

Now that it is reasonably established on the basis of a study of networks that the career of the
Mawqif (and to be precise, the Mawqif via al-Jurjn/al-Haraw) was a regional affair tied to
the fortunes and curricular demands of certain scholarly networks, it would be suitable to turn
to the other question I posed: what, in terms of the contents of al-Haraws supergloss, made it
appealing to this tradition in the first place?

Preliminary Observations on the Gloss of al- Haraw and Its Indian Reception
The 22 superglosses on Haraw are all called shiyat Mr Zhid umr mma. In other words,
they are comments on the second mawqif that is devoted to the metaphysica generalis. Of the
South Asian superglosses on this section that I have consulted, almost all take up the task
through the fourth maqad, leaving out a significant part of the second mawqif. Thus the
sections generally of interest to the South Asian glossators of al-Haraw were the introductory
comments on what constitutes the umr mma and the introduction to the knowable types
that are substrates of the umr mma. This is followed by an engagement with the four
maqid of the first marad, which is, broadly, a discussion of existence and non-existence:
sequentially, the four maqid take up the definition of existence, the question of the shared
aspect and modulation of existence, whether existence is identical to or a part of essence, and
mental existence. This leaves out about four-fifths of the umr mma.19

My readings of some of the glosses on al-Haraw indicate that the reason for the focus on these
parts of his text has much to do with the threads that they allow to be picked up and to be
redirected towards concerns of the living tradition of commenting and glossing on logic,
which was the most highly engaged field among South Asian rationalist disciplines (maqlt).
Within this field, the significance of the synthesis of Muibballh al-Bihrs Sullam al-ulm
cannot be overestimated. Bringing together a host of paradoxes internal to the project of
Arabic logic, the lemmata of this text, reflecting a diachronic and synchronic set of technical
debates, had forced its commentators to repeatedly tackle the issue of a broad category of non-
actual subject terms of propositions. These subject terms could be products of mental
operations, ranging from non-existents and conceptualized propositions to falsities and logical

19
See Dhanani, Al-Mawqif, for a broad overview of the contents of the work.
impossibilities.20 In the simplest terms, the recurring consideration in the Sullam and its
commentaries/glosses was whether paradox-generating items, picked out by subject terms in
various ways, can be suitable objects of knowledge. Prime concepts to analyze with a view to
this issue were the logically impossible and the non-existent that fell under a subject tag.21
And it is indeed discussions of these two conceptsand the possibility of such objects as
objects of knowledge and as common notionsthat quickly overwhelm the dialectics that
emerge out of the mission statement of the second mawqif of al-j/al-Jurjn:22

The second Mawqif is on common notions, i.e., that which is not specific to any [one] type
among the types of existents, which [are limited to] the Necessary, substance (jawhar),23 and
accident. For it is either shared by the three types, such as existence and unity. For every
existent, though it may be multiple, has a certain unity with respect to consideration (bi-
itibr). [Another example is] essence and individuation for one who holds that the Necessary
has an essence distinct from Its existence and an individuation distinct from Its essence. Or
[that which is not specific] is shared by two of [the three types of existents], such as the special
possible (al-imkn al-kh), temporal generation (al-udth), necessity through another,
multiplicity, and the fact of being an effect (al-malliyya). For all these are shared by
substance and accident. Given this, non-existence (al-adam), impossibility (al-imtin),
necessity in virtue of itself (al-wujb al-dht), and eternity (al-qidam) are not among common
notions. Investigation of these [latter] here is [simply] derivative. It may be said that the
common notions embrace all notions (al-mafhmt bi-asrih) in an absolute manner, such as the
common possible (al-imkn al-mm); [or they may embrace them] by way of opposition (al

20
The Sullam was a culmination of entanglements with such concerns that had exercised earlier
logicians writing in the Arabic tradition. What distinguishes it from earlier textbooks is that paradoxes
that emerge out of the possibility of a broader range of conceptualized subject terms is a latent, regular,
and defining feature of the work. For further on the Sullam, see Asad Q. Ahmed, The Sullam al-ulm of
Muibb Allh al-Bihr, in The Oxford Handbook of Islamic Philosophy, ed. Khaled El-Rouayheb and Sabine
Schmidtke (New York: Oxford University Press, 2017), 488-508.
21
The commentaries and glosses on the Sullam make several direct and indirect references to these
same investigations found in the Mawqif.
22
The text in bold is al-js matn and the remainder is al-Jurjns commentary.
23
On the equivocality of this term as substance and atom, see Dhanani, Al-Mawqif, 378f. For the
purposes of this analysis, I translate jawhar as substance, as this interpretation would work just as well
as atom in this context.
sabl al-taqbul), in that [the common thing] and its opposite embrace all [notions]. A scholarly
concern [would be] tied to each of these two opposites, such as existence and non-existence.24

Al-j/al-Jurjn thus laid out two types of common notions: they either concern all three types
of existents or only two of them. Alternatively, one might say that common notions are those
that take within their ambiteither in an unqualified sense or along with their oppositesall
notions. Thus, the common possible, i.e., that which is not impossible, and the existence/non-
existence pair, would serve as respective examples. From this point on, the major bone of
contention in al-Haraws reading would be whether, to what extent, and in which manner that
which is excluded from the category of common notions is to be considered. If the initial
presentation of common notions, viz., that which is shared by all or two of the categories of
existents, is accepted, then discussions of impossibility and non-existence would be excluded
per se. But they would indeed occupy a space in the text as elements in derivative discussions.
On the other hand, if common notions are taken to apply to all notions, then impossibility
would be excluded from the category, because no notion, as a given, is impossible as such;
alternatively, if common notions relate to all notions insofar as one takes them and their
opposites, then non-existence and, presumably, impossibility, would be included in the
discussion.

Subsumed under the initial consideration of what common notions are is the fundamental
question of the status of the non-existent and the impossible as objects of knowledge. This
topic, which defines many of the features of arguments in South Asian madrasa logic textsand
especially the Sullamand their commentaries/glosses, is precisely what is taken up in the
aforementioned parts of the Mawqif that were covered by South Asian glossators on al-
Haraw.

Now al-Haraws gloss was itself key to unraveling this potential in al-j/al-Jurjn. I present it
below, along with Abd al-aqq al-Khayrbds gloss, as an example of the topical concerns I
mentioned above.25

His statement, Every existent, etc. This, i.e., the commentators statement that every existent
has a certain unity even if it is multiple, is by way of a gesture and charitable [concession]. For

24
Aud al-Dn al-j/al-Sayyid al-Sharf al-Jurjn, Shar al-Mawqif, with glosses of Abd al-akm al-
Siylkt and asan al-Fanr (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyya, 1998), 2:59ff.
25
Abd al-aqq al-Khayrbd, Shar shiyat Mr Zhid umr mma (Knpr: Nim Press, 1298 AH), 6ff.
The bold is al-Haraws text and the rest is al-Khayrbds gloss.
it is not necessary for common notions to obtain in all the instances of the three or of two
[types of existents]. Rather it is sufficient that it should obtain in one of them. For unity is
obtained in that which has unity, even though it does not obtain in that which has multiplicity.
If you say that the commentator [i.e., al-Jurjn] only claimed that each existent participates in
unity and that that which is apparent from the discourse of the glossator [i.e., al-Haraw] is
that non-existent instances do not participate in it, so that the charitable [gesture] does not
exist, I say that the intention of the glossator is that it is not necessary for [each of] the
existent instances of the three or two [types] to participate [in unity]. Rather, it is sufficient
that some participate in it. He explained this [position by means of his observation] that
instances are all the same in being instances. So if it were necessary for [each of] the existent
instances to participate [in unity], it would also be necessary for [each of the] non-existent
instances to participate [in it]. However, this is not so. Otherwise, i.e., if it were necessary for
all the instances of the three or two [types] to participate [in it], be they existent or non-
existent, possibility and that which is like it would be excluded from [the category of] common
notions. [This is so] since there is no universal but that some of its instances are impossible.
He states in his gloss that the explanation [of this last point] is that the Necessary, substance,
and accidents all have some instances that are impossible. [Examples are] the participant with
the Creator for the Necessary, the substance whose existence is in a substrate for substance
and the accident whose existence is not in a substrate for accident. Thus is the case for each
universal that is supposed to be free of that which is a concomitant of its essence.26

Al-Khayrbd takes it as given that common notions need not extend over non-existent
instances, in order to pass the test of being true of all or of two of the types of existents. With
this projected position in place,27 the question whether they must be true of all of the instances
of the three or two types of existents is settled in the negative. Existent and non-existent
instances, insofar as they are instances, are all the same. Thus if the requirement of being
states of all instances of two or three of the categories of existents were true, then common
notions would also have to be states of non-existentindeed impossibleinstances of the two
or three types of existents. But this is not something that can be granted. Yet the argument
presented here, especially the closing statement of al-Haraw that each universal that is taken
to be free of that which its essence requires, opens up a familiar discussion of non-existent and
imagined impossibilities that fall under the subject terms of propositions in the discipline of

26
Al-Khayrbd, 6-7.
27
The position is not granted dogmatically, but is debated extensively by al-Khayrbd with reference
to the nature of the subject terms of propositions in his gloss on amdallh on the Sullam. See Asad Q.
Ahmed, Palimpsests of Themselves, Chapter 4 (forthcoming).
logic. And it is indeed this discussion that recurs as a dominant feature of the
Haraw/Khayrbd gloss from this point on.

The immediately preceding quotation primarily engaged the question of whether the common
notions would have to be related to all the instances of the two or three categories of existents.
This issue prompted a discussion of the status of impossible and non-existent supposed
instances that may be said to fall under these categories; or put more generally, the focus of
the discourse became the status of instances that are free of the concomitant requirements of
the essence under which they are supposed to be subsumed. A set of possibilities emerge: (1)
the non-existent and impossible instances are indeed instances of the universal and essence,
but since common notions do not apply to them, they also do not apply to all the instances of
the two or three categories of existents; (2) non-existent and impossible instances are not
instances of the essence and universal under which they are supposed to fall, so that, in
principle, one may still argue that common notions apply to all instances of the two or three
categories of existents; (3) these types of instances are indeed instances of their essences and
universals and common notions do apply to them, so that, in principle, they do apply to all
instances of the two or three types of existents; or finally, (4) such instances are not instances
of their universals and essences, but there is still no requirement that common notions apply
to all instances of the two or three types of existents.

In considering these four possibilities, the more direct question that may be prompted by the
concession of (4) is not addressed in any sustained manner. Al-Haraw/al-Khayrbd are not
invested in determining whether, given the exclusion of non-existent and impossible instances
from consideration, common notions must apply to all existent and possible instances of the
universal and essence. Instead, they are largely occupied by the intermediary question of
whether non-existent and impossible supposed instances may in fact be taken to be instances
of their essences and universals. In other words, the determination of whether all or some
instances of the two or three types of existents must relate to common notions serves as a
prompt for a sustained disquisition on the status of supposed instances in relation to the terms
under which they may be supposed to fall.28 Thus al-Khayrbd continues with his gloss on al-
Haraw:

The instance of the universal is that of which the universal is true with respect to the given
[universal] itself (f nafs al-amr) in actuality (bi-l-fil) or possibly. It is clear that the Necessary is

28
On the function of lemmata as prompts for living philosophical disquisitions, see Asad Q. Ahmed,
Post-Philosophical Commentaries/Glosses: Innovation in the Margins, Oriens 41.3-4 (2013), 317-48.
not true of the participant with the Creator with respect to the given [Necessary] itself. Nor
is substance [true] of the substance that exists in a substrate [with respect to the given
substance itself]So the aforementioned things [i.e., the participant with the Creator, etc.] are
not instances of any one of the three [types of existents]. Thus if possibility is not truthfully
applied to them, there is no harm in it. For anyone who claims that the common notions must
be shared by all the instances of the three or two [types of existents] only claims that they are
shared by that which is their instance with respect to the given thing itself[Next] if
impossible instances of the three or two [types of existents] were [indeed] their instances, then
[given] that possibility is also a universal, it would have impossible instances. And it would be
allowed that the impossible instances of the three or two [types of existents] would also be
impossible instances of existence and possibility.29

The thrust of this discussion is quite familiar as a defining discursive feature of logic texts that
were studied and commented in South Asia; indeed as noted above, a central and pervasive
concern of the Sullam, namely, the status of the wide range of conceptualizations as instances
of subject terms of propositions, is precisely what is at stake here. Al-Khayrbd wishes to
restrict the application of the common notions to those instances of the universal and essence
of which these latter are said truthfully with respect to the given universal and essence
themselves either in actuality or possibly. The absence of such a restriction would mean the
population of universals with all sorts ofindeed a potentially infinite number ofsupposed
and mentally-considered objects. And this, in turn, would generate problems for syllogistics
and would lead to internal paradoxes, as discussed in the logic texts.30 It is no wonder then
that, with the focus now firmly placed on the status of mentally-considered and supposed
instances, quite a bit of the Haraw/Khayrbd discussion keeps returning to the category of
the non-existent and impossible that interlaces the assessment of a number of other related
issues. As I mentioned earlier, the last chapter that interests al-Khayrbd and the other
glosses on al-Haraw from South Asia is on mental existence, a culminating choice that makes
good sense in view of the foregoing observations.

Conclusions

29
Al-Khayrbd, Shar, 7.
30
See, for example, Muibballh al-Bihr, Sullam al-ulm maa shiyatihi Id al-fuhm li-Muammad
Barakatallh al-Lakhnaw (Multan: Maktaba Imddiyya, n.d.), 86ff., and the various and extensive
commentaries and glosses on the lemmata here. See further the discussion in al-Khayrbd, Shar,
7ff., where some of the notorious problems associated with the allowance of mentally-considered
instances are discussed.
This brief communication is a first foray into the career of the Mawqif of al-j in South Asia.
Its conclusions, based on a study of the intellectual networks of South Asia and on readings of
sample texts, reveal the following. First, interest in the Mawqif seems to have been a function
of the intellectual legacy of Shrz scholars in the networks of Jall al-Dn al-Dawn and
Ghiyth al-Dn al-Dashtak. Both directly and indirectly, the earliest scholar who commented
on this text and who was also associated with this tradition in South Asia was Mirz Jn al-
Shrz. The works of this latter scholar were popularized in the teaching circles of South Asia
by Fatallh al-Shrz, who, like Mirz Jn, was a student of Jaml al-Dn Mamd. Mirz Jns
student, Mull Muammad Ysuf, was the teacher of Mr Zhid al-Haraw, whose gloss on al-
Jurjns commentary on the Mawqif became its only South Asian perspective. Within the
Subcontinent, the commentarial engagement with this text was mainly an affair of the
northern cities, perpetuated by the scholarly circles of Farang Maall and the intellectual
networks of al-Haraw himself. Indeed the curricular and socio-intellectual history tells us
much about how this text sustained its stature in South Asia.

Finally, South Asian scholars were interested only in the first few chapters of al-Haraws
treatment of the umr mma of the Mawqif. This observation finds explanation in al-Haraws
recurring attempts to bend al-Jurjns discussion in directions that were of pervasive interest
to the study of logic in South Asia. The prompts in al-Haraws work allowed those who
commented upon it to explore the defining topics and problems found in the highly-popular
discipline of logic, especially as it had materialized in the Sullam al-ulm of Muibballh al-
Bihr. Indeed several of the glossators on al-Haraw also wrote commentaries of some order
on the Sullam and addressed precisely the same issues.31

31
These include Q Mubrak, Muammad Barakat, Mull asan, Muammad Am, Muammad
Qim, Abd al-Al, Mull Mubn, Abd al-aqq al-Kbul, Abd al-aqq al-Khayrbd, etc. See Khn,
Barr-i aghr, passim.