We know little that is really reliable aboutal-Fārābī’s life. Abū Naṣral-Fārābī was probably born in 870 CE (AH 257) in aplace called Farab or Farayb. In his youth he moved to Iraq andBaghdad. In 943 CE (AH 331) he went to Syria and Damascus. He may havegone to Egypt but died in Damascus in December 950 CE or January 951CE (AH 339). Scholars have disputed his ethnic origin. Some claimed hewas Turkish but more recent research points to him being a Persian(Rudolph 2017: 536–45).

Al-Fārābī had two main interests:

1. Philosophy and logic in particular. Such interest explains why heis known as “the second master” (the first one, of course,being Aristotle) and
2. Music. His hugeKitāb al-musiqāal-kabīr orGreat Book of Music is the mostimportant medieval musical treatise in Islamic lands and also includessophisticated philosophical sections.

Beginning in the 1980s, much has happened in Farabian scholarship. Newand better editions of his works as well as new and bettertranslations have led to deeper studies of his thought and to someinteresting and lively controversies. We still lack critical editions,full English translations—and even, at times, translation in anylanguage of several texts—as well as a solid introduction toal-Fārābī’s philosophy. More research is alsoneeded to better understand the relation between his philosophical andmusical interests.

One can find the most recent and detailed listings ofal-Fārābī’s works and their translations inUlrich Rudolph, “Abū Naṣral-Fārābī” (2017: 526–594), and PhilippeVallat (2004: 379–87). Also, Jon McGinnis & David. C.Reisman translated a series of Farabian texts in theirClassicalArabic Philosophy: An Anthology of Sources (2007:54–120).

• 1.Enumeration of the Sciences
• 2. Language
• 3. Logic
• 4. Mathematics and Music
• 5. Physics
• 6. Metaphysics
• 7. Ethics and Politics
• 8. Conclusion
• Bibliography
  • Research Tools
  • Primary Literature
  • Secondary Literature
• Academic Tools
• Other Internet Resources
• Related Entries

1.Enumeration of the Sciences

In what follows we will underline important scholarly developments ofthe last thirty years and add useful complements to these listings. Inorder to highlight these scholarly developments we will follow thetraditional order of the Aristotelian sciences thatal-Fārābī himself offers in hisEnumeration ofthe sciences,‘Ihsā’al-‘ulūm, one of his most famous texts, as itsMedieval Latin versions had much influence in the West. There is nofull English translation of this text, but Amor Cherni (2015)published an edition with French translation and commentaries.Recently, a new critical edition with German translation of one of thetwo Medieval Latin versions have come out:Über dieWissenschaften (de scientiis) Dominicus Gundissalinus’version (2006). Alain Galonnier published a critical edition, Frenchtranslation and study of the other Medieval latin version: LeDescientiis Alfarabii de Gerard de Cremone (2016). Following thistraditional theoretical order makes much sense since we know verylittle about the chronological order ofal-Fārābī’s works, even if there is someindication thatThe Opinions of the People of the VirtuousCity, also known asThe Perfect State, andThePolitical Regime, also known asThe Principles of theBeings, may be among his latest works. The paucity of seriousinformation about the chronological order ofal-Fārābī’s works makes it difficult todetermine whether some inconsistencies and tensions between differentworks result from an evolution in his thought, as Damien Janos claims(2019, pp. 166–70), or hint at a distinction between exotericand esoteric treatises or simply arise from limitations inherent tohuman nature that affect even the greatest philosophers. Asal-Fārābī understood philosophy as all-encompassingand attempted to present coherent views, some works straddle severalphilosophical disciplines and so we will indicate when such is thecase. Al-Fārābī’s knowledge ofAristotle’s works is extensive, and even includes some of hiszoological treatises.

2. Language

In theEnumeration of the Sciencesal-Fārābī first focuses on language, grammar,metrics, etc. HisKitāb al-Hurūf (Book ofLetters) orParticles, gives us much information on his viewson language. Muhsin Mahdi, who published the first edition of thistext in 1969a based on a single manuscript, later on found two othermanuscripts but could not complete a new edition. Making use of thenew material already gathered by Mahdi, Charles Butterworth hasprepared a second edition with facing full English translationpublished by Zaytuna College Press (2024). Muhammad Ali Khalidi gave apartial English translation covering the middle section (2005).Thérèse-Anne Druart (2010) began studyingal-Fārābī’s innovative views of language. InFreiburg-im-Brisgau Nadja Germann (2015–16 & 2022) has beenworking on language and logic in classical Arabic and is more and moreimpressed by the sophistication of al-Fārābī’spositions. As for al-Fārābī, music is at the serviceof speech, the last section of theGreat Book of Musicexplains how technically to fit music to speech, i.e., poetry, inorder to enhance the meaning of a text. Azza Abd al-HamidMadian’s 1992 Ph. D. dissertation for Cornell University,Language-music relationships inal-Fārābī’s “Grand Book ofMusic”, includes an English translation of thissection.

3. Logic

Next to the study of language, al-Fārābī considerslogic. For a long time the possibility of a serious study ofal-Fārābī’s logic remained somewhat elusive.Editions and translations of his logical works, except for his[‘Long’]Commentary on Aristotle’s DeInterpretatione (Zimmerman 1981), were scattered in variousjournals and collective works often difficult to access. Many of thesetexts were more critically edited and gathered inal-mantiq‘inda al-Fārābī, ed. by Rafīqal-‘Ajam and Majid Fakhry in 4 vol. (1985–87). In1987–89 Muhammad Taqī Dānishpazuh published in Qumma more complete collection of logical texts, including a newlydiscovered part of a long commentary on thePrior Analytics.Soon afterwards, two books on Farabian logic followed: Shukri B. Abed,Aristotelian Logic and the Arabic Language inAlfārābī (1991) and Joep Lameer,Al-Fārābī & Aristotelian Syllogistics: GreekTheory & Islamic Practice (1994). In 2006 Mauro Zontapublished fragments of a long commentary on theCategories inHebrew, Arabic and English translation. John Watt (2008) assessed theinfluence of the Syriac organon on al-Fārābī and KamranKarimullah (2014) dedicated a lengthy article toal-Fārābī’s views on conditionals. Translationsnow are coming out: Alfarabi’s Book of Dialectic (Kitābal-Jadal) (David M. Di Pasquale, 2019), and Al-Fārābī,Syllogism (Wilfrid Hodges & Saloua Chatti, 2020), as well asfurther studies of al-Fārābī’s logic by SalouaChatti (2019) and papers by Terrence J. Kleven (2013 & 2022) andRiccardo Strobino (2019).

Some issues dealt with in logic are also relevant to ethics andmetaphysics. Al-Fārābī sees logic as the path tohappiness (Germann, 2015). He also discusses the issue of futurecontingents. If the truth value of statements on future contingents isimmediately determined, i.e., before the event happens, theneverything is predetermined and freewill is an illusion. Aristotletreats of this issue inOn Interpretation,9. Al-Fārābī discusses more complex aspects of thisissue as he adds a consideration of God’s foreknowledge anddefends human freewill against some theologians (see Peter Adamson(2006), “The Arabic Sea Battle: al-Fārābī on theProblem of future Contingents”).

As Deborah L. Black (1990) showed, following the Alexandriantradition, philosophers in Islamic lands considerRhetoricandPoetics as integral to logic proper and so parts ofAristotle’sOrganon. Lahcen E. Ezzaher (2008:347–91) translated the short commentary on the Rhetoric.Frédérique Woerther (2018) & Maroun Aouad arepreparing a new edition of some of al-Fārābī’stexts on rhetoric. Stéphane Diebler inPhilosopher àBagdad au Xe siècle (2007) [in fact a very usefulcollection of translations of short Farabian works] gave a Frenchtranslation of the three very brief treatisesal-Fārābī dedicated to Poetics. Geert Jan van Gelder& Marlé Hammond (2008: 15–23) translated one of thesetreatises,The Book of Poetics, into English, as well as abrief relevant passage in the first part ofThe Great Book ofMusic. Terrence J. Kleven (2019) studies The Canons of Poetry.Scholars interested in political philosophy have highlighted thedistinctions al-Fārābī makes between (1)demonstrative discourse, reflecting Aristotle’s positions in thePosterior Analytics (in Arabic this text is known asTheBook of Demonstration), and which alone is philosophicalstricto sensu, (2) dialectical discourse, typical of the“mutakallimūn” or theologians and linked toAristotle’sTopics, and (3) rhetorical and poeticaldiscourse, used in the Qur’ān or Jewish and ChristianScriptures in order to address ordinary people.

Great respect for Aristotle’s theory of demonstration ledal-Fārābī to attempt to fit any theoreticaldiscipline in its framework, though some of them, such as music, donot exclusively rest on necessary and universal primary principles, asthey also include principles derived from empirical observations(Miriam Galston, 2019). As music is dear toal-Fārābī, it is in the first part of hisGreatBook on Music that we find the most extensive consideration ofprimary empirical principles and their derivation from carefulexamination of practice, i.e., in this case of musicalperformances.

4. Mathematics and Music

After logic comes mathematics. For al-Fārābīmathematical sciences include arithmetic, geometry, optics, astronomy,music, the science of weights and mechanics. Only recently has moreattention be paid to this aspect of Farabian thought. Gad Freudenthal(1988) focused on al-Fārābī’s views ongeometry. Except for pointing to al-Fārābī’srejection, in contradistinction to al-Kindī, of the validity ofwhat we now call astrology, scholars had neglected his views onastronomy and cosmology. Damien Janos’sMethod, Structure,and Development in al-Fārābī’s Cosmology(2012) has filled this gap. His book throws new light on variousaspects of al-Fārābī’s astronomy, cosmology,and philosophy of nature. It also highlights the link betweencosmology and metaphysics. Sara Abram (2020) edited and translatedinto Italian a short treatise refuting astrology. Johannes Thomann(2010–11) pointed to a newly discovered commentary on theAlmagest attributed to al-Fārābī (Ms. Tehran Maglis6531).

In theEnumeration al-Fārābī follows thetraditional classification of music under mathematics. InTheGreat Book of Music he certainly indicates that music derivessome of its principles from mathematics but he also insists, as wesaid above, on the importance of performance for determining itsempirical principles. On some points the ear, rather than theoreticalreflections, is the ultimate judge, even if at times the earcontradicts some mathematical principle. For instance, he is wellaware that a semitone is not exactly the half of a tone. OfTheGreat book of Music there exists only one full translation, thatof Rodolphe d’Erlanger into French (originally published in1930–35 before the Arabic text was edited; reprint 2001). Onlypartial English translations exist. I referred to two of them: one inthe section on language and one in the logic section under poetics.George Dimitri Sawa (2009) translated the two chapters on rhythm.Alison Laywine (McGill University), both a philosopher with excellentknowledge of Greek musical theories and a ‘Oud player, ispreparing a full English translation of this complex and lengthy text.She explained al-Fārābī’s conception of Music Theory as aUniversal Science (2023). Yet,The Great Book is not the onlytext al-Fārābī dedicated to music. After havingwritten it, dissatisfied with his explanation of rhythms, hesubsequently wrote two shorter texts on rhythms (English translationof both by Sawa 2009). Apparently al-Fārābī inventeda system of notation for rhythms. In hisPhilosophies of Music inMedieval Islam Fadlou Shehadi (1995) dedicates his third chapterto al-Fārābī. Thérèse-Anne Druart(2020) shows how al-Fārābī links music to language, logic and evenpolitics.

5. Physics

After mathematics comes physics. We have only a few Farabian textsdealing with physics taken in the broadest sense and covering thewhole of natural philosophy. Paul Lettinck addresses some ofal-Fārābī’s views on physics in hisAristotle’s Physics and its Reception in the ArabicWorld (1994) and Janos (2012) also does so. Marwan Rashed (2008)attempted a reconstruction of a lost treatise on changing beings.

Al-Fārābī wrote a little treatise rejecting theexistence of the vacuum by means of an experiment. Necati Lugal &Aydin Sayili (1951) published the Arabic with an Englishtranslation.

The substantiveRefutation of Galen’s Critique ofAristotle’s Views on Human Organs merits serious studies.‘Abdurrahman Badawi edited it in hisTraitésphilosophiques (1983: 38–107). It showsal-Fārābī’s interest in Aristotle’szoological works and develops interesting parallels between thehierarchical structure of the organs of the human body, that ofcosmology, that of emanation, and that of the ideal state. BadrEl-Fakkak (2017) explains these parallels and Jawdath Jadour (2018)studies the structure of this text, which remains untranslated, andadds a new edition of al-Fārābī’sEpistle on medicine.Philippe Vallat (2020) presents some preliminary notes to atranslation of this text.

Physics includes Aristotle’sOn the soul and scholarshave paid much attention to al-Fārābī’s littletreatiseOn intellect (ed. by M. Bouyges, 1983). A fullEnglish translation of this important treatise, of which there existtwo Medieval Latin versions, was finally given by McGinnis &Reisman in theirClassical Arabic Philosophy (2007:68–78). Philippe Vallat published an extensive study ofal-Fārābī’s views on the intellect (2019a). More recentlyJawdath Jabbour offered a detailed study of this topic (2021). Theissue of the soul and the intellect is linked to logic, ethics,cosmology, and metaphysics. It also gave rise to a debate. Earlierscholars considered that for al-Fārābī universalsare acquired by emanation from the Agent Intellect, which for him isthe tenth and last Intelligence, even if in many passages the secondmaster uses the language of abstraction. Richard Taylor (2006 &2010) argued that, on the contrary, there is genuine abstraction inal-Fārābī, even if in some ways it involves theemanative power of the Agent Intellect.

6. Metaphysics

Metaphysics follows physics. It is not easy to assessal-Fārābī’s understanding of metaphysics. Thevery brief treatise,The Aims of Aristotle’sMetaphysics, insists that, contrary to what most people assume,metaphysics is not a theological science but rather investigateswhatever is common to all existing beings, such as being and unity.McGinnis and Reisman provide a full English translation in theirClassical Arabic Philosophy (2007: 78–81). In 1989Muhsin Mahdi published the Arabic text of a short treatiseOn Oneand Unity. Damien Janos (2017) explained its structure andcontents and Philippe Vallat (2019b) studied it. Cecilia MartiniBonadeo and her team published it anew and provided an Italiantranslation with extensive comments. stillMany passages ofTheBook of Letters are of great metaphysical import as Stephen Menn(2008) showed. These texts raise the question of the exact relationbetween logic and metaphysics, as, for instance, both disciplinestreat of the categories (see Thérèse-Anne Druart (2007)& Kristell Trego (2018)). Such texts present an Aristotelianoutlook focusing on ontology that sharply distinguishes metaphysicsfrom Kalām and seem to leave limited space for philosophicaltheology and Neo-Platonic descent in particular.

On the other hand, bothThe Opinions of the People of the PerfectCity andThe Political Regime orThe Principles ofBeings begin with a metaphysical part presented as a Neo-Platonicdescent followed by a second part dealing with the organization of thecity or state and do not treat of being and unity as the mostuniversal notions. The hierarchical structure of the ideal statemirrors the hierarchical emanationist structure presented in the firstpart. Walzer edited the former with an English translation under thetitleThe Perfect State (1985) and Fauzi M. Najjar edited thelatter (1964). Charles Butterworth (2015) provided the first fullEnglish translation ofThe Political Regime inThePolitical Writings, vol. II, pp. 27–94. The question of howexactly the ontology relates to the Neo-Platonic descent or emanationhas not yet been fully clarified, thoughThe Enumeration of theSciences addresses both aspects. Furthermore, whether theNeo-Platonic descent grounds the political philosophy or metaphysicsis simply a rhetorical appeal to makeal-Fārābī’s controversial political andphilosophical views palatable to religious authorities and ordinarypeople, as Straussians claim, is still a debated issue. Among the mostrecent “Straussian” positions on this debate one can findtwo papers by Charles E. Butterworth: (1) “How to ReadAlafarabi” (2013), and (2) “Alfarabi’s Goal:Political Philosophy, Not Political Theology” (2011). Recently,Philippe Vallat (2019c) attempted to clarify what al-Fārābī means by“esoterism,” Some other scholars such as Dimitri Gutas, S.Menn and Th.-A. Druart take Farabian metaphysics, including theNeo-Platonic descent as at the core ofal-Fārābī’s works, even if in hisPhilosophy of Aristotle, al-Fārābī treatslittle of metaphysics. Some of these issues are dealt with in acommentary on theOpinions edited by Ulrich Rudolph (2022).We will say more on this controversy in presenting ethics andpolitics, which in the Farabian classification of sciences, followmetaphysics.

7. Ethics and Politics

Al-Fārābī dealt little with ethics, but part of thecontroversy stems from what we may know of his lostCommentary onthe Nicomachean Ethics, his main foray in Ethics. Despite theexistence of an Arabic translation of Aristotle’sNicomachean Ethics (ed. by A. A. Akasoy & A. Fidora withan English translation by D.M. Dunlop, 2005), we see few signs of itsinfluence in al-Fārābī’s extant writings. Yet,al-Fārābī wrote on it a lost commentary, to whichthree Andalusian philosophers, Ibn Bājja, Ibn Tufayl andAverroes, refer. According to them, thereinal-Fārābī denied the immortality of the human soulas well as the possibility of any conjunction with the active or AgentIntellect, considering them tall tales. Yet, in many other works, suchas theTreatise on the Intellect, theOpinions, andthePolitical Regime, he claims that this conjunction ispossible and constitutes ultimate happiness. If what the Andalusianphilosophers report, presents an accurate reading of this lost text,then the disciples of Leo Strauss may have some justification inreading al-Fārābī’s works as divided betweenexoteric and esoteric ones since the content of this work wouldcontradict views in more popular texts, such as theOpinionsin which the Neo-Platonic influence is the strongest. Neo-Platonicmetaphysics, construed mainly as the descent and emanation, wouldprovide an exoteric view good for a more general public, but denied inthe esoteric works reserved for an intellectual elite. Chaim MeirNeria (2013) published two quotations from this commentary (in Hebrewtranslation and with English translation) that have been newlydiscovered and gave a summary of the issue.

Though we do not have any ethical text fromal-Fārābī relying mainly on theNicomacheanEthics, Marwan Rashed (2019) discussed his ethical outlook inrelying on theAttainment of Happiness. We do have a briefethical treatise in the tradition of Hellenistic ethics,DirectingAttention to the Way of Happiness orTanbīh (notto be confused with theAttainment of Happiness orTahsīl), which is propaedeutic to the study ofphilosophy proper and of logic in particular (English translation inMcGinnis & Reisman’sClassical Arabic Philosophy(2007: 104–20)). This treatise (1) incites the student to curbhis passions in order to be able to focus on his studies and (2)encourages him to begin the study of philosophy and of logic inparticular. It is obviously pre-philosophical and serves asintroduction to a Farabian elementary introduction to logicTheUtterances Employed in Logic (Mahdi’s edition, 1968; noEnglish translation). Al-Fārābī’s conceptionof truly philosophical ethics remains unclear as we have so littleextended textual basis to establish it. Janne Mattila (2017) comparedthe philosopher’s ethical progression in al-Fārābī and inal-Razi. Ethics, when treating of our relations with other people,implies intersubjectivity, but al-Fārābī, though not treating it muchin what concerns this life, offers an interesting picture of it in theafterlife (Druart, 2017). More recently Mattila tackled theeudaimonistic ethics of both al-Fārābī and Avicenna (2022).

Al-Fārābi’s political philosophy fared much betterand has attracted much attention from many scholars. According toThe Enumeration, it also includeskalām, i.e.,non-philosophical theology, andfiqh or Islamic law. ManyFarabian political works have been translated into English. MuhsinMahdi translated three of them inPhilosophy of Plato andAristotle (1969b; reprint 2001), which containsTheAttainment of Happiness,The Philosophy of Plato, andThe Philosophy of Aristotle. These three texts form atrilogy. Charles E. Butterworth in,The Political Writings,vol. I (2001), translatedSelected Aphorisms, part V ofThe Enumeration of the Sciences,Book of Religion,andThe Harmonization of the Two Opinions of the Two Sages: Platothe Divine and Aristotle and in vol. II (2015),PoliticalRegime andSummary of Plato’s Laws.

Al-Fārābī does not take inspiration fromAristotle’sPolitics (a text which does not seem tohave been translated or summarized into Arabic) but rather takes someinspiration from Plato’sRepublic andLaws,even if his access to these two texts may have been rather limited, asthere is some doubt that a full Arabic translation of them everexisted. Though Averroes wrote a commentary of sort on theRepublic, its brevity and content do not testify to anin-depth knowledge of the whole text. Yet, David C. Reisman (2004)discovered an Arabic translation of a single passage from theRepublic (VI, 506d3–509b10). As for theLaws,we certainly have al-Fārābī’sSummary ofPlato’s Laws, but this text (Arabic ed. by Th.-A. Druart(1998) and English translation by Butterworth, inThe PoliticalWritings, II, (2015: 129–73)) is very brief and covers onlythe first eight books. Whether this summary relies on a full orpartial Arabic translation of theLaws or on a translation ofa Greek summary, possibly that of Galen (lost in Greek), at this stagecannot be determined. For the lateststatus quaestionis aboutArabic translations of Plato’s works and their paucity, seeDimitri Gutas (2012). Al-Fārābī’s own briefPhilosophy of Plato does not exhibit detailed knowledge ofPlato’s works.

Though al-Fārābī’s political philosophy takessome inspiration from Plato, it much transforms it in important andinteresting ways to reflect a very different world and adapt it to it.Instead of a monolingual and monoethnic city state,al-Fārābī envisions a vast multicultural,multilingual, and multireligious empire (Alexander Orwin, 2017). Healso sees the necessity to make of the philosopher king a philosopherprophet ruler.

Al-Fārābī’sSummary of Plato’sLaws caused much controversy, which Butterworth narrates in theintroduction to his translation (2015: 97–127). In 1995 JoshuaParens, making use of a draft of Druart’s edition, publishedMetaphysics as Rhetoric: Alfarabi’s Summary ofPlato’s “Laws”. He argued thatal-Fārābī takes metaphysics, or maybe more exactlyspecial metaphysics or the Neo-Platonic descent, i.e., what treats ofimmaterial beings rather than ontology, as a form of rhetoric, andthat such was already the case for Plato. Whether or not we shouldread Plato as Parens and other Straussians claimal-Fārābī understood him is still a debatedquestion.

Marwan Rashed (2009) introduced a new element in the controversy byputting into serious doubt the authenticity ofal-Fārābī’sHarmonization of the Opinionsof the Two Sages. Following an Alexandrian tradition, thistreatise (for Butterworth’s 2001 English translation, see above)argues that, despite a series of issues on which Aristotle and Platoseem to contradict each other, there is remarkable harmony betweenthese two sages, as one can easily resolve such contradictions. Thistext also refers (1) to the so-calledAristotle’sTheology, which in fact Aristotle never wrote, as it derives fromPlotinus, and (2) to Proclus Arabus, as Peter Adamson (2020) shows. Onthe other hand, Cecilia Martini Bonadeo, in her 2008 critical editionand Italian translation of this text (al-Fārābī,L’armonia delle opinioni dei due sapienti, il divino Platonee Aristotele), argued for the Farabian authenticity of this text.Whether one accepts the Farabian authorship of this text affectsone’s understanding of the whole controversy of how to readal-Fārābī, as well as one’s understanding ofthe relationship between his Aristotelianism and his Neo-Platonism. Italso makes the whole issue of the relationship between his metaphysicsand his political philosophy still more complex and convoluted.

Among the most recent developments, expressed in various articles, onthe Straussian side, let us point to Butterworth’s “How toRead Alfarabi” (2013) and “Alfarabi’s Goal:Political Philosophy, Not Political Theology” (2011) to which Ireferred earlier. On the other side, we can point to CharlesGenequand’s “Théologie et philosophie. Laprovidence chez al-Fārābī etl’authenticité de l’Harmonie des opinions desdeux sages” (2012), which objects to M. Rashed’sdeclaring theHarmonization inauthentic, and his (2013)“Le Platon d’al-Fārābī”. AmorCherni (2015), on the other hand, published a book on the relationbetween politics and metaphysics in al-Fārābī(La cité et ses opinions: Politique et métaphysiquechez Abū Naṣr al-Fārābī), which includesan appendix rejecting the authenticity ofTheHarmonization.

8. Conclusion

Though we now have more decent editions ofal-Fārābī’s texts and more completetranslations, in English and in French in particular, many sucheditions and translations are scattered in various books and journals.Gathering all of al-Fārābī’s available textsis no mean accomplishment.

Some texts still need to be better edited. Some texts are nottranslated at all into any European language or not yet into English.Scholars do not always seem fully aware of what is available and whatother scholars have said. Much more work still needs to be done, but aclearer and more complex picture ofal-Fārābī’s works is emerging. It highlightstheir breadth and sophistication, even if we still have troublepiecing together all the parts.

Bibliography

Research Tools

Bibliographies

• Al-Mawrid (Special Issue on Al-Farabi), 4(3), 1975.
• Chavooshi, Jafar Aghayani,Al-Fārābī: AnAnnotated Bibliography, Tehran, 1976.
• Cunbur, Müjgan, Ismet Ninark & Nejat Sefercioglu,Fārābī Bibliyografyasi, Ankara: BashakanhkBasimevi, 1973.
• Daiber, Hans,Bibliography of Islamic Philosophy (fromthe 15^th Century to 1999) 2 vol., Leiden: Brill, 1999 anditsSupplement, Leiden: Brill, 2007, much complete and updatethese pioneers works.
• Druart, Thérèse-Anne,Brief Bibliographical Guide in Medieval and Post-Classical Islamic Philosophy and Theology, available online in yearly installments and includes a section onal-Fārābī.
• Rescher, Nicholas,Al-Fārābī: An AnnotatedBibliography, Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press,1962.

Dictionary

• Alon, Ilai and Shukri B. Abed,Al-Fārābī’s Philosophical Lexicon, 2volumes (volume I: Arabic Text; volume II: English translation).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002 (providesal-Fārābī’s own definitions of technicalphilosophical terms).

Primary Literature

Works by al-Fārābī

The following are listed by editors/translators:

• Abram, Sara, 2020, “Note di Abū Naṣrral-Fārābī sulla verità e falsitàdell’astrologia”,Medioevo, 45:235–77.
• al-‘Ajam, Rafīq & Majid Fakhry (eds.),1985–87, al-Fārābī,al-mantiq ‘indaal-Fārābī, in 4 volumes, Beirut: Daral-Mashriq.
• Badawi, ‘Abdurrahman, 1983,Traites philosophiques paral-Kindi, al-Fārābī, Ibn Bajjah & Ibn ‘Adyy, 3rdedition, Beirut: Dar Al-Andaloss.
• Bonadeo, Cecilia Martini (ed.), 2008, al-Fārābī,L’armonia delle opinioni dei due sapienti, il divino Platonee Aristotele, Pisa: Plus.
• Bouyges, Maurice (trans. and ed.), 1983, Alfarabi,Risalatfi’l-‘Aql, 2^nd edition, Beirut: ImprimerieCatholique.
• Butterworth, Charles E. (ed. and trans.), 2001, Alfarabi,ThePolitical Writings: “Selected Aphorisms” and OtherTexts (Volume I), Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
• ––– (ed. and trans.), 2015, Alfarabi,ThePolitical Writings: “Political Regime” and “Summaryof Plato’s Laws” (Volume II), Ithaca, NY: CornellUniversity Press.
• ––– (ed. and trans.), 2024, Alfarabi,Bookof Letters, Berkeley: Zaytuna College Press.
• Chatti, Saloua & Hodges, Wilfrid (trans.), 2020,Al-Fārābī, Syllogism: An Abdrigement ofAristotle’s Prior Analytics, London: Bloomsbury.
• Cherni, Amor (trans. and ed.), 2015, al-Fārābī,Le recensement des sciences, Paris: Al Bouraq.
• Dānishpazuh, Muhammad Taqī (ed.), 1987–89,al-Fārābī, al-mantiqiyyātlilfārābī, 3 volumes, Qumm: Matba‘atBahman.
• Diebler, Stéphane (trans), 2007,al-Fārābī,Philosopher à Bagdad au Xesiècle, introduction by Ali Benmakhlouf, glossary byPauline Koetschet, Paris: Seuil.
• DiPasquale, David M. (trans.), 2019,Alfarabi’s Book ofDialectic (Kitāb al-Jadal):On the Starting Point of IslamicPhilosophy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Druart, Thérèse-Anne (ed.), 1998, “Le Sommairedu livre des ‘Lois’ de Platon”,Bulletind’Études Orientales, 50: 109–55;
• d’Erlanger, Rodolphe (trans.), 1930–35,La musiquearabe: Al-Fārābī, Grand Traité de laMusique, vol. I–II, Paris: Geuthner, reprint (Paris:2001).
• Ezzaher, Lahcen E. (ed.), 2008, “Alfarabi’sBookof Rhetoric: An Arabic-English translation of Alfarabi’sCommentary on Aristotle’sRhetoric”,Rhetorica, 26(4): 347–91.
• ––– (transl.), 2015,Three Arabic Treatiseson Aristotle’s “Rhetoric” (translation,introduction, & notes), Carbondale: Southern Illinois UniversityPress , pp. 12–49.
• Galonnier, A. (ed. and trans.), 2016,Le ‘De scientiisAlfarabii’ de Gérarde de Crémone: Contributionsaux problèmes de l’acculturation au XIIe siècle.Étude introductive et édition critique, traduite etannotée, Turnhout: Brepols.
• van Gelder, Geert Jan & Marlé Hammond (trans. and eds),2008,Takhyīl: The Imaginary in Classical ArabicPoetics, Exeter: Gibb Memorial Trust, pp. 15–23.
• Gundissalinus, Dominicus [ca. 1150] (transl.), 2006,al-Fārābī,Über die Wissenschaften (descientiis), Jakob Hans Josef Schneider (ed.), Freiburg: Herder.
• Khalidi, Muhammad Ali (ed. and trans.), 2005,al-Fārābī, “The Book of Letters”, in hisMedieval Islamic Philosophical Writings, Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, pp. 1–26.
• Lugal, Necati & Aydin Sayili, 1951, “Maqālafī l-Khalā”,Belleten (Türk TarihKurumu), 15: 1–16 & 21–36.
• Mahdi, Muhsin (ed.), 1968, al-Fārābi,UtterancesEmployed in Logic, introduction and notes, Beirut: Darel-Mashreq.
• ––– (ed.), 1969a,Alfarabi’s Book ofLetters (Kitab al-Huruf), Arabic text, introduction and notes,Beirut: Dar el-Mashreq.
• ––– (ed.), 1969b,Alfarabi’sPhilosophy of Plato and Aristotle, translated with anintroduction, 2^nd edition, Ithaca, NY: Cornell UniversityPress; reprinted 2002.
• ––– (ed.), 1989,Alfarabi’s On One andUnity, Casablanca: Toubkal .
• Martini Bonadeo, Cecilia, Marianna Zarantonello, GiovanniMandolino, Luca Farina, Sara Abram, 2023,al-Fārābī: L’uno el’unità, Pisa: Pisa University Press.
• McGinnis, Jon & David C. Reisman (eds.), 2007,ClassicalArabic Philosophy: An Anthology of Sources, Indianapolis: HackettPublishing, pp. 54–120.
• Najjar, Fauzi M. (ed.), 1964,Al-Fārābī’s The Political Regime,with introduction & notes, Beirut: Imprimerie Catholique .
• Neria, Cahim Meir, 2013,“Al-Fārābī’s Lost Commentary on theEthics: New Textual Evidence”,Arabic Sciences andPhilosophy, 23(1): 69–99.
• Rashed, Marwan, 2008, “Al-Fārābī’slost treatiseOn changing beings and the possibility of ademonstration of the eternity of the world”,Arabic Sciencesand Philosophy, 18(1): 19–58.
• Sawa, George Dimitri, 2009,Rhythmic Theories and Practices inArabic Writings to 339 AH/950 CE : Annotated translations andcommentaries, Ottawa: The Institute of Mediaeval Music.
• Sayili, Aydin, 1951, “Al-Farabi’s Article onVacuum”,Belleten (Turk Tarih Kurumu), 15:151–74.
• Walzer, Richard (ed. and trans.), 1985,Al-Faradi on thePerfect State, with introduction and commentary, Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.
• Zimmerman, F.W., 1981,Al-Farabi’s Commentary and ShortTreatise on Aristotle’s “De interpretatione”(translation, introduction & notes), London: British Academy.

Works by other authors

• [Aristotle] Akasoy, A.A. & A. Fidora (eds.), 2005,TheArabic Version of the “Nicomachean Ethics”, with anEnglish translation by D.M. Dunlop, Leiden: Brill.
• [al-Kindī] Adamson, Peter and Peter E. Pormann (ed.), 2012,The Philosophical Works of al-Kindi (Studies in IslamicPhilosophy), Karachi: Oxford University Press.

Secondary Literature

• Abed, Shukri B., 1991,Aristotelian Logic and the ArabicLanguage in Alfārābī, Albany, NY: SUNYPress.
• Adamson, Peter, 2006, “The Arabic Sea Battle:al-Fārābī on the Problem of futureContingents”,Archiv für Geschichte derPhilosophie, 88: 163–88.
• –––, 2020, “Plotinus Arabus and ProclusArabus in the Harmony of the Two Philosophers Attributed toal-Fārābī,” inReading Proclus and the Book of Causes(Volume II: Translations and Acculturations), Dragos Calma (ed.),Leiden: Brill, pp. 182–97.
• Black, Deborah L., 1990,Logic and Aristotle’s“Rhetoric” and “Poetics” in Medieval ArabicPhilosophy, Leiden: Brill.
• Butterworth, Charles E., 2011, “Alfarabi’s Goal:Political Philosophy, Not Political Theology”, inIslam, theState, and Political Authority: Medieval Issues and ModernConcerns, Asma Afsaruddin (ed.), New York, NY: Palgrave McMillanUS, pp. 53–74.
• –––, 2013, “How to Read Alafarabi”,inMore Modoque: Festschrift for Miklós Maróth,edited by P. Fodor et alii, Budapest: Research Centre for theHumanities of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, pp. 33–41.
• Chatti, Saloua, 2019,Arabic Logic from al-Fārābī to Averroes:A Study of the Early Arabic Categorical, Modal and HypotheticalSyllogistics, Basel: Birkhhauser.
• Cherni, Amor, 2015,La cité et ses opinions: Politiqueet métaphysique chez Abū Naṣral-Fārābī, Paris: Albouraq.
• Daiber, Hans, 1983, “Fārābīs Abhandlungüber das Vakuum: Quellen und Stellung in der islamischenWissenschaftsgeschichte”,Der Islam, 60(1):37–47.
• Druart, Thérèse-Anne, 2007,“Al-Fārābī, the categories, metaphysics, andThe Book of Letters”,Medioevo, 32:15–37.
• –––, 2010, “Al-Fārābī:An Arabic Account of the Origin of Language and of PhilosophicalVocabulary”,Proceedings of the American CatholicPhilosophical Association, 84: 1–17.
• –––, 2017, “Al-Farabi on Intersubjectivityin This Life and Thereafter,” inPromisa nec asperacurrans, Georgio Rahal & Heinz-Otto Luthe (eds.), Toulouse:Les Presses Universitaires, pp. 341–54.
• –––, 2020, “What Does Music Have to Dowith Language, Logic, and Rulership? Al-Farabi’s Answer,”inThe Origin and Nature of Language and Logic: Perspectives inMedieval Islamic, Jewish, and Christian Thought, Nadja Germann& Steven Harvey (eds.), Turnhout: Brepols, pp. 193–210.
• El-Fekkak, Badr, 2017, “Cosmic, Corporeal and CivilRegencies: al-Fārābī’s anti-Galenic Defence of HierarchicalCardiocentrism,” in Philosophy and Medicine in the FormativePeriod of Islam, Peter Adamson & Peter E. Pormann (eds.), London:The Warburg Institute, pp. 255–68.
• Freudenthal, Gad, 1988, “La philosophie de lagéométrie d’al-Fārābī. Soncommentaire sur le début du Ier et le début du Ve livredesÉléments d’Euclide”,Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam, 11:104–219.
• Galston, Miriam, 2019, “The Origin of the PrimaryPrinciples: The Role of Nature and Experience,” inThePilgrimage of Philosophy, Rene M. Paddags, Waseem El-Rayes &Gregory A. McGrayer (eds.), South Bend, IN: St. Augustine’sPress, pp. 114–35.
• Genequand, Charles, 2012, “Théologie et philosophie.La providence chez al-Fārābī etl’authenticité de l’Harmonie des opinions desdeux sages”,Mélanges del’Université Saint-Joseph, 64: 195–211.
• –––, 2013, “Le Platond’al-Fārābī”, inLire les dialogues,mais lesquels et dans quel ordre? Définitions du corpus etinterprétations de Platon, A. Balansard & I. Koch(eds.), Sankt Augustin: Academia Verlag, pp. 105–15.
• Germann, Nadja, 2015–16,“Imitation–Ambiguity–Discourse: Some Remarks onal–Farabi’s Philosophy of Language,”Melanges del’Universite Saint–Joseph, 66: 135–66.
• –––, 2015, “Logic as the Path toHappiness: Al-Farabi and the Divisions of the Sciences”,Quaestio, 15: 15–30.
• –––, 2022, “The Power of Words:al-Fārābī’s Philosophy of Language”,Ishraq, 10:193–211.
• Gutas, Dimitri, 2012 “Platon: Tradition arabe”, inDictionnaire des philosophes antiques, vol. V-b, RichardGoulet (ed.), Paris: CNRS, pp. 854–63.
• Jabbour, Jawdath, 2018, “La structure du Contre Galien deFarabi et son epitre sur la medicine,”Documenti eStudi, 29: 89–123.
• –––, 2021,De la matière àl’intellect: L’āme et la substance de l’hommedans l’oeuvre d’al-Fārābi, Paris:Vrin.
• Janos, Damien, 2012,Method, Structure, and Development inal-Fārābī’s Cosmology, Leiden:Brill.
• –––, 2017, “Al-Farabi’s (d. 950) Onthe One and Oneness: Some Preliminary Remarks on Its Structure,Contents, and Theological Implications,” inThe OxfordHandbook of Islamic Philosophy, Khaled El-Rouayheb & SabineSchmidtke (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.101–28.
• –––, 2019, “The Role of Developmentalismin the Study of Arabic Philosophy: Overview and Some MethodologicalInsights,” inLa Philosophie arabe a l’etude. Sens,limites et defis d’une discipline modern (StudyingArabic Philosophy: Meaning, Limits, and Challenges of a ModernDiscipline), Jean-Baptiste Brenet & Olga Lizzini (eds.),Paris: Vrin, pp. 113–78.
• Karimullah, Kamran, 2014, “Alfarabi on Conditionals”,Arabic Sciences and Philosophy, 24(2): 211–67.
• Kleven, Terrence F., 2013, “Alfarabi’s Commentary onPorphyry’s Isagoge (Kitab Isaguji),”SchedeMedievali, 51: 41–52.
• –––, 2019, “Alfarabi’s Account ofPoetry as a Logical Art in A Treatise on the Cannons of the Art ofPoetry,” inThe Pilgrimage of Philosophy, Rene M.Paddags, Waseem El-Rayes & Gregory A. McGrayer (eds.), South Bend,IN: St. Augustine’s Press, pp. 136–52.
• –––, 2022, “Al-Farabi’sBook ofResolution (Kitab al-Tahlil)”, inTolerance andConcepts of Otherness, Michael William Dunne & SusanGottlober (eds.), Turnhout: Brepols, pp. 129–42.
• Lameer, Joep, 1994,Al-Fārābī &Aristotelian Syllogistics: Greek Theory & Islamic Practice,Leiden: Brill.
• Laywine, Alison, 2023, “Al-Farabi’s Conception ofMusic Theory as the Universal Science of Melody”,Oriens, 51 (1–2): 104–26.
• Lettinck, Paul, 1994,Aristotle’s Physics and itsReception in the Arabic World, Leiden: Brill.
• Madian, Azza Abd al-Hamid, 1992,Language-music relationshipsin al-Fārābī’s “Grand Book ofMusic”, Ph.D. dissertation for Cornell University.
• Mattila, Janne, 2017, “The Ethical Progression of thePhilosopher in al-Razi and al-Fārābī,”Arabic Sciences andPhilosophy, 27(1): 115–37.
• –––, 2022,The Eudaimonist Ethics ofal-Fārābī and Avicenna, Leiden: Brill.
• Menn, Stephen, 2008, “Al-Fārābī’sKitāb al-Hurūf and his analysis of the Senses ofBeing”,Arabic Sciences and Philosophy, 18(1):59–97.
• Orwin, Alexander, 2017,Redefining the Muslim Community:Ethnicity, Religion, and Politics in the Thought of Alfarabi,Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
• Parens, Joshua, 1995,Metaphysics as Rhetoric:Alfarabi’s “Summary of Plato’s‘Laws’”, Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
• Proceedings: Global Al-Farabi Forum, December 21-22,2020, 2021, S. Khurshid Hasanain with Ikram Abbasi & MuhammadJamil (eds.), Islamabad: Comstech. [Proceedings available online in Arabic from the publisher]
• Rashed, Marwan, 2009, “On the Authorship of the TreatiseOn the Harmonization of the Opinions of the Two SagesAttributed to al-Fārābī”,Arabic Sciences& Philosophy, 19(1): 43–82.
• –––, 2019, “Al-Farabi et le parachevementde l’Ethique a Nicomaque,” inEthike Theoria, F.Masi, St. Maso & C. Viano (eds.), Rome: Edizioni di storia eletteratura, pp. 301–38.
• Reisman, David C., 2004, “Plato’sRepublic inArabic: A Newly Discovered Passage”,Arabic Sciences andPhilosophy, 14(2): 263–300.
• Rudolph, Ulrich, 2017, “Abū Naṣral-Fārābī”, inPhilosophy in the IslamicWorld (Volume 1:8th-–10th Centuries), UlrichRudolph, Rotraud Hansberger & Peter Adamson (eds.), Leiden: Brill,pp. 526–654.
• ––– (ed.), 2022,Abū Naṣral-Fārābi: Die Prinzipien der Ansichten der Bewohner dervortrefflichen Stadt, Berlin: De Gruyter.
• Shehadi, Fadlou, 1995,Philosophies of Music in MedievalIslam, Leiden: Brill.
• Taylor, Richard C., 2006, “Abstraction inal-Fārābī”,Proceedings of the AmericanCatholic Association, 80: 151–68
• –––, 2010, “The Agent Intellect as”Form for Us“ and Averroes’s Critique ofal-Fārābī”, inUniversal Representationand the Ontology of Individuation, Gyula Klima & Alexander W.Hall (eds.), Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing , pp.25–44.
• Strobino, Riccardo, 2019, “Varieties of Demonstration inAlfarabi,”History & Philosophy of Logic, 40(1):22–41.
• Thomann, Johannes, 2010–11, “Einal-Fārābī zugeschriebener Kommentar zum Almagest(Ms. Tehran Maglis 6531)”,Zeitschrift für Geschichteder arabisch-islamischen Wissenschaften, 19: 35–76.
• Vallat, Philippe, 2004:Farabi et l’Écoled’Alexandrie. Des prémisses de la connaissance àla philosophie politique, Paris: Vrin.
• –––, 2019a, “L’intellect selonFarabi. La transformation du connaitre en etre,” inNoetiqueet theorie de la connaissance dans la philosophie arabe du IXe au XIIesiècle, Meryem Sebti & Daniel De Smet (eds.), Paris:Vrin, pp. 211–41.
• –––, 2019b, “Le Livre del’Un et del’Unite de Farabi: l’invention persane de la doctrine destranscendantaux,” inCommenter au Moyen Age, PascaleBermon & Isabelle Moulin, Paris: Vrin, pp. 211–41.
• –––, 2019c, “L’esoterisme de Farabiexplique par lui-meme: nature et fonctions,” inLaphilosophie arabe a l’etude, J.-B. Brent & O. Lizzini(eds.), Paris: Vrin, pp. 545–611.
• –––, 2020, “Notes prèliminairesà la traduction duContre Galien de Farabi”,inContre Galien, Antoine Pietrobelli (ed.), Paris: HonoreChampion, pp. 99–114.
• Watt, John, 2008, “Al-Farabi and the History of the SyriacOrganon”, inMalphono w-Rabo d-Malphone (GorgiasEastern Christian Studies), George Anton Kiraz (ed.), Piscataway, NJ:Gorgias Press, pp. 751–78. Reprinted separately in 2009,(Analecta Gorgiana 129), Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press.
• Woerther, Frederique, 2018, “Al-Farabi commentateurd’Aristote dans les Didascalia in Rethoricam Aristotelis exglosa Alpharabii,” inCommenting on Aristotle’sRhetoric from Antiquity to the Present, F. Woerther (ed.),Leiden: Brill, pp. 41–63.
• Zonta, Mauro, 2006, “Al-Fārābī’sLong Commentary on Aristotle’sCategories inHebrew and Arabic. A Critical Edition and English Translation of theNewly-found Fragments”, inStudies in Arabic and IslamicCulture, II, B. Abrahamov (ed.), Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan UniversityPress , pp. 185–254.

Academic Tools

	How to cite this entry.
	Preview the PDF version of this entry at theFriends of the SEP Society.
	Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO).
	Enhanced bibliography for this entryatPhilPapers, with links to its database.

Other Internet Resources

• Al-Farabi, webpage on Al-Farabi at muslimphilosophy.com. (This page has links toa few complete texts of al-Fārābī, some in Arabic and some in Englishtranslation.)Al-Farabi, webpage on Al-Farabi at thegreatthinkers.org.

Related Entries

al-Farabi: metaphysics |al-Farabi: philosophy of logic and language |al-Farabi: philosophy of society and religion |al-Farabi: psychology and epistemology |Arabic and Islamic Philosophy, disciplines in: metaphysics |music, philosophy of