April 19, 2020 Journal article Open Access

Lit, L.W. Cornelis van

JSON-LD (schema.org) Export

{
  "description": "<p>Ghaz\u0101l\u012b&rsquo;s &ldquo;The incoherence of the philosophers&rdquo; spurred a counter-commentary by Ibn Rushd, as is well known. Up to ten texts from Ottoman scholars also purport to be commentaries on the&nbsp;Tah\u0101fut, constituting a commentary tradition that has been neglected by scholars. The first two commentators, Khojaz\u0101da (d. 1488) and \u02bfAl\u0101\u02be al-D\u012bn \u1e6c\u016bs\u012b (d. 1482), are not line-by-line exegetes of Ghaz\u0101l\u012b, but rather update the discussions that Ghaz\u0101l\u012b broached to the level of knowledge available to them. Khojaz\u0101da was favored by the Ottomans, but \u02bfAl\u0101\u02be al-D\u012bn&rsquo;s content, methodology and argumentation style proves to be just as, if not more, interesting for us.</p>", 
  "license": "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode", 
  "creator": [
    {
      "affiliation": "Utrecht University", 
      "@id": "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1846-4703", 
      "@type": "Person", 
      "name": "Lit, L.W. Cornelis van"
    }
  ], 
  "headline": "An Ottoman Commentary Tradition on Ghaz\u0101l\u012b's Tah\u0101fut al-fal\u0101sifa. Preliminary Observations", 
  "image": "https://zenodo.org/static/img/logos/zenodo-gradient-round.svg", 
  "datePublished": "2020-04-19", 
  "url": "https://zenodo.org/record/3757131", 
  "@context": "https://schema.org/", 
  "identifier": "https://doi.org/10.1163/18778372-04303004", 
  "@id": "https://doi.org/10.1163/18778372-04303004", 
  "@type": "ScholarlyArticle", 
  "name": "An Ottoman Commentary Tradition on Ghaz\u0101l\u012b's Tah\u0101fut al-fal\u0101sifa. Preliminary Observations"
}