Greek logic or Arabic grammar? Who wins?

As part of our course on Logic and Epistemology , I asked my students to read “The Discussion between Abū Bishr Matta and Abū Saʿīd al-Sīrāfī on the Merits of Logic and Grammar” by the Orientalist David Samuel Margoliouth.

It presents and analyses the well-known debate between the Christian philosopher Abū Bishr Matta ibn Yūnus (d. 940), one of the translators of Aristotle into Arabic, and the Muslim grammarian Abū Saʿīd al-Sīrāfī (d. 979).

The discussion, recorded by Abū Ḥayyān al-Tawḥīdī and preserved in Yāqūt’s Muʿjam al-udabāʾ, centres on whether logic (manṭiq), originating from Aristotle and Greek philosophy, is superior or inferior to Arabic grammar (naḥw) as a tool for correct thinking and expression.

Here is the background. We have Abū Bishr Matta ibn Yūnus (d. 940), a Christian philosopher, translator of Aristotle into Arabic, and proponent of Greek logic (manṭiq), and Abū Saʿīd al-Sīrāfī (d. 979), a Muslim grammarian and expert in Arabic naḥw (grammar). It is reported by Abū Ḥayyān al-Tawḥīdī in al-Imtāʿ wa-l-Muʾānasa and preserved by Yāqūt. 

What does it explore?

Which is more necessary and valuable for reasoning and expression — Greek logic or Arabic grammar?

Abū Bishr Matta, of course, argues for Logic.

1. Universality: Logic is a universal tool that governs thought itself, not tied to any specific language. It provides principles for sound reasoning, differentiating truth from falsehood.
2. Necessity of Philosophy: Without logic, philosophers and theologians risk contradiction and error. Grammar only ensures correctness in Arabic; logic applies to all human thought.
3. Superiority: Just as arithmetic governs numbers, logic governs reasoning. Grammar cannot replace this higher discipline.

On the other hand, Abū Saʿīd al-Sīrāfī’s position is for grammar. He reasons:

1. Rooted in Language and Meaning: True reasoning depends on comprehending the meanings of words as used by people. Logic, separated from language, turns into empty formalism.
2. Arabic Grammar Already Achieves the Aim: Grammar teaches distinctions of meaning, correct usage, and valid inference in speech. What logicians claim to do is already performed by Arabic grammar, but more precisely and with real application.
3. Suspicion of Foreign Logic: Logic is a Greek invention, alien to Islam and Arabic culture. It may confuse rather than clarify, as it imposes categories that are not natural to the Arabic language.

In any case…

Abū Bishr insisted that grammar pertains only to words, while logic concerns ideas and concepts. Al-Sīrāfī countered that ideas cannot be separated from words; language is the medium through which thought is expressed. He argued that logicians merely re-describe what grammarians already explain, but in strange terms. The debate became intense: al-Sīrāfī accused Abū Bishr of ignorance of Arabic subtleties; Abū Bishr implied that al-Sīrāfī was parochial and unable to grasp universal sciences.

What does it all mean?

Not surprisingly, the debate concluded without a formal resolution; however, later in Islamic intellectual history, the grammarians and traditionalists often referenced al-Sīrāfī as supporting the sufficiency of the Arabic tradition. The philosophers and theologians tended towards Abū Bishr’s defence of logic as a universal science essential for kalām and philosophy.

In any case, this debate illustrates the broader tension in Islamic thought between Greek-influenced rational sciences (logic, philosophy) and Arabic linguistic sciences (grammar, rhetoric, jurisprudence).

In short…

For Abū Bishr Matta: Logic is universal and transcends languages. For Al-Sīrāfī: Grammar suffices, as thought and language are inseparable.

You can join and watch our course here: https://hujjahacademy.com/logic/