Running Head: A SCRUTINY OF AVICENNA THROUGHSOLZHENITSYN’S LENS 1 A SCRUTINY OF AVICENNA THROUGH SOLZHENITSYN’S LENS 7 A SCRUTINY OF AVICENNA THROUGHSOLZHENITSYN’S LENS Student name: Institution: A SCRUTINY OF AVICENNA THROUGH SOLZHENITSYN’S LENS Introduction The Russian writer, Solzhenitsyn’s works have the obvious political and philosophical and moral undertones and connotations that accompany them much of which embody universal principles and evoke particular emotions and notions in the readers worldwide. Questions that regard such touchy topics as the meaning of human life, the far-reaching effects of the human will with the moral end always in view resonate in all the vast cornucopia of his published works. The Russian writer has fashioned out and meticulously carved out a line of thought extracted from his experience at the gulag inspiring an entire philosophy in the succeeding chain of his works. Across his work, there is the persistent discussion of values and the insistence of moral dignity as being a lot of every right-thinking man. This paper seeks to deal with the case of the historical figure of Ibn Sina or as he is known in the West by his Latinised name, Avicenna, against the backdrop of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance as seen through the lens of Solzhenitsyn’s philosophies. Avicenna was one of the significant thinkers of the Islamic Golden Age, a polymath regarded as heavily influential by all counts and as one of the greatest leading thinkers of Persian extraction (Arberry, 1995). He was born circumstantially in the area surrounding Bukhara to a rich minefield of knowledge that was the result of the cumulative surge of Arabic appreciation of Greek scholarly writings that had been extensively translated into Arabic. Especially were the Greek philosophical texts readily available and by the time that Avicenna came around at least one generation of Arabic thinkers had had intercourse with this material and had built upon it variously. His was, therefore, a conspiracy of luck that placed on the stage just in time to drink from the gourd of this amassed wealth of truth. He quickly became some child prodigy absorbing all the knowledge that was at his disposal and started on the path of one who was to become the most renowned thinkers of all time and arguably the most famous thinker and philosopher of Muslim descent. He wrote widely in various fields ranging from Medicine, Theology, Psychology, Metaphysics and myriad other topics under the broad umbrella of philosophy. He is known that unlike all the philosophers and Arabic-Islamic theologians of his time he set out on a path that involved blending the philosophical thoughts of his time to form a unique merge that was to inform and influence the thinking culture and the framework of logical reasoning of the later generations especially of Muslim thinkers in a quantifiably great way. He is known to have written over 450 works, 250 of which survive to the present giving ...

1. Running Head: A SCRUTINY OF AVICENNA
THROUGHSOLZHENITSYN’S LENS 1
A SCRUTINY OF AVICENNA THROUGH SOLZHENITSYN’S
LENS 7
A SCRUTINY OF AVICENNA THROUGHSOLZHENITSYN’S
LENS
Student name:
Institution:
A SCRUTINY OF AVICENNA THROUGH SOLZHENITSYN’S
LENS
Introduction
The Russian writer, Solzhenitsyn’s works have the obvious
political and philosophical and moral undertones and
connotations that accompany them much of which embody
universal principles and evoke particular emotions and notions
in the readers worldwide. Questions that regard such touchy
topics as the meaning of human life, the far-reaching effects of
the human will with the moral end always in view resonate in
all the vast cornucopia of his published works. The Russian
writer has fashioned out and meticulously carved out a line of
thought extracted from his experience at the gulag inspiring an
entire philosophy in the succeeding chain of his works. Across
his work, there is the persistent discussion of values and the
insistence of moral dignity as being a lot of every right-thinking
man. This paper seeks to deal with the case of the historical
figure of Ibn Sina or as he is known in the West by his
Latinised name, Avicenna, against the backdrop of the Middle
Ages and the Renaissance as seen through the lens of

2. Solzhenitsyn’s philosophies.
Avicenna was one of the significant thinkers of the Islamic
Golden Age, a polymath regarded as heavily influential by all
counts and as one of the greatest leading thinkers of Persian
extraction (Arberry, 1995). He was born circumstantially in the
area surrounding Bukhara to a rich minefield of knowledge that
was the result of the cumulative surge of Arabic appreciation of
Greek scholarly writings that had been extensively translated
into Arabic. Especially were the Greek philosophical texts
readily available and by the time that Avicenna came around at
least one generation of Arabic thinkers had had intercourse with
this material and had built upon it variously. His was, therefore,
a conspiracy of luck that placed on the stage just in time to
drink from the gourd of this amassed wealth of truth. He
quickly became some child prodigy absorbing all the knowledge
that was at his disposal and started on the path of one who was
to become the most renowned thinkers of all time and arguably
the most famous thinker and philosopher of Muslim descent. He
wrote widely in various fields ranging from Medicine,
Theology, Psychology, Metaphysics and myriad other topics
under the broad umbrella of philosophy. He is known that
unlike all the philosophers and Arabic-Islamic theologians of
his time he set out on a path that involved blending the
philosophical thoughts of his time to form a unique merge that
was to inform and influence the thinking culture and the
framework of logical reasoning of the later generations
especially of Muslim thinkers in a quantifiably great way. He is
known to have written over 450 works, 250 of which survive to
the present giving insights to the genius of a man who was
considered a treasure house of knowledge both in the Arabic
World, across Europe and the West (Seyyed, 2007). Avicenna
presents many overarching similarities which were to be later
displayed by the broad philosophy of the writings of the
controversial and world acclaimed Russian writer Aleksandr
Solzhenitsyn. Probing the depths of the writings of Avicenna
precipitates certain core philosophies which were transcripts of

3. a great mind and which were equally received to mixed reaction
in his era; both admiration and vilification (Soheil, 2006).
One of the first things that stand out concerning Avicenna in the
context of Solzhenitsyn’s philosophy is the deeply religious
nuggets interwoven seamlessly into his works. Avicenna was a
devout Muslim who was reputed to have memorized the entire
Quran by the age of ten (Sharaf). Although his singular
devotion to the principles that govern rationality and logic
predominated his thinking for the most part yet, it is evident
that he never once cast aspersions on the rationality of the
transcendent or doubted the postulations of his religion. He
sought to prove the basic scientific premises upon which he
rested his faith in God and went about to prove this by logic and
reason (Goodman, 2003). He contributed to the theology of his
Islamic tradition including in his philosophical treatise on the
difference between essence and being. He argued against
inferring the fact of existence by the foundation of the things
that exist purported that existence must be an extrapolation that
must occur due to a causing agent that necessitates and gives
existence to the essence by existing and coexisting with it. Thus
he gave proof in the philosophical realm of the belief in God
(Online, 2007). According to the doctrine which he pursued by
painful philosophical detail, God passes as the necessary being
while all other creations are possible beings which are brought
into being by association with the necessary being and which
spring up to fulfil a particular reason and indeed are only
necessary for as far they are connected with the necessary
being, that is, God. So disconnected from the ultimate source of
all creation, God, the man was bound to make a shipwreck of
himself. The very same overtones that scream for attention in
the rhetoric of Solzhenitsyn as he denounces the Communist
plague that had ravaged Russia: “Over half a century ago while
I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people
offering the following explanation for the great disasters that
had befallen Russia: ‘Men have forgotten God; that’s why all
this has happened.’ Since then I have spent well-nigh 50 years

4. working on the history of our revolution; in the process, I have
read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal
testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my
own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that
upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as
possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that
swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it
more accurately than to repeat: Men have forgotten God; that’s
why all this has happened” (Erickson, 1985). In essence what
one obtain from the voluminous writings of Avicenna through
the prism of Solzhenitsyn is his unwavering and unapologetic
yet sincere affirmation that God is necessary for man’s
existence and harmonious development. He tries not to palliate
the idea of the supremacy of the Creator but in seeking to proof
his existence goes into some ontological argument which
presupposes that where there is a better, there is the need of
extension also the existence of the best putting this regarding
the created and the creator. In one general stroke, he also casts
down the idea of anthropomorphism which attributes to the
creator the active agencies of the created for example human
characteristics and instead buys into Aristotle’s idea that such
an interaction of God with mankind will detract from his
perfection. But rather he develops the idea that God’s
knowledge of things is in fact born out of the intellectual
perception and therefore he has knowledge of the affairs of the
world but in a general way. However, he argues that all things
owe their existence to the intellection of the creator and it
follows therefore that there is no single thing the existence of
which did not become first necessary through him. Thus, in his
worldview, we trace the very same backbone of thought that
treats God to a fair share in the affairs of men.
Avicenna also had the anticipatory foresight of humanism and
went about to exemplify and write about the moral progress that
should always accompany science (Murray, 1951). Looking
through the lens of the accomplished writer Solzhenitsyn one
quickly catches the similar sentiments cherished by Avicenna

5. against secularism and a determination to stick to the moral
guidelines of the religious tradition he was brought up in. As
one writer has put it off the Russian writer, “Solzhenitsyn is a
Christian author for whom Christianity is not merely a personal
matter,” (Petterson, 2000). This same descriptor bears true for
Avicenna as a Muslim in the intellectual world. His philosophy
delved into the most fundamental questions such as the role of
God in the human in the overall events that transpire in the
universe and human affairs. Arguably his greatest contribution
to the furtherance of both Muslim and Western thought was his
step to marry the Aristotelian Greek philosophy and God as the
creator of all existence. His reflections on Aristotle’s
Metaphysics, the import and extent of which is only now being
appreciated, is a valid attempt at giving a logical basis for
creation in a bid to prop up philosophically what to him was a
settled deal in his mind, that of the existence of God. Picking
from Aristotle’s metaphysical postulation of God as the
unmoved mover, he goes on to expand on this and diverge his
thinking more. He first traces his analysis to the creation.
Creation according to him is the ultimate process that has its
origin in God. He further defines the boundaries of his concept
by adding, “God, however, if well, that is, philosophically
understood, has a unique nature: he is the only existent whose
essence is its existence.” (Germann, 2007). Throughout his
bibliography he maintains this important primordial idea of the
existence of God and pegs the existence of all other things on
this all- important foundation. Thus through our scrutinizing
lens, he remains very well within the realms of theistic belief
and strongly at that. This shapes his philosophy and lifework.
He elaborates his idea by going into the realm of metaphysical
philosophy setting out a two-pronged argument based on the
Aristotelian idea of the eternity of matter and thus deducing that
all creation is preceded by this, and therefore all the created
things are possible beings and have in them the potentiality of
being (Soheil, Avicenna: His Life and Works, 1958). He
deviates from the prevalent thought of his time of holding God

6. in contraindication with the creation in as far God is regarded
and invariably by the theologian thinkers as the efficient cause,
the ultimate spring of the chain of causation. But Avicenna
brought to the stage the new and fresh declaration, at least in as
far as the Muslim clergy held at the time, that God is not only
the efficient cause but He is also verily to be taken as the final
causation, the end of all ends. In other words in the framework
of the theology espoused by Avicenna, God cannot cease to be
since as a matter of fact he being the final cause is indicative of
the idea that he is something that is of absolute necessity to be
always present in the equation. In a summation of all his
metaphysical postulations and musings, he uses this platform
for his ultimate proof that God exists and not only that but that
God is a necessary existence if the broad considerations of
philosophy are to hold water. He effectively deals a blow to
even the idea of atheism in his treating of the subject although
it is ironical that part of the opposition he faced to his works
had one ring that accused him of atheism.
Another key and comprehensive philosophical summa that is
brought to focus by the lens of Solzhenitsyn’s philosophy in the
lifework of Avicenna is his political adoption of the philosophy
of his time. In the broad spectrum of his philosophy, Avicenna
broached on issues that bordered on the correlation between
science and politics. He strategically wove the principles of
interpreting the prophetic legacy of Muhammad into the tapestry
of his writings in a well thought out attempt to position the
science of philosophy as the rightful guide of interpreting
prophecy in the Islamic society. He tagged prophets as inspired
philosophers and placed them and their assertions above those
of mere philosophers (Jansenns, 2004). This was a political
statement in the context of the Islamic societal fabric of that
time and served to cement the religious garb of politics that was
the order of the day. Perhaps this was not so much of a
bombshell as Solzhenitsyn who set out by the weapon of the pen
to bring down an entire empire built on Communist ideology,
but it bears the credentials of the logic that considers literature

7. to influence the landscape of government and politics and even
sway public opinion. Solzhenitsyn by use of literature, as does
Avicenna hopes to bring an alternative perspective into the mix
that serves to influence the international considerations of the
parties involved as is seen in his analysis of the intricate
relationship between Poland and Russia (Solzhenitsyn).
According to him, resident within literature is the power to pull
back the mask and focus the light of truth to expose the utter
ugliness of cruelty as was in the case of the communist regime.
As we continue to consider Avicenna we also quickly notice the
similar dint of character that enables him to stand in the face of
opposition for some of the stances he takes. His philosophical
oeuvre at the time of publication received violent criticism so
much so that it is recorded in his works that he at one point had
to be ostracized on account of his rather volatile ideas (Aryeh,
2007). In AD 1001 he escaped Gurganj when the Sultan of
Ghaza demanded all scientists to be whisked to his court
(Asimov, 1980). It is thought that this may very well have been
on account of religious reasons, the unorthodox thinker not
wanting himself to be restricted and confined and boggled down
by the proverbial orthodoxy of the Sultan. He set a precedent
from which a chop of the idea of freedom of thought can be
obtained in respect to standing true to the convictions of the
soul. All these bear evidence of an indefatigable character of
one who embodied a philosophy akin to Solzhenitsyn’s that
fiercely and systematically defended the human free will.
Solzhenitsyn himself was exiled from his Russian native land on
numerous occasions for the equally controversial impact of his
strong views (Remnick, 1994). Avicenna stands as a portrayal
of Solzhenitsyn’s philosophy in the Middle Ages, one man who
can stand in spite of strong opposition from contemporaries. He
shows that he is deeply convicted by what he proclaims and
believes. According to Solzhenitsyn the individual’s morality
should be kept above every human dictum and should not be
made subject to the whims of the society contrary to common
morality. Any hindrance that serves to affect the individual’s

8. functioning in full sway of their moral powers and free will
should be met with stoic resistance and overcome is the
overshadowing philosophy that cuts across these two eras.
Like Solzhenitsyn who views the elementary and basic reason of
human existence as being tucked in the fulfilment of the
spiritual development and not just the mere attainment of
material prosperity and temporal comfort, Avicenna reckoned
that the perfection of man consisted in the ultimate actualization
of the potentiality that was in him and not just a focus on the
outside circumstances (Raftari, 2015). To Avicenna, a person is
the combination of the soul, the intelligence and the body, a
composite and somewhat paradoxical union and complex
multiplicity, and yet that feeds into a particular human identity
in the universal array. This somewhat resembles Solzhenitsyn
philosophy which insistently epitomizes the overarching need
for a point of view in every human as denoting an integrity of
purpose springing from the soul that can withstand external
pressure (Solzhenitsyn, The First Circle, 1968). Avicenna boils
humans down to individual entities in a round of continuous
interaction in the larger scale while at the same time actualizing
and fulfilling their several identities in the full span of things.
He maintains that the souls are distinct in their acquisition of
knowledge and virtue and are classed as differently, for
example, giving the distinction of the elevated status of the
prophets in contrast to the other lay people but maintaining
individuality for each (Abbdollah, 1999). This is displayed for
example in his advisory to parents and teachers on how to carry
out the teaching of the teenagers where he constantly affirms
and maintains that the children should be given autonomy in as
far as selecting their desired vocational and occupational
pursuits in line with their varied inclinations was concerned
(Sina). This was designed to reinforce his teaching and belief in
the varied individualizations in the society and the need for
collaboration of these varied dispositions for collective good
and harmony. This compares though not altogether an exact fit
for Solzhenitsyn treatise on the individual being which places

9. him above any caste or social class and provides that his
morality transcends the basic unit of how the society is framed.
The major recurring theme in his largely Russian humanist view
is addressed through the embryonic views postulated by
Avicenna in the areas of human dignity, nature and the roles of
individuals in the society.
In keeping with the train of thought in the philosophy of
Solzhenitsyn, Avicenna also holds that man has the capacity
both for good and for evil. He holds that there is within reach of
man the potentiality to reach the desired euphoria or happiness
just as much as there is a possibility to attain to wretchedness.
For example, he teaches that when a child is born with the
natural disposition of man and with a bit of leaning towards
good more than towards evil. However, the moral environment
into which this-this baby is placed has a significant bearing on
the total sum of the character of the child for good or for bad.
Concerning this, he says “When the child is weaned, then his
education and his moral training begin, before he is attacked or
overcome by blameworthy morals or objectionable
characteristics. For evil morals so quickly take over the young
boy, and bad habits soon prevail; and if any of these gain
influence over him they overcome him, and then he cannot
separate himself from them nor struggle against them” (Sina,
Kitab al-siyasa, 1906). He proceeds to emphasize this elsewhere
by saying: “All moral characteristics, the good and the bad, are
acquired; and it is possible for the human being, when he has as
yet no specific moral character, to obtain them for himself; and
when his soul also chances upon some specific characteristic, he
may move, of his own volition, away from it towards its
opposite” (Sina, Ilm al-Akhlaq). He espouses Solzhenitsyn’s
view of evil, and good that holds the two as complete absolutes
and not relative ideologies (Solzhenitsyn, The First Circle,
1968). To Solzhenitsyn evil is palpably painful because it is
very much personal by being affected by and originating from
man and not the political structures or ideologies. In the
worldview of Solzhenitsyn, a basic inscription of what evil is

10. transcribed in the soul of every human being and as Avicenna
records they then have the capacity to build morality against the
backdrop of this foreknowledge. And then building upon the
theme of euphoria, Avicenna again re-echoes another less than
subtle philosophical underpinning of the thoughts of
Solzhenitsyn by saying concerning intellectual pleasures that
the truth and beauty are considered good by the intellect and
reason. He strikes at the root of one of the most passionate
pleas of Solzhenitsyn whose resounding cry is the unconditional
refusal of lies and stretching the responsibility to combat
falsehood at the individual level and an emphatic rejection of
the slightest participation in falsehood. This is the dynamic and
active conception of truth which consists acknowledging the
truth and standing up forthright against lies. According to him
and as envisioned by Avicenna truth needs to be embraced with
gusto and all readiness of mind seeing as it is a great resource
in toppling down falsehood. He says, “…the basic stride of a
basic, bold man is not to share in misrepresentation, not to
bolster false activities! Give that a chance to enter the world, let
it even reign on the planet – yet not with my offer assistances!”
(Solzhenitsyn A. , Nobel Prize Lecture, 1970).
Avicenna also holds out a proposition that freedom consists in
some measure of restriction. He writes about the need of an
overseer, a prophet, to look over the affairs of the society with
an especial sense of authority to keep the varying elements of
the society in check. This resonates with the Solzhenitsyn
philosophy which contrasts the unlimited concept of freedom in
the Western culture and Marxist philosophy against the form of
Christian freedom which demands a certain leash on the person
for the collective good of the society. Freedom denotes a certain
sense of restriction with an eye single to the good of others
(Solzhenitsyn A. ). This as encapsulated in Avicenna’s social
theory has two basic premises; that man as created by God is
unable to live on his own, and it is inevitable for him to seek
out the social networking for survival (Sina, al-Najat, Vol. II, p.

11. 304) and that this coming together of individuals of conflicting
characters necessitates a benevolent leash on the tide of affairs
to prevent ultimate collision.
The impact of these reflective philosophies of Avicenna in the
Middle Ages was immense and far-reaching. The philosophies
cherished by Avicenna in large measure impacted on his culture
and society. The works of Avicenna and those of his fellow
philosopher Averroes for example single-handedly served to
ignite the Western curiosity about the philosophical greats like
Aristotle and Plato and triggered and paved the way for the
European Renaissance and its return to the long forgotten and
long lost treasures of Antiquity (Sarton, 1997). They also
contributed in a major way to the Muslim philosophy being
taken up in rhetoric and dissertation by renowned Arabic and
Muslim thinkers and writers such as Al-Ghazali (Jon, 2010).
In the West, the influence was just as great and birthed a
movement which came to bear the name of Latin Avicennism.
The influence was particularly felt in a select number of areas
under consideration. These included the umbrella categories of
Sciences and touching more specifically on Medicine, Literature
and Philosophy (Wickens, 1952). His theories also flung their
wings even to the gray topics of mysticism and alchemy. In
Medicine, his most overlapping contributions were registered in
the form the Encyclopaedia Canon of Medicine which ended up
being the reference material for physicians for a record six
centuries. His other related works and medically oriented
publications, The Book of Healing and The Book of Knowledge
gave him undeniable placement as undisputedly one of the
greatest thinkers of his generation. In philosophy using his
sharpened and massive intellect and penetrating inquisitiveness,
he delved into the areas of Aristotelian inquiry broaching such
subjects as metaphysics, philosophy, psychology, and religion.
His treatises on mysticism found their way into Muslim Spain
and became thought fodder for Oriental thinkers such as Al-
Ghazali and Suhrawardi who passed under the influence of his
philosophies in that area (Mehdawi, 1954). His influence was

12. one of the most enduring especially in as far as starting an era
of scientific revolution was concerned. Standing to his eternal
credit is the fact that in spite of quite some detractors and
intellectual opposition, Avicenna still succeeded in imprinting
on the canvas of history the mark of influence. It seems he had
the uncanny knack of providing even his bitterest despises some
of the thought silage to chew the cud on. So much so that in the
Western lands we find Dante unable to conceal his admiration
for the philosopher placing him in the Limbo alongside other
noble souls outside the pale of Christian revelation. In the Latin
West his pointers on metaphysics generated quite the stir and
became the basis of many a scholastic treatise while in the East
dominated by Islam it became a favorite anchor for argument.
He became a leading commentator on Aristotelian works (Cara,
1900).
Therefore, Ibn Sina or otherwise known as Avicenna stands as
an embodiment in a verity of Solzhenitsyn’s philosophy in the
cultural context of the Middle Ages flowing in the same train of
thought and similar practice patterns. The build of his
philosophy that had implicit and explicit relations to the
philosophy of Solzhenitsyn in many ways trickled down through
the centuries in a cascade of influences that is appreciable even
today as has been shown by this paper.
References
Abbdollah, H. (1999). Epistle Concerning the Soul and its
Resurrection. Office of Islamic Philosophy.
Arberry, A. (1995). Avicenna on Theology.
Aryeh, B. (2007). On Avicenna. Summer, 113-131.
Asimov, M. (1980). Avicenna: A Universal Genius. The
UNESCO Courier.
Cara, B. (1900). Avicenna. Paris.
Erickson, E. (1985). Solzhenitsyn- Voice from the Gulag.
Eternity 36, 10,23.
Germann, N. (2007). Avicenna and Afterwards.
Goodman, L. E. (2003). Islamic Humanism. Oxford Universty

13. Press.
Jansenns, J. (2004). Avicenna and the Quran. MIDEO 25, 177-
192.
Jon, M. (2010). Avicenna. Oxford University Press.
Mehdawi, Y. (1954). Bibliographie de Ibn Sina. Tehran.
Murray, J. (1951). Avicenna on Theology. The Wisdom of the
East Series.
Online, E. B. (2007).
Petterson, D. (2000). Solzhenitsyn's Call for Freedom,
Responsibility and Repentance. Christianity and Literature, 49.
Raftari, H. (2015). International Journal of Social Science and
Humanity, Vol. 5, No.8.
Remnick, D. (1994). The Exile Returns. The New Yorker.
Sarton, G. (1997). Introduction to the History of Science.
Seyyed, N. (2007). Avicenna. Britannica Encyclopaedia online.
Sharaf, S. A. (n.d.). Islamic Great Encyclopaedia, 1.1367.
Sina, I. (1906). Kitab al-siyasa.
Sina, I. (n.d.). al-Najat, Vol. II, p. 304.
Sina, I. (n.d.). al-Shifa.
Sina, I. (n.d.). Ilm al-Akhlaq.
Soheil, M. (1958). Avicenna: His Life and Works. Unwin
Brothers Limited.
Soheil, M. (2006). Avicenna: His Life and Works.
Solzhenitsyn, A. (n.d.). In Repentance and Self-limitation (pp.
527-555).
Solzhenitsyn, A. (1968). The First Circle.
Solzhenitsyn, A. (1968). The First Circle.
Solzhenitsyn, A. (1970). Nobel Prize Lecture.
Solzhenitsyn, A. (n.d.). From Under the Rubble p.136.
Wickens, G. (1952). Avicenna: Scientist and Philosopher.
London.