This first chapter in the series of three turns to one – if not the – foundational Islamic philosopher, al-Fārābī, and his use and conception of fiṭra. His engagement is marked by an interest in logic and politics and would influence the philosophical engagements with fiṭra for generations. More specifically, the author shows how al-Fārābī invokes fiṭra to convey fundamental insights about human nature and society learned from his engagement with Greek philosophy, including his adaptations of Aristotle’s logic and Plato’s political vision, to an Arabic-speaking and potentially Islamic audience. By using fiṭra, rather than ‘nature’ or physis (ṭabʿ and/or ṭabīʿā ) at certain points, al-Fārābī is able to keep an implied connection to the creator God. Fiṭra, then, was not only a convenient term for communicating ideas about virtue, logic, and politics drawn from Greek thought to Arabic-speaking audiences; al-Fārābī’s use of the term also points to what might be “Islamic” about his apparently “Greek” philosophy.

A detailed analysis of Strauss’s first substantial commentary on a writing of Alfarabi, titled “Fârâbî’s Plato,” is provided in Chapter 3. This rather obscure, yet fundamental writing of Strauss contains some of his most important ideas about Alfarabi, his relationship with Plato’s philosophy and religion, Alfarabi’s view on esotericism, and what he later calls zetetic philosophy.

The Introduction provides a panoramic view of Strauss’s thought, with a special emphasis on his interest in Islamic political thought. This summary presentation will focus on what I call the four pillars of Strauss’s intellectual project: (1) Reason and Revelation; (2) Ancients and Moderns; (3) The Theologico-Political Problem; (4) Esotericism. All these themes have a direct relationship to Strauss’s writings on Islamic thought and his biographically documented interest in the writings of the Falāsifa. This summary presentation is followed by a critical assessment of previous studies on Strauss’s interest in Islamic thought. The objective of this critical assessment is, first of all, to discuss some of the common misconceptions regarding Strauss’s writings on Islamic philosophy in those writings which are mainly critical of his scholarship. The second objective is to show that, despite some very important studies on Strauss’s scholarship on Islamic thought, there is a significant gap existing in the scholarship.

A detailed examination of Strauss’s interpretation of Alfarabi’s summary of Plato’s Laws is the subject of Chapter 4. Strauss’s complex article on Alfarabi’s summary, which complements his earlier “Fârâbî’s Plato,” has received minimal attention. The original manuscript of Strauss’s article, found among the Leo Strauss Papers, can substantially improve our understanding of this text and provide the opportunity for a more detailed commentary: The paragraphs of this manuscript are numbered, and contain headings which are absent in the published version of the article. My interpretation of this article will take these aspects of the original manuscript, as well as Strauss’s other writings and correspondence on Alfarabi and his course transcripts, into account.

The chapter discusses the first of the fourteen books of Galens De Methodo Medendi in its Arabic summary (Jawami'), the summary's epistemological approach and its parallels and differences in comparision to the original Galenic work. Its ultimate source is placed within the Late Antique Alexandrian tradition of teaching philosophy and medicine, especially the introductions to philosophy and medicine, the so-called Prolegomena.