The link calls them "fabricated stories" and "legends," due to their emergence three centuries after his death. That would be like two biographies released this year on George Washington containing one sentence about how he sailed to China in his teenage years. Not a "strong possibility."
I have no idea what manuscripts you're claiming say the Greeks are in full possession of their philosophical heritage, but that is obviously false when you think about how many works have been lost over the millennia. Even being in possession of them wouldn't change that they were being ignored though, the whole "lack of commentary until the thirteenth century" bit.
Maybe, I could have phrased that better. What I meant was the assumption in the quotes listed in your link all indicate that Byzantium is where people would travel to learn Greek philosophy. Therefore even if incorrect the assumption would be that Al-Farabi would have traveled to Byzantium which was the center of Greek learning aside from a few marginal Nestorian Christians in the Caliphate at the time. There is no indication anywhere that the reverse was true.
I agree that no new commentaries were written and that Aristotle was considered a relatively minor philosopher during this time. But it's not true to state that the Caliphate was responsible for preserving his writings or that he was 'forgotten'.
However as I stated above this in my opinion is the correct way to approach Aristotle. Aristotle should be relegated to a minor role as both orthodox Christianity and later Avicennism did.
There is nothing in the biography about the Byzantine Empire at all, they're talking about the benefits of learning Greek play is the native Greek. And you're still missing the point that these were twelfth century writings, the Byzantine Empire they write of is not the one of Al-Farabi.
At no point in this tedious discussion have I said his writing was only preserved in the Caliphate, nor that he was ever "forgotten." I've made it very clear his ideas were ignored outside of Islamic philosophy, and it is contact with that philosophy that led to the it's influence in Christian philosophy. From my first post on this subject,
"I can own a book my entire life, it doesn't make me an expert on it and people I interact with won't gain an interest in it."
Good for you. Personally I find the whole "knowledge is divine insight" thing to be rubbish, but I can see why it would appeal to theistic philosophy.
This was all official dogma and part of the religious canon throughout the Byzantine empire. To say Islamic philosophy lead to the influence of Aristotle in Christianity simply isn't true. You've already admitted as much by saying that Nestorian Christianity was heavily Aristotelian. However that is not to say that later Islamic commentaries were not considered very useful. It's the unfortunate influence of Aquinas that lead to the later Aristotle fetish in the west.
I have no idea what manuscripts you're claiming say the Greeks are in full possession of their philosophical heritage, but that is obviously false when you think about how many works have been lost over the millennia. Even being in possession of them wouldn't change that they were being ignored though, the whole "lack of commentary until the thirteenth century" bit.