OHB_575Wpp_US Template Standardized 25-05-2016 and Last Modiied on 13-06-2016 Chapter 14 Al-R ā z ī ’s (d. 1210) Commentary on Avicenna’s Pointers The Confluence of Exegesis and Aporetics Ayman Shihadeh The terms of the prevalent interpretation of al-Rāzī’s Sharḥ al-Ishārāt (Commentary on [Avicenna’s] Pointers) have largely been dictated by an entrenched grand narrative on the broader history of medieval Islamic thought, within which the Sharḥ is read, oten explic- itly, in the shadow of other “classics.” he book tends to be juxtaposed with al-Ghazālī’s criticism of Avicennan philosophy in his Tahāfut al-falāsifa, and contrasted to al- Ṭūsī’s defense of Avicennan philosophy in Ḥall mushkilāt al-Ishārāt, the supercommentary in which he responds to al-Rāzī. 1 It is assumed that al-Rāzī’s work was efectively a sequel to the Tahāfut, and as such a second instalment in a sustained attack on Avicenna’s teach- ings in defense of Ashʿarī orthodoxy, and that thanks in large part to al- Ṭūsī’s eforts, his predecessors’ attack did not result in a complete rout of philosophy, which consequently managed to survive in some form or other. his assumption is self-fulilling, hence the oten selective coverage of available studies (with notable recent exceptions), reinforcing the portrayal of al-Rāzī merely as the Ashʿarī critic of Avicenna. he laws and dangers of this account are gradually becoming apparent. For starters, it is a decidedly reductionist straitjacket, which ofers a distorted, at best partial, perspective. 2 1 For instance: “Al-Rāzī, writing as an Ashʿarite theologian, devoted a large portion of his commentary to criticising Ibn Sīnā’s philosophical doctrines in much the same manner as al-Ghazālī … had done previously in his Tahāfut al-Falāsifah. Al- Ṭūsī, writing as a philosopher some years ater al-Rāzī, felt obliged to devote much of his own commentary to answering al-Rāzī’s criticisms and to defending the doctrines of Ibn Sīnā” (Heer 1992, 111). Similar views are echoed in more recent studies. However, see now Wisnovsky 2013, which came to my attention ater writing the present chapter. Wisnovsky’s paper and this chapter intersect at some points, but ofer signiicantly diferent perspectives on the subject. 2 Although this grand narrative is partly a modern construct, portraying al-Rāzī simply as a refuter has medieval roots. For instance, the overworn designation “the chief doubter” (imām al-mushakkikīn), popularized by Hossein Nasr, originates in Safavid polemics. OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Mon Jun 13 2016, NEWGEN 03_9780199917389_chapter15-24.indd 296 6/13/2016 9:55:06 PM