*Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī described Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī’s Sharḥ on Avicenna’s Ishārāt as a jarḥ (“calumny”, or literally, “injury”) rather than a sharḥ (“commentary”), and this label would become almost proverbial in later discussions of Rāzī’s role in the history of Avicennism. A survey of the introductions to Ishārāt-commentaries composed during the 6th/12th to the 8th/14th centuries, many of them still available only as manuscripts, helps us put Ṭūsī’s remark in historical perspective, and contributes to recent attempts to reevaluate Rāzī’s role in propelling the Avicennian tradition forward.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
For an overview see J. Robson, “al-Djarḥ wa ʾl-taʿdīl”, Encyclopaedia of Islam (Second Edition) (Leiden: Brill, 1960–2007), Vol. ii, 462.
See, for example, S. Schmidtke, Theologie, Philosophie und Mystik im zwölferschitischen Islam des 9./15. Jahrhunderts: die Gedankenwelten des Ibn Abī Ğumhūr al-Aḥṣāʾī (um 838/1434–35—nach 906/1501) (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 5–6.
A. Shihadeh, “From al-Ghazālī to al-Rāzī: 6th/12th Century developments in Muslim philosophical theology”, Arabic Sciences and Philosophy 15/1 (2005), 141–179, The Teleological Ethics of Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī (Leiden, 2006) and now “Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī’s response to Sharaf al-Dīn al-Masʿūdī’s Critical Commentary on Avicenna’s Ishārāt”, The Muslim World 104 (2014), 1–61 (I saw this article only when my own was in proofs); H. Eichner, The Post-Avicennian Philosophical Tradition and Islamic Orthodoxy: Philosophical and Theological summae in Context (unpublished Habilitationsschrift: Halle, 2009), especially Chapter iii (“Observations on Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī’s method”, 61–80). See also T. Street, “Concerning the life and works of Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī”, in P. Riddell and T. Street, eds, Islam: Essays on Scripture, Thought and Society: A Festschrift in Honour of Anthony H. Johns (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 135–46, and F. Griffel, “On Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī’s life and the patronage he received”, Journal of Islamic Studies 18/3 (2007), 313–344. On the evolution of Avicennism more generally, see G. Endress, “Reading Avicenna in the madrasa: Intellectual genealogies and chains of transmission of philosophy and the sciences in the Islamic East”, in J. Montgomery, ed., Arabic Theology, Arabic Philosophy: From the Many to the One, Essays in Celebration of Richard M. Frank, (Leuven: Peeters, 2006), 371–422, and R. Wisnovsky, “Avicenna’s Islamic reception”, in P. Adamson, ed., Interpreting Avicenna: Critical Essays (Cambridge, 2013), 190–213.
I first made this argument in 2005: R. Wisnovsky, “Avicenna and the Avicennian tradition”, in P. Adamson and R. Taylor, eds, The Cambridge Companion to Arabic Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge U.P. 2005), 92–136 at 111–113 and 130–133.
All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 1001 | 155 | 8 |
Full Text Views | 268 | 9 | 0 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 153 | 25 | 2 |
*Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī described Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī’s Sharḥ on Avicenna’s Ishārāt as a jarḥ (“calumny”, or literally, “injury”) rather than a sharḥ (“commentary”), and this label would become almost proverbial in later discussions of Rāzī’s role in the history of Avicennism. A survey of the introductions to Ishārāt-commentaries composed during the 6th/12th to the 8th/14th centuries, many of them still available only as manuscripts, helps us put Ṭūsī’s remark in historical perspective, and contributes to recent attempts to reevaluate Rāzī’s role in propelling the Avicennian tradition forward.
All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 1001 | 155 | 8 |
Full Text Views | 268 | 9 | 0 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 153 | 25 | 2 |