إسهام منهج الرازي التشكيكية في قوة التراث ووجوب اعتبار هذا المنهج في آرائه المتعارضة

One of the most influential names in the tradition of Islamic thought is Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī (d. 606/1210). He has solved many issues rationally with the method of tahkīk, and he has also problematized many issues from different angles with the method of taşkīk. For this reason, he is called the İmām al-mohaqikikīn and İmām al-musakkikīn. Whatever purpose it is used, the power of argumentation that it uses in many metaphysical and theological subjects also makes it İmām al-mütefekkirīn. At the forefront of these issues are the questions he raises about knowledge and method. Therefore, one of his greatest achievements, one of the issues that affected the thinkers and schools that came after him, is the problems he voiced about this field. In the history of Islamic thought, different approaches have emerged regarding the nature of knowledge such as irtisām, ittihad, izafet and keşf and very serious problems have been expressed about the ways of knowledge. One of them is the Menon paradox and its related solutions. This paradox is based on the redundancy of retrieving existing information and the impossibility of requesting information that does not exist. In order to get rid of this, either the theory of anamnesis or the septic and sophistic understandings will be accepted. In both cases, theoretical searches do not have a rational basis. Since Aristotle, thinkers who are outside of these two understandings have entered into a different search. The focus point of these searches is to find an epistemic basis for their existence and search, although not all knowledge is necessary. Rāzī the authority name of the theological-philosophical period, uses different expressions on this subject. In some of his works, he defends Meno's approach and states that all or some of the conception, assent and knowledge are zarurī or bedīhī while in some of his works he does not think differently from other theologians. Undoubtedly, it is Rāzī's statements of this type that prompted the thinkers who came after him to think the most. Contrary to those who see Rāzī's teşkīk method as a deficiency, especially on this subject, we think that he made very serious contributions to the tradition and that this method made him Imām al-Mutefekkirīn in his own time. al-Kutb al-Misrī (d. 618/1221), Sayf al-Din al-Amidi (d. 631/1233), Nasir al-Din al-Tusi (d. 672/1274), Sirāj Al-Dīn Al-Urmawî (d. 682/1283), Athir al-Din al-Abhari (d. 663/1265), Najm al-Din al-Qazwini al-Kātibi (d. 675/1277) Ibn al-Tilimsānī (d. 658/1260), Ibn Abī al-Ḥadīd (d. 656/1258), Ibn Khaldun (d. 808/1406) and Aḍud al-Dīn al-Ījī(d. 756/1355) are just a few of the thinkers who have expressed their views on this subject. Modern and classical commentators have interpreted these expressions in different ways. Many thinkers have based this issue on the axis of understanding of directions, thought that it is possible for something not to be known from an angle, therefore, he had a clearer stance than Rāzī, to whom he was a member. Therefore, he either criticized or revised Rāzī's statements in this regard. Many of those who do research on both Rāzī's relevant statements and the commentators' comments on this issue have overlooked two important issues. The first is that Rāzī does not have a single approach to this issue, but defends different issues in different texts. For this reason, the aspects and the understanding of proportionality on which those who criticize Rāzī on this issue are also found in his text. The second is that in Rāzī's logic and kalam system, bedahat and zarurat are different matters. Many classical and modern commentators did not pay attention to this issue. Although it is important that some researchers are aware of this distinction and try to justify it, it should be noted that this distinction is also incomplete in terms of finally resolving Rāzī's relevant statements. For these reasons, we will state that it is important to distinguish between zarurī and bedīhī at the point of solution of this issue, but we will show that Rāzī did not have a clear stance on this issue and that this issue was related to Rāzī's identity as both a mohaqik and a musakkik. For this purpose, in our study, we will try to justify that these interpretations are based on the works of Rāzī himself, after touching on the statements of Rāzī on the subject, the comments of the commentators related to these expressions, and the interpretations put forward by classical and modern researchers. Finally, we will see the dynamism that Rāzī's identity of Imām al-Musakkik, which creates a problem, has brought to the Islamic culture and tradition.