50 CHAPTER TWO
generally diffi cult to know where Maimonides would fi nd a group of
Jewish physicians to fi t this description.^89
On the other hand, another individual, mentioned in that same letter
to Ibn Tibbon as “only a physician,” is very suitable to this description.
He is the tenth- century Abu Bakr al- Razi, who was indeed renowned as
a physician, but was also a phi losopher. Like Ibn al- Rawandi, Razi was
noted for his claim that prophecy is opposed to Divine wisdom, and for
the contemptuous remarks he made against the prophets. Like Ibn al-
Rawandi, Razi became an archetype of the heretic, but his reputation
was more widespread in philosophic circles. Of course, Razi did not
write about the midrashic exegeses of the Talmudic Sages, but we do
know of contemptuous remarks that he directed against religious sages
in general (and probably Muslims in par ticular), whom he calls “the
bearded goats.”^90 It seems that, in his portrayal of those who hold the
words of the Sages in contempt while understanding them literally, Mai-
monides incorporated the image of Razi, as a ste reotype of one who
mocks the tradition with the arrogance of the man of science and philoso-
phy. It is not that Maimonides had any reason to think that Razi’s words
or his approach had any hold among the community of Jewish physicians.
Rather, as Maimonides was engaging in typologies, and attempting to
portray clear-cut types in relation to their understanding of the words of
the Sages, he tried to build the image of one who has contempt for the
words of the Sages in the sharpest and most extreme way possible. The
image of the physician- heretic Razi served him as a model for this
purpose.
In putting forward this suggestion, it is worth mentioning here the fact
that, unlike Ibn al- Rawandi, who is not mentioned by Maimonides, Razi
is singled out by Maimonides for severe and explicit criticism. In the sec-
ond part of the Guide, Maimonides attacks at length the “ravings” (had-
hayanat) of Razi.^91 In chapter 12 of this book, he quotes the remarks of
(^89) The Spanish Muslim theologian Ibn Hazm (d. 1064) mentions two Jewish physicians
who upheld the “Equivalence of Proofs” (see K. al- Fisal fil-milal wal-nihal V, 119), but no
contempt toward the Sages is discernable in their words. As suggested by J. van Ess (“Dis-
putationpraxis in der islamischen Theologie,” Revue des Etudes Islamiques 44 [1976], 47),
the Jewish interlocutors of Ibn Hazm probably reverted to this argument as a con venient
defense in an uneasy polemical situation. They thus cannot be taken to be authentic repre-
sentatives of a skeptical trend within Spanish Judaism, as suggested by M. Fierro, “Ibn
Hazm et le Zindiq juif,” Revue du Monde Musulman et de la Mediterrannée 63– 64 (1992):
81–89.
(^90) See P. Kraus, “Raziana,” Orientalia n.s. 4 (1935): 300– 304; 5 (1936): 35– 56, 358– 78;
Stroumsa,Freethinkers of Medieval Islam, chap. 3. The question whether Razi was indeed
a freethinker or only portrayed as such is marginal to our discussion here; as far as Maimo-
nides is concerned, Razi’s heresy is an undisputed fact.
(^91) On this term and its meaning, see chap. 5.