A Comparative Analysis of the Dialectical and Synthetic Approaches of al-Shaykh al-Mufid and Homsi Razi

Abstract

Notwithstanding the variations in their perspectives on the era and community they inhabited, Imamiyyah scholars exhibit a consensus in addressing theological inquiries, with only slight variations in their core doctrines. This article seeks to scrutinize and contrast the dialectical and synthetic methodologies of al-Shaykh al-Mufid and Homsi Razi, eminent figures from the Baghdad and Rey schools, respectively. Furthermore, it investigates the extent of their intellectual debt to the Mu'tazilites and their divergence from the Mu'tazila, which illuminates their respective reliance on reason and broad philosophical tenets in substantiating theological assertions.

The research methodology entailed a meticulous examination of primary texts, with a deliberate avoidance of sweeping generalizations. The study's conclusions highlight the esteemed role of reason, its application in theological argumentation, the dismissal of solitary narratives as authoritative in matters of faith, and the utilization of theological science and the exegesis of narrative attributes as commonalities between al-Shaykh al-Mufid and Homsi Razi. Moreover, it reveals that while al-Shaykh al-Mufid eschews the use of philosophical principles in defending Islamic creeds, Homsi Razi frequently incorporates them.

Keywords: al-Shaykh al-Mufid, Homsi Razi, Mu'tazila, Rationalism, Traditionalism