The evolution of the meaning and status of the reason in Imami Theology from the beginning to mid-Fifth century

One of the important issues in the history of Islamic theology is the meaning and position of the reason (ʿAql) and accepting or rejecting it as one of the sources of belief has a great impact on a belief system. This dissertation looks at the history of reason in the early Imamiyyah (until mid-fifth century) and focuses on two turning-points: emergence of theologians at the end of first century and relations between Imamiyyah theology and Muʿtazili theology in the forth century. It is shown in the first chapter that the Qurʾan and early hadiths (first century) pay attention to the epistemological aspects of the reason and invited the Muslims to using reason. By emergence of Imamiyyah theologians in the late first century, the first developments in the Imamiyyah intellectualism took place. In the ontological discussions, while Muhadiththun consider reason as a substance which is independent from human, theologians maintain that reason only is an instrument in human’s possession for acquiring knowledge. Muhadiththun oppose using reason in the discussion on the divine essence and attributes, but theologians used reason in different spheres of the topic of Tawhid and this arose Muhadiththun’s criticisms. In the topic of the relation between reason and revelatory sources, while all Imamiyyah scholars of that time accept the validity of both reason and imam. Muhadiththun used reason only to understand the revelatory teachings, but Imamiyyah theologians besides using reason to understand the religious teachings also employed it to explain and theorizing the teachings and to defend their beliefs against opponents. As to the topic of the relationship between reason and knowledge, Muhadiththun and many theologians maintain that the knowledge is iẓṭirārī (i.e. human by himself cannot acquire it). They believe that God places the knowledge in human’s heart and human’s reason acknowledges it after finding it rational. According to Hishām ibn Ḥakam and his disciples, however, this knowledge will become actual after reasoning. From the forth century onward, the relations between the Imamiyyah theology and Muʿtazili theology prepare the way for coming developments in regard with the issue of reason. Although Imamiyyah scholars of the school of Qom, such as Kulaynī and Ṣadūq, try to resist this current through reviving the theological thoughts of the school of Kufa and having a minimal interaction with Muʿtazili School, but the Imamiyyah scholars of the school of Baghdad took large steps towards approximating the theology of Imamiyyah and Muʿtazila. In regard with the nature of reason, Shaykh Mufid, like theologians of the school of Kufa and dislike Muʿtazilites, regarded reason as an accident (ʿaraḍ) that God has put in human beings and by which humans understand rational affairs and distinguish between vice and virtue. Sayyid Murtaza and other Mufid’s pupils, like Muʿtazilites, say that reason is merely a collection of self-evident knowledges that is the primary foundation for theological reasoning and recognizing good and badness. As to epistemology, scholars of the theological school of Baghdad (if we dismiss Ḥasan ibn Mūsā Nawbakhtī) had a closer relationship with Muʿtazilites because they accepted the theory that the knowledge is acquirable not iẓṭirārī. Meanwhile Shaykh Mufid followed his predecessors as to the relation between reason and revelation and disagreed with Muʿtazilites. But Sayyid Murtada criticized his master and, like Muʿtazilites, said that reason does not need revelation. Abu al-Fatḥ Karājakī agreed with Shaykh Mufid in all discussions, however other pupils of Mufid abandon his thoughts and followed Sayyid Murtada.