Comparison of Theological positions of Sheikh Mufeed and Allāmah Hilli on Resurrection

Sheikh Mufeed (D. 413 A.H) and Allāmah Hilli (D. 726 A.H), the prominent theologians of Baghdad and Hilla Schools respectively, held different positions on theological issues, despite both being classified as rationalist theologians. Contrary to Sheikh Mufeed, Allāmah Hilli^, s theology is philosophical and under the influence of Khwajeh Toosi (D. 672 A.H). In this thesis we try to compare eschatological positions ofSheikh Mufeed and Allāmah Hilli, shedding light on their commonalities and differences. Although methodologically both of the theologians utilized reason and Narration as their sources to study on resurrection, most parts of Hilli^, s works were specialized to general and rational discussions, utilizing philosophical principles for reasoning that was a peculiarity of his method. Moreover there are some commonalities between their works in terms of the content such as believing in the immateriality of the soul, explicitly stated by Sheikh Mufeed in contrary to Hilli. Physicality and spirituality of the resurrection were accepted by both of the theologians who similarly rejected the theory of Intercession (Shifā,at) held by the Mu,tazilah. They both also agreed on the existence of purgatorial and present heaven and hell and rejected the theory of Ihbāt (i.e. one^, s misdeeds nullify his or her previous good deeds). Another field of difference between the two theologians^,eschatological studies is that of subjects in which Sheikh Mufeed, in contrary to Hilli, goes more in detail using narrative reasoning. Finally there are some differences between the two theologians on some other subjects such as Movāfāt (To die as a believer).