A Comparative Survey on Imamate from the Viewpoint of Allama Hilli and Fazl Ibn Roozbehan with an Emphasis on the Books Nahj-ul-Hagh and Ibtal-ul-Batil

It has long been a place of dispute amongst the Muslim whether Imamate is a position to be granted to Imam through election or appointment; on the one hand the Imamyya School, based on a rational explanation, holds that Imam is to be immediately appointed by the Word of God and His Messenger (Peace Be upon Him); They firstly argue that like all other mercies He is expected to bestow, the appointment of Imam is a mercy of God so that to amend His servants affairs, and secondly since Quran requires Imam to be innocent and superior and God is the only aware of the quality of everyone in the universe, He just has the right to endorse the Imamate of Imam, the viewpoint affirmed by Allama Hilli in his Nahj-ul-Hagh. On the other hand the Sunni School considers that there is not any text denoting the appointment of Imam neither by God nor by the prophet and the designation of Imam is an election to be done by the people, the viewpoint affirmed by Fazl Ibn Roozbehan in Ibtal-ul-Batil. This thesis comparatively surveys viewpoints of the two scholars, representatives of two mainstreams of thought in the Muslim world, firstly in order to clarify the original thought of Shia, secondly to respond the enemies of Imamyya School and thirdly to revise their probable commonalities in order to be employed for the proximity of Shia and Sunni Muslims.