A Comparative Study of the Theological and Compositional Approaches of Shaykh al-Mufid and Humsi al-Razi

Abstract

Despite differences in their specific views on the socio-historical context of their time and society, Imami theologians generally share consistent foundations in matters of faith. The objective of this article is to examine and compare the theological and compositional methodologies of Shaykh al-Mufid and Humsi al-Razi—representatives of the Baghdad and Rayy schools, respectively—as well as the nature and extent of their influences from the Mu'tazilite school and their modes of intellectual engagement with Mu'tazilite thought. In this comparative framework, the degree to which reason and general philosophical principles are employed in the validation of theological propositions is also analyzed. The research methodology is based on direct engagement with the primary works of the two scholars, with an effort to avoid generalizations. According to the findings, both Shaykh al-Mufid and Humsi al-Razi share several key theological principles: assigning a special status to reason, utilizing rational argumentation to substantiate doctrinal claims, rejecting the probative force of solitary traditions (khabar al-wāḥid) in theological matters, adopting kalām (Islamic theology), and interpreting anthropomorphic divine attributes through figurative exegesis (taʾwīl). However, philosophical principles are noticeably absent in the doctrinal arguments of Shaykh al-Mufid, while Humsi al-Razi extensively employs them throughout his works.