Reflecting the differences between rationalist and narrative approaches in the analysis of the idea of al-Badā’ Reading the Two Commentaries of al-Kulayni's kitab al-Kāfī in the Safavid Era

Thinkers have taken different approaches to religious narratives and propositions. Since each approach has different effects and consequences, it is necessary to examine them and to identify their different consequences. The two main approaches in dealing with religious narratives and propositions are the philosophical rationalist approach and the narrative approach. In this study, we want to use a comparative method to examine and implement Mulla Sadra’s approach as a representative of the school of philosophical rationalism and the Majlesi’s approach as the representative of the school of narrative about the concept of ‘Badā’’ in the book of Usul-e Kāfi. In this way, we want to gain a better understanding of each of these two approaches and to highlight their differences and distinctions. These two thinkers lived in the Safavid era, and their theoretical approaches indicate the intellectual confrontation between the two currents of rationalism and narrativeism in that period. The study hypothesis is that these two approaches differ in components such as how to explain religious teachings, how to expand the problem, how to be sure of expression or caution, and how to deal with confusing narratives. However, one can also see commonalities between the owners of the two approaches in confronting narratives; similarities such as avoiding the denial of narrations, relying on Ta’wil, and confronting narrations based on presuppositions.