فصلنامه نقد و نظر
سال هفدهم شماره 2 (پیاپی 66، تابستان 1391)

Abu Sahl and Abu Mohammad Nobakhti—two of the most prominent theologians of the Baghdad’s School—have a significant role in the history of Imamis’ theology. On the one hand, they inherited the theological school of Kufa and on the other, they prepared the ground for the theological school of Baghdad (Sheykh Mufid and his pupils). At the same time, the theological views of Nobakhtis are in some respects different from the two schools. Since almost none of these two theologians’ works has arrived us, in this paper we wil examine the available reports of their views and works and seek to recover their theological views regarding different theological issues and explain their ideas particularly where they are different from the views of their priors or posteriors. Nobakhtis’ views were sometimes in harmony with views of the School of Kufa and were sometimes a beginning of the theological views of the School of Baghdad, which comes from turning away from the theological views of the previous theologians.

Shiite Mutazilis are some of Shiite theologians who had Itizali ideas before bcoming Shiites. Abu Isa Warraq, Ibn Ravandi, Ibn Qibah Razi, Ibn Momallek Isfahani and Ibn Fasanjas were among the figures of this group of theologians. They adopted the Imamis’ ideas with knowledge of the theological system of Mutazilis and they tried to defend and explain the theological doctrines of Imamis. This attempt brought with it changes in the thoughts of Imamiah, directing them towards Itizali thoughts. The paper is concerned with an investigation and verification of this thesis. It seems that the scholarly community of Imamis often had a positive view about Shiite Mutazilis, but all of them cannot be treated in the same way. Two of the most prominent figures of this current—Abu Isa Warraq and Ibn Ravandi—were heirs of Imamis’ theology in Kufa with anti-Mutazili tendencies. The emphasis on the intellectual foundation of Imamiah, that is, the issue of Imamat, constituted the center of the ideas of Shiite Mutazilis, but this common feature was not necessarily followed by the same theological approach among them regarding monotheism and theodicy.

The schools of Kufa and Baghdad might count as the peak of the development and flourishment of Imami theology, but in the period between the two schools of Kufa and Baghdad (the beginning of the Minor Hiddenness to the age of Sheykh Mufid), the Imami theology did not enjoy the necessary geographical focus, perhaps because of the inappropriateness of some conditions. The paper seeks to introduce the Imami theologians of this age and their theological views and show that there were prominent theological figures in this period who were very influential, such as the inpressing influence of Ibn Jirooyah on the conversion of Ibn Momallek Jorjani from Mutazili to Shiism. This is in contrary with the views of people who hold that in this historical period, there were no Imami theologians.

The treatment of Mufid with the narrative heritage of Imamis and the extent to which he exploits this heritage with regards to theological issues is varying. An examination and comparison of his theological views with the narrative heritage of Imamis demonstrates that while exploiting this valuable heritage, Mufid also had a critical and selective attitude towards the use of some narrations in theological issues. His critical approach can be seen in issues such as innate knowledge, the world of Zar and the creation of the souls. In such issues Mufid distanced himself away from the well-known views in the narrations and sometimes completely denied them. His selective approach can be seen in such issues as will, determinism (jabr) and volitionalism (tafviz), Istita’ah, fatalism (qadae), and bada.

Contrary to the usual literature, consensus not only applies to the Islamic jurisprudence (Fiqh), but also counts as one of the most important devices for theological inferences from the viewpoint of the theologians. Among these theologians is Sayyid Murtaza who—with a foundational establishment for his theological thought—could employ consensus in his theological foundations. In his view, consensus is a certain, knowledge-giving device that can discover the ideas of Imams. His reliance on consensus in the theological issues distanced him away from Mutazilis in many theological issues. This paper tries to explain the nature of consensus, its different features and its significance in the theological thoughts of Sayyid Murtaza.

The intellectual current called the ‘people of narrations’ has been one of the most significant intellectual currents in the first centuries and were one of the serious rivals of imamis. This paper investigates the different periods of the People of Narration from their formation to their flourishment and then to their relative annihilation in the era of Al-e Booyeh which was simultaneous with the theological school of Imamis in Baghdad, and it also investigates their historical developments with methods of investigating the history of thoughts. While pointing to their most important beliefs and the influential leaders of each period, the paper concludes that the main current of the People of Narration, in addition to the obedience of the narrations and staying content with apparent meanings and strict opposition to kalam and interpretation (ta’vil), maintained that they have avoided the dilemma of ‘assimilation’, ‘incarnation’, and ‘determinism’ by taking the quality to be unknown and taking the questions about it to be heretical. In spite of this fact, there were two other intellectual attitudes along with the main current of the People of Narration: the attitude of radical apparentists who did not avoid charges of incarnation, assimilation and determinism and were metaphorically knwon as ‘redundants’ (Hashviah); and the attitude of those people of narration who had tendencies towards interpretivism and kalam; both these currents were rejected by the main current of the People of Narration.

A comparison of the thoughts of Abu Sahl and Abu Muhammad Nobakhti--who are accused of Itizal--with Sayyid Murtada can help us have a better grasp of the Kalami School of Baghdad and its intellectual developments and clarify some ambiguities in the history of Imamiah Kalam. Hence, in this paper in addition to the comparison of the method and the content of their Kalam and a statement of their differences, we will mention their convergences with Mutazili thoughts and finally, we will show that Sayyid Murtada is more close to Itizali thoughts than Banu Nobakht.