A Comparative Study of the Nature and Scope of Reason in Understanding Religion According to Mullā Amīn and ‘Allāmah Ṭabāṭabā’ī

From the perspective of every Muslim, righteous deed is based on knowledge of religion, and every knowledge requires the tools of understanding. The nature and scope of the power of reason as the most important tool for understanding in humans have been subjects of discussion and debate since ancient times. In the Islamic world, from the period of translation of Greek philosophy and logic and the first compilation of philosophical and logical books, this discussion has been the center of disputes among literalists, theologians, and philosophers. Among Shia Muslims, this dispute escalated with Mullā Amīn Astarābādī's writing of "Fawāyid al-Madaniyyah" and the Usūlī scholars also entered the discussion. Among philosophers, Mullā Ṣadrā, claiming to reconcile wisdom and divine law, presented the transcendent philosophy system. Our goal is to examine the criticisms to Mullā Amīn based on transcendent philosophy according to the views of ‘Allāmah Ṭabāṭabā’ī. The spirit of literalism is strongly flowing in the Islamic seminary and certain thoughts today, and therefore, critiquing the foundations of this current is crucial. Our method involves first analyzing the concept of reason based on its two components; its nature, and the scope of its power in understanding religion, and then conducting internal and external critiques. In internal critique, it can be said: Firstly, the lack of use of reason and logic is incompatible with their own scientific behavior, which is based on these two. Secondly, the verses and traditions that are the source of knowledge according to Mullā Amīn have encouraged us to use reason. Thirdly, the criticism of reason in traditions pertains to the analogical approach in fiqh, and not logical reasoning. In external critique, it can be said that differences among philosophers cannot be the evidence of incorrect use of reason since differences in jurisprudence will also have the same consequence. The transcendent philosophy has observed moderation in determining the place of reason, but Mullā Amīn has placed it lower than its position in verses and traditions.