ĀMŪZEH-YE AMR-UN BAYN AMRAYN DAR ANDĪSHEH-YE IMĀMIYYEH-YE NAKHUSTĪN [THE DOCTRINE OF THE INTERMEDIATE POSITION IN EARLY IMĀMĪ THOUGHT]. By Seyyed Hasan Taleghani. Qom, Iran: Dar al-Hadith Publications. 2019, Pp. 230. Paper.
Āmūzeh-ye Amr-un bayn Amrayn dar Andīsheh-ye Imāmiyyeh-ye Nakhustīn (The Doctrine of the Intermediate Position in Early Imāmī Thought) is authored by Hujjat al-Islam Dr. Seyyed Hasan Taleghani, holding a PhD in Theological Sects from the University of Religions and Denominations (Qom, Iran) and a seminary background from Qom, where he studied under grand Ayatollahs. Currently serving as the Head of Thematic Studies at the Kalām (Theology) of Ahl al-Bayt Research Institute, Taleghani specializes in the “History of Theology”.
Dr. Taleghani has published extensively on the history of Imāmī theology and the specific issue of human agency. Some of his other significant contributions include: Jostārhāyī dar Madrasah-ye Kalāmī-ye Qom (Essays on the Theological School of Qom), Fāʿiliyyat-e Insān dar Madrasah-ye Kalāmī-ye Kūfah (Human Agency in the Theological School of Kufa), Taʾthīr-e Andīshehhā-ye Falsafī bar Qirāʾat-e Fakhr-e Rāzī az Naẓariyyih-ye Kasb (The Influence of Philosophical Thoughts on Fakhr al-Rāzī’s Reading of the Theory of Acquisition [Kasb], Taʾammulī Dobāreh dar Nisbat-e Tafwīḍ be Muʿtazilah (A Reconsideration of Attributing Delegation [Tafwīḍ] to the Muʿtazila), Chīstī-ye ʿAql dar ʿAql-gearāyī-ye Muʿtazilah (The Nature of Reason in Muʿtazilite Rationalism).
The selection of this book is significant because it addresses the pivotal theological dilemma of human agency versus divine will within Shiʿi Islam. Unlike many works that approach this topic through abstract philosophy, this study fills a crucial academic gap by reconstructing the early Imāmī perspective using a historical-theological method, specifically focusing on the era before the influx of Greek philosophical thought into Shiʿi theology.
This monograph provides a comprehensive historical reconstruction of the doctrine of Amr-un bayn al-Amrayn (The Intermediate Position)—the signature Shiʿi solution to the problem of free will and predestination—as it was understood in the first four centuries of Islamic history. The book is part of a larger macro-project titled “Re-recognition of Imāmī Theological Thought” at the Research Institute of Qurʾān and Ḥadīth, which aims to explain original Imāmī theology and hot it is distinguished from later philosophical and mystical understandings.
The core objective of the book is to analyze how early Imāmī scholars and the Imāms (a) themselves articulated human voluntary agency (Fāʿiliyya) in contrast to the extremes of Jabr (absolute predestination) and Tafwīḍ (absolute delegation of power to humans). The author argues that understanding this requires stripping away the complex philosophical terminologies of later centuries to reveal the original scriptural and rational discourse of the early community.
The book is organized into a preface and four main chapters:
- The Problem of Free Will: Roots and Confrontations: This chapter explores the historical origins of the debate on human free will, examining the early theological milieu and the conflict between determinists and proponents of free will that necessitated a third path.
- The Emergence of the Doctrine: Here, the author traces the genesis of the Amr-un bayn al-Amrayn theory, documenting its initial formulation and the historical context of its transmission.
- The Doctrine in Imāmī Thought: This is the core of the book, where Taleghani details how the Imāmī school specifically cultivated this idea. He utilizes ḥadīth sources from the minor occultation period (al-Ghaybat al-Ṣughrā; 260-329 AH) and later periods before the 5th century AH, arguing that these compilations, along with Rijāl (biographical evaluation) records, offer the most reliable window into the pre-5th century mindset.
- Comparison with Rival Theories: The final chapter juxtaposes the Imāmī view against contemporary rival schools, such as the Muʿtazila and the early precursors to Ashʿarism, highlighting the unique nuances of the Ahl al-Bayt’s approach.
Taleghani employs a strict “History of Theology” methodology. He explicitly avoids the apologetic approach of standard Kalām which seeks to prove a dogma using abstract reason. Instead, he engages in historical description and analysis. He relies heavily on the methodology of narrators (Ruwāt), positing that if a reliable narrator transmitted a ḥadīth without objection, the content of that ḥadīth represents the theological belief of that scholar. This allows him to reconstruct the intellectual landscape of early Shiʿism using historical reports and primary ḥadīth corpora, bypassing the anachronistic application of later philosophical systems on early texts.
The book holds a distinct position in the field of Islamic studies because it challenges the ahistorical reading of theology. Often, contemporary understanding of Amr-un bayn al-Amrayn is colored by centuries of philosophical interpretation. Taleghani’s work restores the “original intent” of the early tradition. By focusing on the first four centuries, the author separates the scriptural and early rationalist theology from the later approaches.
A major strength of the work is its methodological discipline. The author does not force a harmonization between revelation and philosophy but allows the historical texts to speak for themselves. Furthermore, the rigorous use of Rijāl studies to validate theological claims adds a layer of empirical solidity to the arguments. The clear distinction made between the “theology of the presence” (era of the Imāms (a)) and the “theology of the occultation” provides a nuanced timeline often missing in general surveys.
In conclusion, Amr-un bayn al-Amrayn dar Andīsheh-ye Imāmiyyeh-ye Nakhustīn is a scholarly work that successfully excavates one of the most complex Shiʿi doctrines from the layers of history. Dr. Taleghani succeeds in his goal of presenting a pristine picture of early Imāmī belief regarding human free will, distinct from the determinism of the Traditionalists and the rationalism of the Muʿtazila.
