دانشگاه اصفهان الهیات تطبیقی 2008-9651 مقالات آماده انتشار 2026 06 23 A Comparative Study of Philosophical Theology in the Thought of Mulla Sadra and Allameh Tabataba’i A Comparative Study of Philosophical Theology in the Thought of Mulla Sadra and Allameh Tabataba’i 1 18 30541 10.22108/coth.2026.146834.2040 FA Fatemeh Abdollahpour Sangchi PhD. Student, Department of Theoretical Foundations of Islam, Faculty of Islamic Thought and Education, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran Ali Asgariyazdi Professor, Department of Theoretical Foundations of Islam, Faculty of Islamic Thought and Education, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran Journal Article 2025 10 04 One of the most significant issues in philosophy is the knowledge of God, which is regarded as the highest form of knowledge. According to Mulla Sadra, knowledge of the Necessary Being is innate, since human beings, in times of hardship, naturally and instinctively turn toward the Ultimate Cause and the One who facilitates all affairs, even if they are not consciously aware of doing so. From the perspective of Allameh Tabataba’i, the knowledge of God is likewise innate to human beings. Through their God-given nature (fiṭrah), individuals affirm the existence of a Creator for the world who is free from all imperfections. Knowledge of Him further requires that one not regard oneself as independent in one’s actions, but rather as fundamentally dependent upon Him. This study seeks to provide a comparative evaluation of innate knowledge of God from the perspectives of two prominent Muslim philosophers, Mulla Sadra and Allameh Tabataba’i, employing a descriptive-analytical approach. Mulla Sadra’s account of innate knowledge of God exhibits considerable affinity and conceptual proximity to that of Allameh Tabataba’i, although certain differences may also be discerned. The findings indicate that both thinkers, through their acceptance of such principles as the Primacy of Existence, the existential poverty of contingent beings, and the complete ontological dependence of the effect upon its cause, adopt a largely convergent approach to the innateness of the knowledge of God. Furthermore, both regard the ultimate purpose of creation as humanity’s attainment of nearness to God. Nevertheless, they differ in their explanations of this issue, particularly with respect to their interpretations of the Proof of the Truthful (Burhān al-Ṣiddīqīn) and their understanding of the affinity between cause and effect. <strong> </strong> One of the most significant issues in philosophy is the knowledge of God, which is regarded as the highest form of knowledge. According to Mulla Sadra, knowledge of the Necessary Being is innate, since human beings, in times of hardship, naturally and instinctively turn toward the Ultimate Cause and the One who facilitates all affairs, even if they are not consciously aware of doing so. From the perspective of Allameh Tabataba’i, the knowledge of God is likewise innate to human beings. Through their God-given nature (fiṭrah), individuals affirm the existence of a Creator for the world who is free from all imperfections. Knowledge of Him further requires that one not regard oneself as independent in one’s actions, but rather as fundamentally dependent upon Him. This study seeks to provide a comparative evaluation of innate knowledge of God from the perspectives of two prominent Muslim philosophers, Mulla Sadra and Allameh Tabataba’i, employing a descriptive-analytical approach. Mulla Sadra’s account of innate knowledge of God exhibits considerable affinity and conceptual proximity to that of Allameh Tabataba’i, although certain differences may also be discerned. The findings indicate that both thinkers, through their acceptance of such principles as the Primacy of Existence, the existential poverty of contingent beings, and the complete ontological dependence of the effect upon its cause, adopt a largely convergent approach to the innateness of the knowledge of God. Furthermore, both regard the ultimate purpose of creation as humanity’s attainment of nearness to God. Nevertheless, they differ in their explanations of this issue, particularly with respect to their interpretations of the Proof of the Truthful (Burhān al-Ṣiddīqīn) and their understanding of the affinity between cause and effect. <strong> </strong> https://coth.ui.ac.ir/article_30541_c570ddb4958766c836524bf720420208.pdf