Comparison of the imamate opinions of Câhiz and Juweyni

This study comparatively analyzes the institution of imamate, which holds a central place in Islamic political thought, through the perspectives of two major figures of the kalām tradition: al-Jāḥiẓ (d. 869) and al-Juwaynī (d. 1085). While both thinkers agree that the imamate is essential for preserving social order, they differ significantly on the sources of legitimacy, the method of appointment, the qualifications required for an imam, and the model of political representation of the Muslim community. Al-Jāḥiẓ's approach is shaped by the rationalist framework of the Muʿtazilī school, emphasizing public interest, reason, and utility. Al-Juwaynī, on the other hand, develops a systematic method that balances reason and revelation, asserting that the imamate is obligatory based on both rational and scriptural grounds. Their respective theories reflect the socio-political contexts in which they lived and wrote. The thesis first outlines a conceptual framework, then provides a detailed comparison of their views on the necessity of the imamate, divine designation and appointment, the qualities required in an imam, the duties of the ideal imam, the role of the appointing council, and issues such as dismissal and the permissibility of multiple imams. In the final part, the impact of their ideas on contemporary Islamic political thought and ongoing debates on the caliphate-imamate question are discussed. Thus, this study not only offers a historical comparison between two classical thinkers but also highlights the continuity and relevance of classical kalām-based political theories in modern Islamic discourse. Keywords: Kalām, Islamic Political Thought, Imamate, al-Jāḥiẓ, al-Juwaynī