examining the boundaries and criteria for exaggeration and degradation from the views of allameh majlesi and sheikh mufid

the present study aims to examine the boundaries and criteria for exaggeration and degradation from the views of allameh majlesi and sheikh mufid. both theologians have referred to similar notions as limits and criteria for exaggeration, including a belief in the divinity and prophecy of the infallible imams, a belief in the reincarnation and :union: of the infallibles with god, or believing that because of the knowledge of the imams, religious obligations are not incumbent upon them. in addition, the common criterion of delegation is that infallibles (independently and in the same rank and line with the lord) carry attributes such as creation, sustenance, causing birth, health and death. the disagreement between the two theologians as regards a determination of the boundaries and criteria for exaggeration and degradation become clear in terms of issues including the knowledge of the imam, infallibility regarding minor or unintentional sins, the primordial creation of the fourteen infallibles, their miracles and supernatural virtues, their dignity and status in the universe, and the like. the vast range of these disagreements leads to their different views pertaining to people who commit exaggeration and degradation. an attention to these differences is important because from a jurisprudential perspective, one who exaggerates (ghālī) is associated with disbelief and the implications of infidelity follow him. hence, it is crucially important to come closer to issues of agreement with regard to the determination of the boundaries and criteria for exaggeration and degradation. moreover, in relation to calling the ones who exaggerate as infidels, it is a vital issue to consider views such as ‘exaggeration will entail infidelity only if it leads to the (conscious and deliberate) denial of divinity, and the oneness of god, and the prophethood.’ therefore, in matters of conflict and antinomy, and in minor and detailed affairs, one should not accuse people of exaggeration and degradation based on personal or minimum criteria and limits.