Islamic Education, THE ISLAMIC PEDAGOGICAL FACULTY IN ZENICA, University of Zenica , Zenica , Bosnia and Herzegovina
This paper examines the issue of reforming the Shia Twelver doctrine with the aim of illuminating and analyzing the fundamental demands of the religious reformist currents within Shia scholarship through an analysis of the texts of the most prominent Shia religious reformers. The paper highlights significant critiques directed at the official Twelver Shia dogma, which primarily reflect calls for the revision of Shia hadith heritage, a return to the Qur'an, and the rejection of superstitions that have become entrenched in Shia religious theory and practice. The views of seven of the most prominent reformers of Shia thought are presented and analyzed. In this research observed a tendency of reformist scholars towards rapprochement between Islamic sects and the building of unity among Muslims based on critiques of the primary sources of Islam and arguments reconciled with both the Qur'an and reason.
While many of the authors’ views which we analyzed reveal numerous very close, and sometimes identical, elements of critique, we observed certain differences among them. The most notable differences between them is the acceptance or rejection of the imamate as a foundation of faith. We named the group of reformist scholars who accept the imamate as the "revisionist current," while those who reject the imamate as a foundation of faith are named the "alternative current." The first one seeks to purify Twelver Shia Islam and return to "original Shi'ism" while the latter aims for a return to "original Islam".
Through their scientific and social engagement, reformist scholars have influenced both the course of official Twelver Shia Islam and non Shia religious thought. It is anticipated that the further development of reformist thought will increasingly participate in shaping future trends and currents of Islamic religious thought in Iran and beyond.
Authors retain copyright. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 
The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
