The comparative study of intellectual systems provides a vital foundation for synergy and the expansion of philosophical knowledge. This objective, however, is realized only when comparative efforts transcend preliminary and fragmented analyses to form a coherent, methodologically rigorous framework. Accordingly, the present study aims to construct a conceptual model for comparing the intellectual systems of Mullā Ṣadrā and Augustine of Hippo. The primary research problem involves articulating an integrated and cohesive comparative analysis of these two thinkers. Employing a qualitative meta-synthesis methodology, this study systematically reviews Persian-language articles, theses, and dissertations dedicated to their comparative analysis. Following the initial coding process, conceptual themes were identified via thematic analysis, and a synthetic analysis was subsequently performed on the aggregated data.
The findings demonstrate that the comparative discourse between Mullā Ṣadrā and Augustine can be structurally categorized into seven major themes: (1) faith and knowledge (maʿrifa); (2) God and the divine attributes (ṣifāt); (3) creation and time; (4) the human being and the human-divine relationship; (5) divine justice (al-ʿadl al-ilāhī) and theodicy; (6) ethics (akhlāq); and (7) death and the afterlife (maʿād). The integrative synthesis of these findings yields a three-level conceptual model: the level of convergence and commonality in foundational concepts and philosophical problems (masāʾil); the level of divergence and disparity in explanatory foundations (mabānī); and the level of categorical distinction regarding the ultimate logic of salvation (najāt) and human perfection (kamāl). This model facilitates the transition from fragmented comparative observations to a coherent, systematic framework, thereby opening new horizons for future comparative studies.