Akhbaris: Difference between revisions

[[Muhammad Amin al-Astarabadi]], [[Abdullah b. Salih b. Jumuʾa al-Samahiji al-Bahrani]] and [[Mirza Muahmmad al-Akhbari]] were extreme Akhabris, and [[Shaykh Yusuf al-Bahrani]], [[Sayyid Niʾmatullah al-Jazaʾiri]], [[Mulla Muhsin al-Fayd al-Kashani]], [[Muhammad Taqi al-Majlisi]], [[Muhammad Tahir al-Qumi]], and [[Shaykh Hurr al-ʾAmili]], among others, were moderate Akhbaris. Opposed to them were prominent Usulis such as [[Wahid al-Bihbahani]], [[Shaykh al-Ansari]], and [[Shaykh Jaʾfar Kashif al-Ghitaʾ]].

The main points of disagreements between Akhbaris and Usulis concern issues such as illegitimacy or permissibility of the method of ijtihad (deducing the laws of Sharia via methods of Usul), the restriction of evidence for laws of Sharia to the [[Quran]] and [[Sunna]] or [[hadiths]], the prohibition of acquiring probable beliefs about Islamic laws, the way hadiths should be classified, the permissibility of following people other than the Prophet (s) and Imams (a), subscription to the appearances of the Quran, rational goodness (husn) and badness (qubh), the practical principle of baraʾa (exemption or exoneration), the prohibition of employing some kinds of analogy (qiyas) to deduce laws of Sharia, the reliability of all hadiths contained in the Four Books (al-Kutub al-Arbaʾa), and so on.

The contrast between akhbari and usuli schools in the fiqh of Imamiyya traces back to the early centuries of Islam. Within Imamiyya schools of fiqh in the first three centuries A.H., there were tendencies to deduce the laws of Sharia, in contrast to those who followed the letter of hadiths without making any deductions.

The fourth century A.H. (10th century) is the period of the prominence of the hadithist school in Qum. Deductivist scholars of fiqh, such as [[Ibn Abi ʾAqil al-Ummani]] and [[Ibn Junayd al-Iskafi]] were among the minority. Prominent scholars of fiqh in this period were [[Muhammad b. Yaʾqub al-Kulayni]] (d. 328 or 329 A.H./940 or 941), [[Ali b. Babwayh al-Qumi]] (d. 328 A.H./940), [[Ibn Qualawayh]] (d. 368 or 369 A.H./ 979) and [[Muhammad b. Babwayh al-Qumi]] (d. 381 A.H./ 991), who significantly contributed to the production of the oldest collections of jurisprudential hadiths.

With [[Shaykh al-Mufid]] (d. 413 A.H./ 1022) and [[Sayyid al-Murtada]] (d. 436 A.H./ 1044) and [[Shaykh al-Tusi]] (d. 460 A.H./ 1068), who wrote the first works concerning the principles (usul) of Imamiyya fiqh, a new movement began in Imamiyya directing the tendencies of Imamiyya scholars of fiqh to deductive fiqh (instead of hadithism) for centuries. The contrast between the two tendencies can be seen in the works of the above scholars. In his [[Awaʾil al-maqalat]], Shaykh al-Mufid mentions scholars of deductive fiqh as "fuqaha" simpliciter, and hadithists as "ahl al-naql" (people of hadith), "asʾhab al-athar" and the like. In an essay by Sayyid al-Murtada, "asʾhab al-hadith" is opposed to scholars of fiqh with a method of usul who were supported by him.

The school of hadithist fuqaha, that was undermined in late 4th and early 5th centuries by Usulist fuqaha, maintained its meager life, until when in early 11th century A.H. (17th century) it was revivied in a new form by [[Muhammad Amin al-Astarabadi]] (d. 1033 or 1036 A.H./ 1624 or 1627).  He sharply attacked Usulists. Some people believe that [[Ibn Abi Jumhur al-Ihsaʾi]] was one of the scholars who paved the path for Akhbaris. In an essay, "al-ʾAmal bi akhbar-i asʾhabina" (practicing the hadiths by our fellows), al-Ihsaʾi raised some arguments for such a view.

With the emergence of the contrast between Akhbarism and Usulism in the 11th century A.H. (17th century) and with the emergence of prominent Usuli scholars such as [[Vahid al-Bihbahani]] (d. 1205 A.H./ 1791), Akhbaris began to lose their influence in Shiite seminary schools. Vahid al-Bihbahani's role in the defeat of Akhbaris was crucial. Not only did he fight with Akhbaris in a theoretical field (by making arguments and objections), but he also took practical measures to undermine them, such as forbidding the saying of prayers with the leadership (or imamate) of [[Shaykh Yusuf al-Bahrani]]—the leader of Akhbaris. Subsequently, other Usuli scholars, such as [[Shaykh Murtada al-Ansari]] (d. 1281 A.H./ 1865) and [[Shaykh Jaʾfar al-Najafi Kashif al-Ghitaʾ]] (d. 1227 or 1228 A.H./ 1812 or 1813) propagated Usulism by writing and teaching in Usul al-fiqh, whereby Akhbarism nearly disappeared from Shiite seminary schools. Today Shiite schools are dominated by Usuli thoughts.

Muhammad Amin al-Astarabadi, the founder of Akhbarism among Imamiyya Shiites, is said to have been the first one to have criticized the method of Usul al-fiqh and ijtihad, classifying Imamiyya into Akhbaris and Mujtahids (that is, Usulis). He was a mujtahid himself, receiving his permission (al-ijaza) for ijtihad from prominent scholars, but he later refused to remain committed to their methodology. It seems that he has been much influenced by the thoughts of his teacher, [[Mirza Muhammad al-Astarabadi]]. Muhammad Amin wrote his doctrines and opinions in a book entitled al-Fawaʾid al-madaniyya, which is a major source of reference for Akhbaris.

[[Abdullah b. Salih b. Jumuʾa al-Samahiji al-Bahrani]] was a radical, zealous proponent of Akhbarism in the 11th century A.H. (17th century), who wrote the book, Munya al-mumarisin. According to [[Shaykh Yusuf al-Bahrani]], Abdulla used to insult proponents of ijtihad, even though his father, Mulla Salih, was a mujtahid.

Abu Ahmad Jamal al-Din Muhammad b. Abd al-Nabi al-Nishaburi al-Astarabadi (d. 1232 A.H./ 1817), known as [[Mirza Muhammad al-Akhbari]], insulted and disrespected prominent Usuli scholars, such as [[Mirza Abu al-Qasim al-Qumi]], [[Shaykh Jaʾfar al-Najafi Kashif al-Ghitaʾ]], [[Mir Sayyid ʾAli al-Tabatabaʾi]], [[Sayyid Muhammad Baqir Hujjat al-Islam al-Isfahani]] and [[Muhammad Ibrahim al-Kalbasi]]. This is why, the verdict on his execution was signed by scholars of that time, such as [[Sayyid Muhammad al-Mujahid]], son of Mir Sayyid ʾAli al-Tabatabaʾi, Shaykh Musa, son of Shaykh Jaʾfar Kashif al-Ghitaʾ, [[Sayyid ʾAbdullah al-Shubbar]] and [[Shaykh Asadullah al-Kazimayni]].

[[Sayyid Naʾmatullah al-Jazaʾiri al-Shushtari]] (d. 1112 A.H./ 1700) was an Akhbari scholar, but he attempted a lot to appreciate Mujtahids and Usuli scholars and their proponents.

Some people have considered [[Mulla Muhsin al-Fayd al-Kashani]] (d. 1091 A.H./ 1680) as an Akhbari scholar. He says: "we follow the Quran and Hadiths, and we do not know anything else". Though in this text he seems to oppose Sufism, rather than ijtihad and usul, he also maintains that the minds of ordinary (non-infallible or non-maʾsum) people are imperfect and unreliable. In some of his work, such as al-Kalamat al-maknuna, al-Fayd has explicitly attacked ijtihad and the method of usul. A consideration of such remarks assures us that he has tendencies to Akhbarism. He holds that Usulis, by establishing the method of usul, have made divine obligations too difficult—they have issued verdicts about things that God did not say anything about, in fact it was part of divine wisdom to remain silent about those things.

[[Mulla Khalil b. Ghazi al-Qazvini]] (d. 1089 A.H./ 1678), contemporary with [[Shaykh al-Hurr al-ʾAmili]], [[Muhammad Baqir al-Majlisi]] and [[Mulla Muhsin al-Fayd al-Kashani]], and a pupil of [[Shaykh al-Bahaʾi]] and [[Mir Damad]], opposed and denied the method of ijtihad.

And [[Shaykh al-Hurr al-ʾAmili]] (d. 1104 A.H./ 1693) has referred to his Akhbari tendencies at the end of his well-known work in hadith, Wasaʾil al-shia.

===Kashif al-Ghitaʾ===

Another Usuli scholar who seriously campaigned against Akhbarism was [[Shaykh Jaʾfar al-Najafi Kashif al-Ghitaʾ]] (d. 1227 or 1228 A.H./ 1812 or 1813), who opposed to [[Mirza Muhamamd al-Akhbari]], writing his well-known essay, Kashf al-ghitaʾ ʾan maʾaʾib-i Mirza Muhammad ʾaduw al-ʾulama (uncovering the faults of Mirza Muhammad [al-Akhbari], the enemy of scholars). He sent this essay to [[Fatʾhali Shah Qajar]] to discourage him from supporting Mirza Muhamamd.

<nowiki>==Major Disagreements between Akhbaris and Usulis==</nowiki> [[Sayyid Naʾmatullah al-Jazaʾiri in his Manbaʾ al-hayat and [[Mulla Radi al-Qazvini in his Lisan al-khawas have mentioned major points of disagreement between Akhbaris and Usulis. Moreover, [[Abdulla b. Salih al-Samahiji al-Bahrani]] has mentioned 40 points of dispute between them in his Munya al-mumarisin. [[Shaykh Jaʾfar Kashif al-Ghitaʾ]] has considered such disagreements in his al-Haq al-mubin, and [[Mirza Muhammad al-Akhbari]] has cited 59 points of disagreement in his al-Tuhr al-fasil. [[Sayyid Muhammad al-Dizfuli has referred to 86 points of dispue in his Faruq al-haq, and al-Hurr al-ʾAmili has mentioned 92 disagreements in his al-Faqaʾid al-tusiyya.

Proponents of Akhbarism take ijtihad to be [[haram]], that is, forbidden or illegitimate by Sharia, but proponents of Usulism take it to be al-wajib al-kafaʾi or a "social obligation" (that is, it is obligatory to be carried out by a sufficient number of people in which case it would not be obligatory for others) and some of them take it to be al-wajib al-ʾayni or an "individual obligation" (that is, obligatory for everyone). In his well-known book, al-Faqaʾid al-madaniyya, Mulla Muhammad Amin al-Astarabadi denies the method of ijtihad, holding that such a method was never practiced by early Shiite scholars.

Akhbaris restrict evidence for the laws of Sharia to the Quran and Sunna (that is, hadiths), and unlike Usuli scholars, they do not take consensus (ijmaʾ) and reason (ʾaql) to be evidence for religious laws.

1. Akhbaris forbid the acquisition of probable beliefs (ẓann), and unlike the proponents of ijtihad, they just take "certitude" or "certain knowledge" to be reliable.

2. Classification of hadiths: for Akhbaris, hadiths are just classified into sound and weak, but for Usulis, there are 4 classes of hadiths: sound (sahih), reliable (muwathaq), good (hasan) and weak (ḍaʾif).

3. Following people other than the infallible (maʾsum): Usulis classify people into [[mujtahid]] and [[muqalid]] (or follower of mujtahid), but for Akhbaris, it is illegitimate to follow a non-infallible person (people other than the Prophet and Imams).

4. Taking the apparent meanings of the Quran at face value: for Usulis, the apparent meanings of the Quran are reliable, trumping the apparent meanings of hadiths, but for Akhbaris, it is legitimate to rely on the apparent meanings of the Quran only when there is a confirming interpretation by the Prophet (s) or an Imam (a).

5. For Akhbaris, unlike Usulis, all hadiths contained in al-Kutub al-Arbaʾa (the four major Shiite hadith collections) are sound and reliable.

6. Akhbaris accept rational goodness and badness (al-husn wa al-qubh al-aqli), but unlike Usulis, they do not take independent rational verdicts (that is, those not confirmed by Sharia) to be religiously reliable.

7. For Akhbaris, it is illegitimate to act upon some analogies and syllogisms such as priority analogy (qiyas al-awlawiyya), the analogy in which the reason/cause is explicitly mentioned (al-qiyas-u mansus al-ʾilla) and the clarification of the criterion (tanqih al-manat), though Usulis consider them as legitimate.

8. The principle of exoneration (asala al-baraʾa): for Usulis, the principle of exoneration applies to cases of doubting the illegitimacy or forbiddingness of an act (al-shubha al-hukmiyya al-tahrimiyya), as well as cases of doubting the obligation (al-shubha al-hukmiyya al-wujubiyya), but for Akhbaris, it only applies in the second type of cases.

9. The principle of exoneration regarding the conflict between hadiths: unlike Usulis, Akhbaris do not allow an appeal to the principle of exoneration regarding a conflict between hadiths, as al-Astarabadi says in his al-Fawaʾid al-madaniyya:

I hold that the appeal to the principle of exoneration [asala al-baraʾa) was permissible before the perfection of the religion, but after that, there is no room for such a principle, since there is a sufficient numbers hadiths at our disposal with regard to any affairs and events that we need a verdict for, and for any disputes between any two people.