Vahid Behbahani

There's an interesting PhD dissertation available online about the emergence of an Islamic Reform Movement in Early Modern Iraq and Iran

http://content.lib.utah.edu/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/us-etd3&CISOPTR=223&filename=364.pdf

I am specifically interested to read about Vahid Behbahani (Muhammad Baqir ibn Muhammad Akmal al-Wahid Bihbahani).

This work goes deeply into his biography, his thoughts and his scholarly career.

Was Shaykh Ahsai an Akhbari or an Usooli?

post # 8 from SC topic (contribution by a user)

Shaykh wasn't akhbari. He was usooli and one of his teachers was Sayyid Mahdi Bahr al-'Ulum Tabataba'i from whom he received letters of ijtihad as well as Kashifu'l Ghita & others. He did have akhbari teachers since Bahrain was a major center of akhbari activities in the late 1700s and they didn't mind teaching him.

According to some reports by the time of his death in the 1820s, about a 25% of Iran's population gave him taqlid. During his heyday, he was one of about 7 marjas in Yazd and Kermanshah but his followers were considered to be unusually attached to him & his teachings. He was originally from eastern Arabia and taught in Bahrain and attended the hawzas of Najaf & Kerbala. He refused to acquiesce to other ulema on his views and he refused to be legitimized by the Fath 'Ali Shah, the Qajar king.

The major source of issue for some about him was that he was an arif and because of this sometimes the views of the arif contrast with those who are juristic in background. He viewed the Shi'ite jurisprudent as a mystic and one who should be overwhelmingly spiritual by nature. The concept, as totally expounded by Shaykh, is similar to the Sufi concept of a qutb. In simpler terms, another form of legitimacy for the jurisprudent was through the qalb (heart) via dreams and he based his views on various Qur'anic passages as well as from certain hadith.

He had takfir pronounced upon him by Mulla Muhammad Taqi Baraghani of Qazwin but none of the ulema of the first order such as Shaykh Musa, the son of Kashifu'l Ghita, Mulla Ali Nuri or Mulla Ahmad Naraqi to name a few would do such. Really, there's nothing much different (from my unknowledgeable eyes) that's different from the school of Isfahan. Had Shaykh lived 200 years earlier, he would have been included among them.

...Shaykh al-Ahsai did not have anything to do with the creation of the Shaykhi school of thought, although again, his views were considered controversial among Usoolis & Akhbaris alike. He had influence on them but Sayyid Kazim Rashti, one of al-Ahsai's disciples, was the actual founder and even he didn't see himself or the latent Shaykhi movement as something seperate from the Usooli school.


Shaykh al-Ahsai never saw himself outside of the mainstream flow of Shi'ite ideology. Some of Shaykh's writings are confusing when read but you would need a qualified spiritual instructor to get through some of his letters. The Bahais like to use him because of his writings on the Perfect Shiite or the Perfect Man (Insan-e-Kamal). There's a lot more. You can read an article on him from Juan Cole who has written extensively on him and there's another work I read on Shaykh but I can't remember the author's name right now but it was very profound because it dealt with the metaphysical aspects of Shaykh's views and it was the author's thesis. I'll know in two weeks because there's a brother I know who has the book and I'll see him next weekend.

Shaykh Ahmad Ahsai bio.

Shaykhi Sect - part 3

Shaykhism - from users contribution

These posts are owned by their respective authors. They have the full rights to it.

post # 12

Sheikh Ahmed Al-Ahsaei is originally from Eastern Al-Jazeera Al-Arabia, and he was an Akbari Sheikh, who believed that Imam Al-Mahdi was going to appear at any time (During the year 1840), and he ordered his followers to look for the Imam, and some of them did. One of those students was Muhammad Ibn Ali Al-Shirazi, who later on Proclaimed to be Imam Al-Mahdi, and the founder of the Babi religion, and Ultimately Bahaism later on.

post # 18 and 21

The name of the founder of Bahaism is Hussayn Ali Al-Nuri, who was later renamed Baha’ullah - and he was one of the followers of Sayed Muhammad Ali Al-Shirazi, who proclaimed to be Imam Al-Mahdi after the death of Sheikh Ahmad Al-Ahsaei.

As for those who said he's not an Akhbari, well I suggest you reread his history again because he rejects Taqleed and the principle of conjecture through emulation of Ahlul Albayte - not to mention his complete rejection of the usage of Aql, but taking all Ahadeeth as true from the Holy Imams, which explains why Sayed Alkhomeini compared him to Wahabbism’s founder (This is the first time I hear of this, so my answer is assumed from what I read above in this regard).

This is not my opinion, but that of the Akhbari School within Athna Ashari Shiism :) Of course, the power of dispute in Ilm Al-Rijal; and how hadeeth basically functions can differ from our two schools, but non the less, it was on a high scale with Sheikh Ahmad Al-Ahsaei, and this is why Sayed Ali Muhammad Al-Shirazi took advantage of that and proclaimed the Mahdism for himself.


Post #24
I am not claiming that Sheikh Ahmad Al-Ahsaei has done anything wrong in being an Akhbari, nor did I say that Akhbaris are not Shias or anything remotely close to such a thing. As for Sheikh Ya3qoob Al-Kulyni rejecting Taqleed, he did but for a very clear reason, and that’s because the infallible Imam was present, and under the grounds that an infallible is present, Taqleed becomes void - and that exactly what Sheikh Al-Kulyni was standing on.

Once again, I am not here to discuss the roots of the two schools, both have great arguments in supporting their stances, but you have to realize that depending on Scholars is an Islamic concept, not a Sunni innovation. Most of the Usoli Mujtahids you're referring to have claimed that Sunnis have beat us to this field first due to the fact that we as Shias were oppressed and killed for many centries due to their stance against us, not to mention that Al-Ghayba Al-Kubra went into full effect in the beginning of the fourth century after the death of Al-Bab Muhammad Al-Sammiri - we did not need scholars in interpreting our faith since the Imams where there, not to mention Al-Niabah Al-Khassah which lasted a little less than a century.

Akhbarism before al-Astrabadi?

Madelung, Newman, Kohlberg and Stewart argue that Akhbarism may have already existed before al-Astrabadi (footnote in the book is referring to their papers).

But according to Gleave [1] no Akhbari texts from this earlier period have survived to prove this thesis conclusively. Furthermore, the akhbariyya mentioned in these earlier texts held opinions on a range of subjects beyond the rejection of ijtihad, i.e., legitimacy on using the reason, rejection of a government, distribution of the community taxes and the validity of the Friday prayer.

The Usuli's view Akhbarism as a relatively recent phenomenon (starting in the 17 century AD with Muhammad Amin al-Astarabadi). Each group also asserts that their opponents’ views coincide with Sunni opinions.

Gleave [1] noted that the Akhbaris did not seem to have a unanimous position on whether or not this scriptural-ism applied to other areas of religious knowledge.

• There were Akhbaris who used reason (al-aql) as a proof of the basic elements of the Shia creed, writing kalam works in the process.
• There were Akhbaris who promoted direct religious experience as a means of gaining religious knowledge out side of the law.
• There were Akhbaris who simply collected reports of the Imams concerning non-legal matters (in particular theological doctrines current in kalam works), and offered no personal reasoning as to how these might be brought together into a coherent doctrine.
• There were even those who chiseled out a limited role for reason in their legal theory, but based this allowance exclusively on scriptural grounds (in that the Imams had, themselves, give explicit permission for reason to be used in restricted circumstances).

Reference
[1] Scripturalist Islam: The History and Doctrines of the Akhbārī Shiʿī School By Robert Gleave

The Emergence of Akhbariyya

The Akhbariyya emerged in the 17 century AD to refute Imami legal theory (Ejtehad) that was developed by Allamah Hilli (d.1325 AD). According to the footnote in the book, Ejtehad is defined in the following manner

Al-Muhaqqiq al-Hilli defines ijtihad as "the exertion of effort to extract (istikhraj ) the legal ruling” from the texts (Muhaqqiq, Ma'arij, p. 179). Allama defines it as "exhausting effort in speculating on those legal questions which permit opinion such that no more ˜effort· can be made” (Allamah, Mabadi, 240).

The first to claim to be an Akhbari was the Iranian scholar, Muhammad Amin al-Astarabadi, who studied in Iraq and Iran, and who thought in Mecca and Medina. In his book al-Fawa'id al-Madaniyya, he criticized the contemporary jurists (these Jurists could be Usulis, but it was not mentioned in the book). Al-Astrabadi proposed an alternate approach for deriving Islamic knowledge/laws.

Gleave stated that the Shia concept of Ejtehad (in the beginning) was heavily influenced by the Sunni legal theory. He also observed that the Sunni legal theory was mostly concerned with identifying and answering the following questions

1. What were the uncertain elements of God's law?
2. What were the ambiguous textual evidences for the Islamic laws?
3. How would a trained jurists exert and exhaust himself (Ejtehad) in discovering a legal ruling that is not very plain/obvious from the texts?
4. Which interpretive techniques were legitimate, the schemes of classification of these techniques, the variable assessments of a text’s authenticity and the disputes among themselves? [1]

Astarabadi, and the Akhbaris who followed him, argued for a return to the earlier Shii attitude of a rejection of ijtihad on the grounds that legal certainty was available. The claim of the early Shii jurists was, then, an element in Astarabadi's attempt to establish the precedence of the rejection of ijtihad over the "innovation” of more recent Shii jurists.[1]

Reference
[1] Scripturalist Islam: The History and Doctrines of the Akhbārī Shiʿī School By Robert Gleave

Akhbari-Usuli Dispute

The teaching of Islam is based on the Holy Quran (God's words reveled to the Prophet) and the Sunnah (words and actions) of the Prophet Muhammad (may peace and the blessings be upon him and his family) found in hadiths/ahadith.

The Holy Quran (Islam’s holy book) is still in the same language (Arabic) as was originally reveled to Prophet Muhammad (saw) 1432 years ago. The text has never been changed except some minor variation in reading. The collection of hadiths varied and has gone through a number of stages/people (narrators).

Then, Gleave asked a series of thought-provoking questions, i.e.,

1. Should the words of companions or the scholars that came later be held in the same position/respect as the Holy Prophet?
2. Which interpretations (hadiths) are legitimate and which need to be rejected?

On the spread of Akhbari thought, the author stated
"The Akhbaris flourished between the Seventeenth and Nineteenth Centuries (CE) amongst Twelver Shii scholars of Iran, Iraq, Eastern Arabia and India. Some Akhbaris views on the above questions were innovative and had little or no precedent in either Twelver Shiaism or Muslim thought more generally. Many of their opinions, however, followed well-worn lines of argument".[1]

According to Gleave, Shia theological/legal works are influenced by hadiths of the Prophet (akhbar), Mu’tazili inspired doctrine (that are based heavily on rationality or reasoned speculation) or in between two views.

Reference
[1] Scripturalist Islam: The History and Doctrines of the Akhbārī Shiʿī School By Robert Gleave

Tracing the origin or the beginning of Akhbarism

Akhbaris were referred by a name, only in the time of Muhammad Amin al-Astarabadi and after him.

Gleave said “The Akhbaris themselves, of course, wished to trace their history back to the earliest Shii scholars in order to claim an historical pedigree.”

The problem is that the earliest scholars

1. were never referred to as Akhbaris
2. They never claimed they were Akhbaris
3. And neither did the later Akhbari scholars shared all the juristic methodology with earlier scholars

The Akhbari movement inspired by Mullah al-Astarabadi was either concerned with reforming or rejecting Allamah Hilli’s Usul al-Fiqh.

Gleave stated that the Akhbari movement is rarely mentioned in either Safavid or Qajar historical sources.

• Safavid court histories, are largely silent on the dispute between the Akhbaris, and their opponents, the Usulis (or mujtahids, who sought to maintain al- Allåma’s juristic system).
• Scholars (identified as Akhbaris) pleading their allegiance to the Akhbari School of jurisprudence is rare in these historical sources.

The founder of Akhbarism, al-Astrabadi rejected ijtihåd and the epistemological ilm/zann distinction implied by it. In its place, he proposed a legal methodology which attempted to ensure that legal rulings could be derived with certainty from the sources.

Al-Astrabadi (in his book al-Fawa'id al-Madaniyya) proposes

• Tradition/akhbar of the Imams are historically accurate
• Traditions are sufficient as guidance for a complete adherence to the law of God

Other possible sources of knowledge (for laws), i.e., reason, philosophy, experience, inspiration are rejected.

Opposition to the Shia Legal Theory

Gleave stated that the work by Allamah Hilli (d. 1325)

• Made mujtahid’s opinions more authoritative
• Inspired many new textbooks on legal theory (e.g Ma’alim al-Deen)
• Used to train Shii scholars
• Subjected to extensive commentaries

The earliest opposition to Allamah Hilli legal theory was not very significant. The most significant Akhbari’s resistant/response to Shia Usul al-Fiqh was done by Mullah Muhammad Amin al-Astarabadi (d.1627, Iranian theologian and founder/proponent of Shia Akhbarism).

A few doubts on the origin/beginning of Akhbarism was presented, i.e.,

• No standard usage of the term Akhbari or a set of doctrines attributed to Akhbarism before Mullah al-Astarabadi
• Classical Shia or even the Sunni literature do not mention a definable group called the Akhbariya

And then Gleave said
No scholars are ever named as being members of the early Akhbariyya until much later (and such references are clearly back projections), and no distinctive doctrines are explicitly assigned to the group. In short, I argue that the Akhbari are best seen as starting with Muhammad Amin al-Astarabadi.

Intro to the Akhbari book

Gleave stated that this book was the result of ten years of research, off and on. His other book is Inevitable doubt: two theories of Shīʻī jurisprudence. This book specifically focus on the ideas of Akhbarism.

The author hypothesize that the reason Shia were late in developing Usul al-Fiqh was because when an Imam was present, then there was no need for usul al-fiqh or book on jurisprudence.

The Zaydi allowed individual jurists to propose their own legal opinions using theoretical principle and not personal whims. Their writing began in the eleventh century. The earliest Zaydi’s work of Usul al-Fiqh is al-Mujzi fi usul al-Fiqh by Abu Talib Yahya b. al-Husayn al-Natiq bi’l-Haqq (d 1033).

The Ismaili Shia tradition (under the Fatimids and later) was not collected or written until the time of Qadi al-Numan, Da'a'im al-Islam. I've reviewed a paper about sources used for compiling his book (part 1, part 2 and part 3).

Then the author said "The Imami Shia developed an interest in legal theory following the disappearance of their Twelfth Imam in the year 874 AD. ... Within a hundred years of the Twelfth Imam’s greater occultation” (941) (after it became clear his promised return was not imminent), works of usul al-Fiqh were being composed by Imami (or Twelver) Shii scholars and the basis for a tradition of juristic scholarship was being laid."

The author then quoted some academic work that highlighted influence of Sunni (Shafii) legal theory in the earliest works of Shia Usul al-Fiqh.

Some interesting terminology/facts/info was presented in the introduction, i.e.,

1. Matters known with certainty
2. Matters that are disputed
3. The four famous (Shii) hadith books
4. Akhbar: Test for accuracy
5. Contradictory hadiths and ways to resolve them
6. Imams forbidding qiyas/analogical reasoning
7. Very little opposition to Shia Usul al-Fiqh developed by Allamah Hilli
8. He mistranslated khabar al-wahid. Real meaning.
Please continue reading part 3.

The History and Doctrines of the Akhbārī Shia School

Next week, Insha Allah, I will be reading the book Scripturalist Islam: The History and Doctrines of the Akhbārī Shiʿī School By Robert Gleave (Leiden: Brill, 2007), xxiii, 339 pp. EAN 978–9004157286.

The following is an abstract of the book (written by Madelung)

Twelver Shiʿi jurists since the eleventh/seventeenth century have been divided into two major camps known as the Akhbārīs and the Uṣūlīs. The Akhbārī legal school, which was founded by Muḥammad Amīn al-Astarābādī (d. 1036/1626–27), rose to a position of predominance in the twelfth/eighteenth century, but has since declined to insignificance.

The older Uṣūlī school, against which al-Astarābādī reacted, is commonly considered to have been founded by al-ʿAllāmā al-Ḥillī (d. 726/1325) with his unequivocal endorsement of the practice of ijtihād.

The nature and significance of the Akhbārī legal school has, on the basis of limited source evidence, repeatedly been discussed in Western scholarship in a summary way.

The author of the present book offers a much more comprehensive study based on a decade of broad and thorough research. In particular he investigates the thought and motivation of the founder al-Astarābādī fully and in detail. He then pursues the spread and development of the school through the centuries until the present.

In general Gleave stresses the scholarly sophistication of the Akhbārīs in their legal methodology despite their formal opposition to ijtihād, as against the view that they represented a populist literalist reaction against Uṣūlī elitist rationalism.