sabeel's Blogs

Five transgressions by Usoolism in Shiaism (History)

The first transgressionAs early as 5th / 11th century (more than a 150 years after Ghaibah), Shaykhu-t-Ta'ifa reinterpreted the doctrine to allow delegation of the Imam's judicial authority to those who had studied fiqh. Although he implies in his writings that this function should only be undertaken by the ulama if there is no one else to do it. Shaykhu-t-Taifa considered the ulama as best people to act as agents of the donor in distributing the religious taxes since they knew to whom it should be distributed; but nevertheless individuals were free to do this themselves if they wished. He allowed fuqaha to organize the Friday prayers in absence of the Imam or his (Imam's) special representative.

The prominent Shia scholars who rejected this thesis were:

1. `Alam Al-Huda

2. Ibn Idris

3. Allamah Al-Hilli<6>

It is to be noted that 'Alam Al-Huda was from among the Shaykhu-t-Taifa's group.

By 7th / 13th century (i.e., 200 years after the first transgression), Muhaqqiq Al-Hilli was able to advance these concepts very considerably. He extended the judicial role of the ulama to iqamat al-hudud the imposition of penalties by ulama themselves. In his writings it is possible to see the evolution in his thinking whereby the fuqaha develop from the deputies of the donor for the distribution of religious taxes in his early writings to being the deputies of the Hidden Imam for collection and distribution of the taxes in his later works. In effect, transgressing the limits set by Shaykh-u-Taifa (two centuries earlier) in his first transgression.

Muhaqqiq al-Karkhi (About 300 years after the second transgression) was the first to suggest, arguing from the hadith of Umar ibn Hanzala, that the ulama were the Na'ib al-'Amm (general representative) of the Hidden Imam. But he restricted his application of this argument to the assumption of the duty of leading Friday prayers.

It was Shahid ath-Thani who took the concept of Na'ib al-'Amm to its logical conclusion in the religious sphere and applied it to all of the religious functions and prerogatives of the Hidden Imam. Thus the judicial authority of the ulama now became a direct reflection of the authority of the Imam himself. It was now obligatory to pay the religious taxes directly to the ulama as the trustees of the Imam for distribution, and the donor who distributed these himself was considered to obtain no reward. (This is in direct contradiction to limits set by prior transgressions)

Furthermore, Shahid ath-Thani extended the range of those eligible to receive money from zakat to include the tullab (religious students) and the ulama themselves, who thus became the recipients of the money as trustees of students. Even in the field of defensive jihad, Shahid ath-Thani identified a role for the ulama. Only in the field of offensive jihad did he allow that the role of Hidden Imam had lapsed pending his return.

Although the aforementioned scholars were not mujtahids in their full capacity, they introduced innovative concepts into Shia theology which later formed the basis of the ijtihadi school. Their innovations were sharply criticized by prominent Shia scholars of their time and thus, remained mostly theoretical.

The ulama of this period were overshadowed by the towering figure of Allamah Muhammad Baqir Majlisi (1616-1698) Whose rejection of the emerging doctrine of ijtihad overwhelmed the attempts of the group of ulama with Usuli tendencies (who were then in minority). However, after the death of Allamah Muhammad Baqir Majlisi, the influence of Usuli way of thinking was increasing due to its promising nature towards the unconditional supremacy of ulama and the deal of freedom of practice it had to offer.

The traditional Shia doctrine was, by its nature, fatal to leadership of any regime except that of Imam Al-Mahdi since they believed that an Islamic state can be established only under the leadership of an infallible Imam. Thus, Shias had little role to play in supporting the decisions of the state, in contrast with the Sunni tendency of offering their full support to the Ottoman Empire. This caused a great deal of paranoia to the states where the Shia were in majority. By the end of Safavid era the situation had become intense due to the rise of imperialism on a global scale. It was necessary to develop an alternate ideology for the survival of Iranian state. This is when a group of ulama were encouraged to squeeze out the possibility of extending the state's control over the shia majority; by whatever means necessary.

The revival of Akbharism, or 'neo-Akbarism', as it became known, was under the dean of Karbala scholarship, Yusuf Al Bahrani (1695-1772), who led an intellectual assault on Usuli thought in the mid-eighteenth century. An Akhbari critique of Usulism had emerged in Bahrain at the beginning of the eighteenth century, partly spurred by the weaknesses of the Usuli sponsoring Safavid empire.By succeeding to the role of dean of Karbala as one of the pre-eminent scholars of the age, Al Bahrani's extended this Bahrain-based debate to the rest of the Shi'i world. Historian Juan Cole summarises Al Bahrani's thought:

" Al-Bahrani's neo-Akhbarism accepted only two sources for Imami jurisprudence, the Qur'an and the oral reports from the Imams. He did not, however, go so far as to say that no verse in the Qur'an could be understood without the interpretation of the Imams, a position held by the Safavid-era Akhbari revivalist Astarabadi which Shaykh Yusuf denounced as extremist. He rejected the Usuli principles of consensus (ijma`) and independent reasoning (`aql, ijtihad). Indeed, he questioned rationalist approaches to religion in general, quoting with approval a condemnation of reading philosophy and theosophy. But Shaykh Yusuf accepted the validity of Friday prayers in the Occultation and did not completely reject Usuli positions on other issues. His Bahrani neo-Akhbarism sought to be an intermediate path between extremist Usulism and extremist Akhbarism.

Under Al Bahrani, Usuli scholarship was considered impure and it was not until the 1760s that an Usuli cell was founded in Karbala. It was founded by Mohammad Baqir ibn Mohammad Akmal al-Wahid Bahbahani who challenged and eventually succeeded Al Bahrani as the most influential cleric in Karbala in 1772<11>. He led a campaign for propagation of Usuli tendencies and worked extensively to crystallize Usulism into a full fledged school to offer an alternative state-friendly version of shia fiqh. And earned the titles Mu'assis (founder of Usuli school), Murawwij (propagator) and Mujaddid.

The Qajar rulers perceived this innovation as the only hope for gaining full control over the Shia Majority in the country and offered their full support to Wahid Bahbahani's group.

Wahid Bahbahani surrounded himself with a corps of mirghadabs, servants who would carry out either corporal or capital punishment, and had his judgments carried out immediately and usually in his presence.> In effect, gathering for his school a paramilitary force.

However, Bahbahani's deviation in theology was not welcomed by ulama who stood fast with the original Shia doctrines and rejected earlier transgressions too. This group of traditional Shia ulama came to be known as Akhbari or the traditionalists.

Although this controversy had begun as a minor disagreement on a few points, it eventually grew into a bitter vituperative dispute culminating in Bahbahani's declaration that the Akhbaris were infidels. Subsequently, ulama who did not accept Bahbahani's authority were executed for their infidelity.

At first the Akhbaris predominated at the shrine cities of Iraq but it was Bahbahani who, at the end of 18th century, reversed this and completely routed the Akhbaris at Karbala and Najaf. South Iraq, Bahrain and a few cities in Iran such as Kirman remained Akhbari strongholds for a few more decades but eventually the Usuli triumph was complete and only a handful of Shia ulama remained Akhbari to the present day.

After the theological coup brought about by Wahid Bahbahani by military methods, the Usuli school became instrumental to the Iranian regime. An example of its vital application can be seen below:

During the first Russo-Persian War (1804-1813), Fath Ali Shah's son and heir, Abbas Mirza (who was conducting the campaign) turned to the (new) ulama and obtained from Shayk Ja'far Kashiful Ghita and other eminent clerics in Najaf and Isfahan a declaration of jihad against the Russians, thus implicitly recognizing their authority to issue such a declaration – one of the functions of the Hidden Imam. Kashiful Ghita used the opportunity to extract from the state acknowledgment of the ulama's right to collect the religious taxes of Khums.

This followed the pattern of other transgressions by overthrowing the limits of its prior (fourth) transgression.

Rejection of the Mujtahids

Akhbaris reject mujtahids. They practice this based on the last letter Imam Mehdi (as) wrote to Ali son of Mohammad (4th deputy in smaller occultation).

(Bihar Al-Anwar by Allamah Majlisi (ra))

Akhbaris claim that the Imams (as) are the "ayatullahs" based on hadith-e-tariq (sermon of Imam Ali (as)) which is found in Nahj ul Israr (See Hadith Below). They say that no one else can ascribe themselves to this divine title. When you look at history, it wasn't until the early 1800s that the mujtahids started to call themselves "ayatullahs".

Pro-Akhbari arguments

1. It can be noticed that the Usuli ulama have usurped one by one all the functions of the Hidden Imam; virtually ascribing themselves with his Imamate.

2. Since Bahbahani's coup, the Usuli ulama have made countless transgressions from Wilayat al-Faqih to Ittihad Bayn al-Muslimeen (at the cost of Shia beliefs). The convergence of these trends can be seen heading towards the caliphate of mujahideen, although with a different naming scheme.

3. The Usuli allegation that Akhbari Shias were a movement that started four centuries ago and was intellectually defeated is a false and desperate attempt to hide the uninspiring past of the Usuli sect. Akhbarism was in fact strict adherence to the original Shia doctrines and rejection of far reaching opportunistic innovations.

4. It is established that generalization that causes a fallible man's decision to gain the status of divine law is against the gist of Shia Islam. The Usuli appeal to "reason" ('Aql) is in fact the Sunni qiyas under another name, though all early Shia authorities are unanimous in rejecting qiyas.