Akhbarism and the Ideology of Reform

By: Muhammad Jawad Sahibi

This movement ridiculed the jurists of the time. They only accepted the sunnah out of the four methods of derivation (intellect, consensus, Quran, and sunnah). They rest of them were criticized.

They criticized the consensus as being an innovation brought about by the Sunni brothers. They said that this consensus caused Abu Bakr to become the caliph and caused ‘Ali’s (a) right to be trampled. The Quran was criticized as being a tool because they consider that the only people who can understand it are the Ahl al-Bayt (a). Finally, they consider the intelligence to be faulty because it makes mistakes and therefore should not be used at all in religious issues. Mullah Amin Astarabadi was the founder of this ideology and was very critical of the jurists in the book Fawa’id al-Madinah. He tried to reject the credibility of the intellect. He claimed the intellect is only credible in matters that stem from the senses or close to them (for instance, math). Otherwise, it is not credible.

They claimed that the only source which should be used to obtain religious rulings is traditions. They claimed that all of the traditions narrated in the ‘four books’ namely, Kafi, Man La Yadarahu al-Faqih, Tahdhib, and Istibsar, are correct, rather are certain.

But, jurists believed that their understanding of the four methods of derivation was incorrect. They claimed that the consensus that the Akhbaris rejected was not the consensus that they mentioned. They considered that the instance of Saqifah was a matter of consensus and used it to criticize the consensus. But, the matter of the caliphate was not a consensus. Ali (a) was in Medina, Zubayr was in Medina and they did not take part. Only a small group was present and they acted in accordance with what there hearts wanted and called it a consensus.

Jurists also believe, in regards to the Quran, that it is a book full of words and just like any other presentation of words it is understandable. Also, there is no reasoning to denote that the words used in the Quran have any other meaning than their Arabic definitions. ‘Allamah Sayyid Muhammad Hussayn Tabataba’i writes in this regard: “Its reasoning is understandable because anyone who is familiar with [Arabic] vocabulary will easily understand what the phrases of the Quran are saying just as he would in normal Arabic literature. In addition to this, there are many verses in the Quran which are addressed to a certain group, for instance the Israelites, the believers, and the disbelievers. There are also many verses which are addressed to the people as a whole. It is self-evident that speaking to people with words that cannot be understood by them does not have any meaning.

“In addition to this, Allah states: “Don’t you ponder upon the Quran?” and: “Don’t you ponder upon the Quran? If it was from anyone other than Allah you would have found in it many mistakes.”

“This does not contradict the fact that the Prophet of Islam (a) and the Ahl al-Bayt (a) have the duty of mentioning the details of the laws which are not found in the Quran.” [Quran dar Islam, pgs.24-25]

Jurists also rejected Astarabadi’s view about the intellect because if one does not there is no other option than resorting to the intellect when one does not find a ruling in the Quran, traditions, or consensus. It is interesting to point out that Astarabadi and his followers did not reject the notion that the intellect can decipher good and bad but rejected the notion that it could be used in discovering religious laws. This viewpoint is not in congruence with mankind because the principle obligation of observing divine laws stems from the intellect. Furthermore, verses of the Quran and multiple traditions state that it is necessary to rely upon the intellect and to align one’s actions with logic.

Jurists have also not permitted the unconditional benefits that the Akhbaris take from traditions. They believe that the traditions existent in the Shia books of traditions are mixed with incorrect traditions. Therefore, one must critically review them. How can one be optimistic about the traditions when so many fake personalities and liars have been mentioned throughout history? How can one accept all of the traditions without exception? It has been written in history that a man by the name of Abi al-Khatab, a person who rose up against Islam and was executed, stated at the time of his execution: “I have inserted four thousand traditions into your collection of traditions.” Also, when narrators such as Abu Hurayrah exist, a person who sold traditions, who easily would make up traditions in the favor of someone who pleased him, who was given the title of the trader of traditions, how can one accept all traditions without any conditions?

A person by the name of Yunus bin Abd al-Rahman, who was a great scholar, stated: “I tried to always write and narrate credible traditions. I have wrote down all of them in the form of a book. One day I met Imam Rida (a) and showed him the book that I wrote. I said that I wrote this book only from the words of your fathers. I then saw that the Imam crossed out many of the traditions and said that they were lies.”

Therefore, the supporters of ijtihad sought means to determine whether or not the traditions are credible. Amongst them is ‘Allamah Hilli who divided traditions, in regards to their chains of narration, into being correct, dependable, good, and weak. According to his opinion, correct traditions are those that have a chain of narration where everyone is trustworthy and Shia. Good traditions are those that reliable people narrate, but not everyone in the chain’s trustworthiness has been established. Weak traditions are those that have a people, at least one person, in the chain who is unreliable.

Astarabadi and his followers attacked this critical look into traditions. They invited people to read the traditions and unconditionally act in accordance to them. They were so adamant in this regard that some of their shameful actions have remained in history. For instance, it is famously known that some Akhbaris gave the command to write the shahadatayn on a person’s shroud as: “Ishmael bears witness that there is no God save Allah.” The reason being that there is a tradition which states that Imam Sadiq (a) wrote this phrase on his son Ishmael’s shroud. Akhbaris did not think that this was written on Ishmael’s shroud because his name was Ishmael. So, if, for instance, Hassan passes away why would you write that Ishmael bears witness? The Akhbaris said that this is ijtihad and acting in accordance to the intellect. We are the people of surrendering to the words of the infallibles; we are the people of Baqir said; Sadiq said. We do not interfere in anything.

The ideology of the Akhbaris from their conception to the present has always had followers. The reason for this is that it uses people’s emotions about the Ahl al-Bayt (a) in understanding religious principles. It is accepted by some laymen. Also, it has been supported by certain individuals because it attacks the ideology of ijtihad and gives opinions about religion from other sources. In the modern world Akhbarism has dwindled, but its roots are still seen amongst some people. Some people still consider an explanation of the Quran without a tradition being mentioned next to it as impermissible. Also, some people read a few traditions and free themselves of the struggles of becoming a jurist immediately giving opinions about religious law.