Jump to content
In the Name of God بسم الله

Book Claiming to Expose and Refute Jafari/Usuli

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Just from looking over the descriptions and key words within, this fellow sounds like some sort of Akhbari. 

Akhbari vs Usooli was a big discussion trend here for a time, starting in the late 2000s through to the early 2010s. 

Historical Akhbaris were a group of 12er Shias with quite different perspectives in comparison to  those that are common in the modern community, particularly about the appropriate role of the ulema in society, in the legal system, and in politics, as well as the leeway given to textual criticism interpreting hadith and Quran using principles not clearly stated in the text. Akhbaris were at their peak in influence from the early 1600s to the late 1700s. 

Basically it was an extension of the same old tension between traditionalists vs rationalists. Akhbaris are more the hadith-literalist ones, while the Usoolis tend to apply more rational nuance. These two threads came together into a pretty loud argument over a 150 year period roughly. The Akhbaris lost that argument, and were made takfir of by the Usooli ulema and rapidly became much less prominent. I think threads of quiet influence of the Akhbaris survived within Shiism in the form of return to sources textual literalism and of the opposition to ulema-led political adventures. 

The still-swirling eddies of the clash between these two currents plays out today in contemporary Shiism. The frictions between scholarly circles within the state of Iran and some scholarly circles in Karbala connects to this. 

If you forced me to pick one or the other, I would say Usooli, because that’s the closer to me, but I don’t really agree with either of them completely. 

There are some interesting ideas in Akhbarism. I personally find many of their arguments persuasive—though only up to a point. Usually when other considerations bring the practicality of their approach into question when it comes to helping the community move in good directions. 

I agree with a lot of what they say about the dangers of the ulema seeking out more and more expansive financial and political powers and religious authority. 

I think they are right to point out that for the first few centuries post-ghaybah, the thought of the ulema was basically indistinguishable from Akhbarism. I disagree with the conclusions they draw from that though; I think it’s fine for the ulema to evolve in their understanding of things. I don’t see that as a knock against Usoolis. 

I disagree with the Akhbaris though about their rigid objection to rational reinterpretation of the sources to derive legal judgment. I think they’re too skeptical. I think it’s possible to extrapolate from one scenario to another in many cases. It’s valid to go beyond the text to understand what the spirit of the text would say if it spoke on this new thing. And I think there was a clear validity based on practical demands for the early Usooli argument. Certain things need to be tended to to ensure a healthy society, and if a thing needs to be done but it’s not being done, why shouldn’t a scholar hop in to help take care of it? If a question is being asked, why would the ulema not try to learn and offer a thoughtful analysis of it?

I differ a bit from both of these groups. I agree with the Akhbaris about the need for ulema to keep their hands out of official involvement in politics and stick to soft power. But I agree with the Usoolis on the power of reason to figure things out. I just think Usoolis should lean way farther into that to take the good idea to its natural conclusion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Advanced Member
On 3/5/2023 at 2:14 AM, kadhim said:

I differ a bit from both of these groups. I agree with the Akhbaris about the need for ulema to keep their hands out of official involvement in politics and stick to soft power. But I agree with the Usoolis on the power of reason to figure things out. I just think Usoolis should lean way farther into that to take the good idea to its natural conclusion. 

Salam this part is wrong because Akhbaris likewise Allamah Majlisi have great rule in founding of Safavids which his successors from Akhbaris have had upper hand in politics which all of them have been managing political affairs of Safvids which only after fall of Safavids after invasion of Afghans & killing last Safvaid king they lose their power so then after losing struggle against Usulis they have poretended that they support seperation of religion from politics & having sofr power because they didn't want that Usulis occupy their gap in political affairs which still now Akhbaris have dream returning to full power in similar fshion of Safavid era.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 3/3/2023 at 4:10 AM, Lion of Shia said:
Shia Dissociation from Usuli School by [Dr. Alsyyed Abu Mohammad Naqvi]
Read sample

Follow the Author

 
 
Read sample
 

Follow the Author

 
 

That's one big wad of cope. They have pulled narrations out of context. 

This doesn't even warrant a serious refutation actually. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...